• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

PantsuJo
Member
(11-10-2017, 01:37 PM)
PantsuJo's Avatar

Originally Posted by shpankey

So you didnít play it then. Right, I figured.

Uh? Can you explain why you consider the 3DO version better?

In terms of contents, machine handling, longevity, you know.

Because I played the PC and PS1 version: tell me why I need to play a technologically inferior version instead of the better ones, if I can :)

If the 3DO version has unique features, better input lag, etc I'd like to know, thank you:)

(Or is it a sarcastic/troll post?)
shpankey
not an idiot
(11-10-2017, 01:38 PM)
I already mentioned it earlier. But unless you played both you really wonít have context. Games are not only about fps and they felt completely different. (sorry for the edits, using my phone here so itís hard to type, lol)

Sorry, here it is: 3do was a masterpiece in how the cars drove, responded to input and overall realism (for the time, for a console). You could even turn sharper by diag down left-right on the dpad. Something I still catch myself doing to this day.

By comparison psx ver felt very sloppy and arcadey. It (to me and many others) felt like a different game entirely from a different developer, like a bad clone. And I only mean this particular game. I loved my psx far far more. We had all been so excited for what we thought would be a better ver of a masterpiece, I canít even relay the major letdown when we finally got it.
PantsuJo
Member
(11-10-2017, 01:40 PM)
PantsuJo's Avatar

Originally Posted by shpankey

So you didnít play it then. Right. I understand your technical point but disagree in this particular case having played both extensively. Imo, as always.

I read the editing right now, thanks for the answer.

Can you explain why, exactly? What you disliked? Machine handing? Controls? Contents?

Can you be more specific?
nkarafo
Member
(11-10-2017, 01:40 PM)
nkarafo's Avatar
If you compare the best looking Saturn games VS best looking 3DO ones, it's clear Saturn has the edge in power.
shpankey
not an idiot
(11-10-2017, 02:03 PM)
Sorry Pantsu, Iím honestly not trying to be difficult, just slow here. Edited it into the post above. 😀 gotta run to work now, so I hope that explains it better. Cheers!
PantsuJo
Member
(11-10-2017, 02:24 PM)
PantsuJo's Avatar

Originally Posted by shpankey

Sorry Pantsu, Iím honestly not trying to be difficult, just slow here. Edited it into the post above. 😀 gotta run to work now, so I hope that explains it better. Cheers!

I read it the editing, thanks.

So, basically the 3DO version seems sim-like, while the PS1 version is more arcade in handling, based to your opinion.

This is interesting (and can be an incentive to play this version too, of course, I would try if I had a real 3DO at home)

But, again, it's a personal opinion (based on fact, correct me if I'm wrong, that you don't like arcade racing, based on your previous comments...?)

Just different opinion (and I would like to know other people here who played the 3DO version what they think)

I prefer the arcade racing games compared to Sims (which I find boring) but, of course, I can respect any other games well made, even if I don't like it.

Honestly, I was mistaking your short, serious comments for a way of trolling. My bad for the wrong impressions!
MvCSpiderman
Member
(11-10-2017, 02:42 PM)
MvCSpiderman's Avatar

Originally Posted by RAIDEN1

I was watching an episode of Game Informer's look at a few 3DO games, and it got me thinking on the face of it, it was a pretty poweful console circa 1993, Saturn came out 2 years later, both had impressive titles yet both sank without a trace...

Even Digital Foundry mentioned in their retrospective on the conversions of Doom, that there were certain things the 3DO had trouble with? I think it was 2d related issues? Anyone know anymore about it?

Doom was a rushed port, it was supposed to be a new game and things went South. Remember 3DO is more powerful than the Jaguar.

The 2Dbetween the saturn and 3DO are basically the same quality.

In 3D the 3DO had capabilities the Saturn didn't.

One of which was imposing real-time fmv during gameplay like in the fps killing time, where you'll go into a room and fmv ghosts in amazing quality will walk out and in many cases blend in with the game. Saturn had to go the Sega CD route of fmvs only really occuring in cutscenes or fmv only games.

Another is the 3DO 3D image quality was superior to the Saturn and PSx. While both those consoles have more memory for textures the PSX games and ESPECIALLY the Saturn games looked like heavily jaggy shit with crazy block environments with muddy looks in a lot of the more ambitious titles.

3D graphics on the 3DO were much smoother dye to the features of it's graphics chip and displayed better in movement in relation to the Saturn. This is why I can show you some 3DO screens and can tell you it was a Saturn game release in 96 even though it's not true.

It's also why the Saturn most visual pleasing games are almost all fighting games.

As for overall, the 3DO has less memory for textures than the Saturn, however Saturn's image quality is shit.

Compare Dayton's on the Saturn to NFS on the 3DO and notice NFS is better visually but technically behind.

The thing about the 3DO is it was built for the time period while, rushed 3D chipset aside, The Saturn was designed to try and do things the hardware at the time couldn't do, making the 3DO more consistent, and making many multiple between the two play and look better on the 3DO.

Now as for 2D the 3DO and Saturn are virtually identical.

As for it's real-time fmv use of the 3DO, this also applies to special effects.
MvCSpiderman
Member
(11-10-2017, 03:01 PM)
MvCSpiderman's Avatar

Originally Posted by nkarafo

If you compare the best looking Saturn games VS best looking 3DO ones, it's clear Saturn has the edge in power.

The issue is the best looking Saturn games came out when the Saturn was dead and it's first few years of games were comparable for many titles, some even better on the 3DO. Dreamcast was basically about to launch at the time.


Originally Posted by PantsuJo

Uh? Can you explain why you consider the 3DO version better?

In terms of contents, machine handling, longevity, you know.

Because I played the PC and PS1 version: tell me why I need to play a technologically inferior version instead of the better ones, if I can :)

If the 3DO version has unique features, better input lag, etc I'd like to know, thank you:)

(Or is it a sarcastic/troll post?)

The 3DO version of NFS is technically superior to the PSX version in everyway. The only thing you can say that the PSX version had over it was 60fps but it was inconsistent and fluttered around, the 3DO was solid fps most of the time, and look at any magazine back then it was one if the multiplat 3DO used and others to say the PSX was inferior. Double for Saturn.

The PSX version removes and reduces quite a few things and the image quality was meh.

Originally Posted by MrCunningham

3DO specs:

CPU:
32-bit 12.5 MHz RISC CPU
Custom Math co-processor (It does not use the stock ARM FPA unit.)
32 KB SRAM

Display:
Resolution 640◊480 (interpolated), 320◊240 (actual) 60 Hz for NTSC version, and 768◊576 (interpolated), 384◊288 (actual) 50 Hz for PAL version with either 16-bit palettized color (from 24-bit) or 24-bit truecolor.
Two accelerated video co-processors capable of producing 9Ė16 million pixels per second (36Ė64 megapix/s interpolated), distorted, scaled, rotated and texture mapped.

System board:
50 MB/s bus speed (synchronous 32-bit @12.5 MHz bus)
36 DMA channels
2 MB of main RAM
1 MB of VRAM
2 expansion ports

Sound:
16-bit stereo sound
44.1 kHz sound sampling rate
Supports Dolby Surround sound
Custom 20-bit digital signal processor (DSP) Ė 20-bit accumulator with 16-bit parameter registers for extended precision


Sega Saturn specs:

CPU's:
Hitachi SH2 32-bit RISC CPU @ 28 MHz
Hitachi SH2 32-bit RISC CPU @ 28 MHz
Hitachi SH1 32-bit RISC CPU (used as a disc drive controller)

Graphics Processor's:
VDP1 32-bit GPU - Texture Mapping, Gouraud Shading, 200,000 Texture Mapped Polygons/Second, 512K Cache for Textures, Virtually Unlimited Sprites on a Line, Virtually Unlimited Sprite Images, Dual 256K Frame Buffers for Rotation, Scaling Effects
VDP2 32-bit GPU - Five Simultaneous Scrolling Backgrounds, Two Simultaneous Rotating Playfields, 24-bit Backgrounds. 704x480 maximum resolution Backgrounds

Audio:
16-bit Motorola 68EC000 Sound CPU
Yamaha Sega Custom Sound Processor

Memory:
CPU RAM - 2 MB
Video RAM - 1.54 MB
Sound RAM - 540 KB
CD-ROM Cache RAM - 512 KB
Addition system RAM can be added with 1 - 4 MB RAM expansion cartridges.


Basically the Sega Saturn is a beast of a console for it's day, and the 3DO doesn't really stack up at all when it comes to raw processing power. The 3DO ARM CPU is pretty slow in comparison, but the 36 DMA channels probably did help the machine if they were used correctly to aide the CPU. The CPU in this machine is about on par, or perhaps weaker than the ARM7TDMI in the Game Boy Advance. The 3DO is probably a little more comparable to the Sega 32X or Atari Jaguar, in many ways.

Using specs sheets for the Saturn is as pointless as using specs sheets for the Jaguar. Both Saturn and Jaguar are systems that can produce games much stronger than what was released but their designs limit what you can do with them making it impossible to use more than a certain % of their power.

It took the Saturn till 1998 late 97 to have big differentiators from the 3DO in terms of releases a few existed before but the vast majority of releases didn't show a big gap visually, and one of the reasons for that was the muddy looks, the ultra jaggy graphics, and in some cases, actual inferiority to the 3DO version of multiplats. Which should have never happened. But I will say the Saturn got to get more out the box.

Comparing the 32X to the Jaguar it 3DO is nonsense. It's not even close. Not only that, the Jaguar is another example of what I was saying about the Saturn. Did you know that the Jaguar is actually quite a bit more powerful than the 3DO? Good luck finding a game that shows that. Fight For life is probably the only comparable 3D game to any 3DO title.

Why? Because the IBM design along with Ataris insistence on using the 68k to move over prototype projects, made it impossible to fully use the Jaguars 2 high end graphical processors. Tom and Jerry I believe they were called. The result? A console that would maybe bump heads with early PSX games not being able to run Alone in the Dark.

In the Saturn's case, it's stronger than the 3DO but it's biggest differentiators are mostly fighting games, visually anyway. Until near the Dreamcast launch where the 4 years of devs working on the Saturn finally produced bug results.
PantsuJo
Member
(11-10-2017, 03:10 PM)
PantsuJo's Avatar

Originally Posted by MvCSpiderman

The 3DO version of NFS is technically superior to the PSX version in everyway. The only thing you can say that the PSX version had over it was 60fps but it was inconsistent and fluttered around, the 3DO was solid fps most of the time, and look at any magazine back then it was one if the multiplat 3DO used and others to say the PSX was inferior. Double for Saturn.

The PSX version removes and reduces quite a few things and the image quality was meh.

?????

1996 saw the release of Saturn and PlayStation versions, again sporting a new interface, and three time of day selections for every track. Beyond that, the same faster pace of the PC conversion remains in effect - this is a very quick game indeed. It's not just the way the cars drive either, the frame-rate sees a massive increase on both consoles. The Sega Saturn turns in a relatively stable 30 frames per second throughout the game while PlayStation runs with a completely uncapped frame-rate leading to an average somewhere around 33fps. Both feel much smoother than the 3DO original and also retain its higher colour depth - though the PlayStation version exhibits noticeable dithering throughout its image.

While the Saturn and PlayStation conversions were very similar, there are several differences to point out here. For one thing, when using the cockpit view, Sega's console is lacking working instruments - a feature that is present in every other version of the game. The two-dimensional background graphics also vary between them - PlayStation features a wider range of backgrounds and restores the scaling feature from 3DO. We also noticed subtle graphical touches on Sony's machine including a faked lighting effect applied to the car as you drive through a tunnel, perhaps inspired by Namco's Ridge Racer.

Another noticeable difference lies in the audio - the PlayStation version offers players the chance to enjoy music while racing (something not possible on any other version). With a great blend of rock and electronic music, the pounding soundtrack helps bring the game to life in a big way.

Source: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/di...need-for-speed

I don't know what kind of facts do you remember/read but this the truth: the facts exposed from DF.
MvCSpiderman
Member
(11-10-2017, 03:31 PM)
MvCSpiderman's Avatar

Originally Posted by PantsuJo

?????



Source: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/di...need-for-speed

I don't know what kind of facts do you remember/read but this the truth: the facts exposed from DF.

From the DF article it sounds like they played on a goldstar. Which is the worst sku.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i_QYzHIbPwA

3DO version is superior in almost everyway but the PSX having a higher frame rate but it's inconsistent while the 3Dao version doesn't jitter. Everything else is better including graphics, on the 3DO.
gregorjk
Junior Member
(11-10-2017, 03:37 PM)
3DO was a little too early for 3D and the price was terrible. Their games looked decent enough at the time because their competitors were largely Sega/Nintendo at the end of the 16-bit era. From what I remember at the time Sony was really pushing 3D and Sega designed the Saturn to be 2D. Once Sega saw what Sony was up to, they added the 3d features/chipset at the last minute which explains why it was so hard to program for. Basically, the Saturn wasn't designed to be a 3D system from the inception but sort of evolved into one based on necessity. The Saturn was hands down more powerful than the 3DO.
frogger
Member
(11-10-2017, 03:37 PM)
Saturn was a lot more powerful than 3DO.
Herne
Member
(11-10-2017, 03:50 PM)
Herne's Avatar
The Saturn may have been a bitch to work with but it was certainly more powerful than the 3D0. It was years newer so it would've been difficult for it not to have been.

Originally Posted by 120v

thing about the 32/63 bit era is no console succeeded well enough for anybody to take any console to its limits, sans ps1

That's not true, Rare pushed the N64 further than anyone thought possible. Look at launch titles like Super Mario 64 and late titles like Conker's Bad Fur Day, Perfect Dark and the unreleased Dinosaur Planet. And Nintendo themselves were no slouches with it either, with Majora's Mask a very nice visual upgrade over Ocarina.

it gets more complicated with saturn since it was bafflingly 2D centric.

Nothing baffling about it, Sega of Japan designed it as a 2D animation powerhouse, then panicked when they saw the PlayStation and added extra processors in there to improve 3D capability.
MvCSpiderman
Member
(11-10-2017, 04:00 PM)
MvCSpiderman's Avatar

Originally Posted by Herne

The Saturn may have been a bitch to work with but it was certainly more powerful than the 3D0. It was years newer so it would've been difficult for it not to have been.



That's not true, Rare pushed the N64 further than anyone thought possible. Look at launch titles like Super Mario 64 and late titles like Conker's Bad Fur Day, Perfect Dark and the unreleased Dinosaur Planet. And Nintendo themselves were no slouches with it either, with Majora's Mask a very nice visual upgrade over Ocarina.



Nothing baffling about it, Sega of Japan designed it as a 2D animation powerhouse, then panicked when they saw the PlayStation and added extra processors in there to improve 3D capability.

Saturn came out in Japan 1 year later. You can tell given the first few years of the Saturn had few big differentiating games till it's irrelevance (outside Japan).

Heck one could say outside Japan the Saturn lastest just as long as the 3DO did. But over 3 years.
iswasdoes
Member
(11-10-2017, 04:13 PM)
I own both, and regardless of what the numbers say, theres nothing on the 3DO that looks as good as sega rally or VF2. Certain the saturn is more 'powerful' in the sense it can produce better looking games.
dsmoke1986
Member
(11-10-2017, 04:18 PM)

Originally Posted by shpankey

Oh wow, the horde I remember that. Really fun game!

Kirk Cameron was in that game right??

Random memory; I remember playing 3DO demos when it first came out; they had one at Macy's in the electronics section of King of Prussia mall...I remember being blown away by Madden at the time; but the price tag was like $700...Insane.
shpankey
not an idiot
(11-10-2017, 04:29 PM)
PantsuJo, yes, preference for the sim aspect is all I meant, but I didn't feel NFS was a good arcade racer either, to be honest. But I see your point!

Originally Posted by dsmoke1986

Kirk Cameron was in that game right??

Random memory; I remember playing 3DO demos when it first came out; they had one at Macy's in the electronics section of King of Prussia mall...I remember being blown away by Madden at the time; but the price tag was like $700...Insane.

Yeah, he was, which I had forgot about as well, thanks for the re-memory! lol Yeah, $700 was really insane, especially at THAT time.

Originally Posted by MvCSpiderman

From the DF article it sounds like they played on a goldstar. Which is the worst sku.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i_QYzHIbPwA

3DO version is superior in almost everyway but the PSX having a higher frame rate but it's inconsistent while the 3Dao version doesn't jitter. Everything else is better including graphics, on the 3DO.

Nice video. Really takes me back! Interesting to note the lack of cars in the distance onscreen at once on the PSx as well... looks like it may have been on purpose. The speed of that version multiplied this, where most traffic seemed to come out of nowhere and flash by very quickly. I loved the sim aspect of the 3DO version, as you saw off in the distance a bunch of cars, it was a very impressive thing at the time and really added to the visual and driving aspects since they were onscreen for a longer time due to being slower.
PantsuJo
Member
(11-10-2017, 04:30 PM)
PantsuJo's Avatar

Originally Posted by MvCSpiderman

From the DF article it sounds like they played on a goldstar. Which is the worst sku.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i_QYzHIbPwA

3DO version is superior in almost everyway but the PSX having a higher frame rate but it's inconsistent while the 3Dao version doesn't jitter. Everything else is better including graphics, on the 3DO.

You are literally denying the fact, provided with numbers, graph, analysis and opinions from tech-experts.

I even bolded the part regarding color depth, music tracks, lighting effects and yet you are literally denying the truth, exposing your inconsistent opinion.

This isn't my point of view: this is science and DF make analysis using specific and public criteria avaliable to everyone.

"Alternatives facts"? No, maybe a delusional user with no courage of admitting facts and numbers.

I can understand the attachment to a platform, the nostalgia; I can also understand the preferences of a driving model rather than another.

I can't accept the fact that you (and people who agree with you) are denying the only reliable source of honest technical analysis we have today.

Given the ignorance (pardon the rudeness, but this is what a feel) of your inconsistent, void comments (not based on a gameplay perspective, but only on a completely faulted knowledge of technology) I stop every discussion here with you, in this thread, because there is no point talking to people who refuse science.

Thanks everyone.
shpankey
not an idiot
(11-10-2017, 04:39 PM)
Good point about lighting, I really did love the lighting effects in the tunnels on psx version! Man, the psx was a "lighting" monster at the time, it really did shine in this regard on soooo many titles and was definitely a "wow" factor for everyone I knew. Trying to remember some of the other titles, but there were quite a few that had lighting effects that just blew us all away.

It seems Sony never really forgot their dominance in lighting had a big effect on people. Always seems their games have shined in this regard even on subsequent consoles. The Show, Gran Turismo, Killzone come to mind.
nkarafo
Member
(11-10-2017, 05:30 PM)
nkarafo's Avatar
Yeah, i think i'm also going to take the word of Digital Foundry more seriously than any random poster in any forum.
MrCunningham
Member
(11-10-2017, 07:10 PM)
MrCunningham's Avatar

Originally Posted by MvCSpiderman

Using specs sheets for the Saturn is as pointless as using specs sheets for the Jaguar. Both Saturn and Jaguar are systems that can produce games much stronger than what was released but their designs limit what you can do with them making it impossible to use more than a certain % of their power.

Using specs sheets is not pointless at all. Sure these systems have different architecture from each other (3DO is ARM based, Sega Saturn uses dual SH2 CPU's) but the way these systems function are not radically different from each other. There is no secret pixie dust in the 3DO that gives it an advantage over the Saturn.

The Sega Saturn has a clear advantage in raw CPU processing processing power, with two CPU's that are clocked much higher than the ARM60 in the 3DO. Granted, the dual CPU setup in the Saturn is not like a modern multi-core CPU seen in modern CPU's, most docs on the Saturn cited that it was a challenge for developers to keep both CPU's in synchronization with each other. Both CPU's share the same BUS and could tie each other up in waiting for one to finish a task. The general performance increase is something like a 50% boost over using one CPU.

Most third party developers didn't even use the second CPU because they could not be bothered to learn how it worked. But developers that did take advantage of both CPU's did get some interesting results.

The ARM CPU in the 3DO aint that hot in comparison. It runs at half the clock speed of a single Saturn SH2. But, I could only imagine that the 36 DMA channels do give the ARM CPU some leverage when used right. That is like blast processing x 36 in a way.

The Saturn also clearly has the advantage on 2D raster based sprites, as it has some strong dedicated hardware just for that. The Saturn most definitely did have the best 2D hardware of that generation.

As far as 3D goes they do both use quads to render polygons. They have that similarity. But the 3DO does appear to separate its tasks between two GPU's that seem to have the same functionality? The 3DO also does have a custom math co-processor. This is one area where it might be similar to the Saturn.

The Sega Saturn on the other hand, also has two video processing units, but for this machine the VPD1 and VPD2 have different functions. VPD1 handles all polygon rendering tasks, while VPD2 handles background layers and multiple mode 7 like playing fields.



Originally Posted by MvCSpiderman

It took the Saturn till 1998 late 97 to have big differentiators from the 3DO in terms of releases a few existed before but the vast majority of releases didn't show a big gap visually, and one of the reasons for that was the muddy looks, the ultra jaggy graphics, and in some cases, actual inferiority to the 3DO version of multiplats. Which should have never happened. But I will say the Saturn got to get more out the box.

You can make the case that any later game release in a console library will make better use of the hardware than earlier release hardware. Just compare early PS1 games to later releases. The Saturn really seemed like a hard machine to get the most out of, especially when it came to 3D. But when used to its full potential, it could still produce some interesting results. the PS1 was much easier for developers to get better results out of when it came to polygon rendering.

One of the better looking 3DO games is Blade Force, which is a late release in that system's life cycle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9VUNi2fNZM

It does show off some really good use of textured mapping and polygon environments. But I don't think it is comparable to what was seen on the Saturn during this point in time.

Though one interesting example of a game that looked better on the 3DO was StarFighter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwnbWbueCf8 which featured longer draw distances and no fogging, unlike the PS1, Saturn and PC versions.

Originally Posted by MvCSpiderman

Comparing the 32X to the Jaguar it 3DO is nonsense. It's not even close. Not only that, the Jaguar is another example of what I was saying about the Saturn. Did you know that the Jaguar is actually quite a bit more powerful than the 3DO? Good luck finding a game that shows that. Fight For life is probably the only comparable 3D game to any 3DO title.

The 32x shares some similarities to the Saturn. Both are based around dual SH2 CPU's. But the Saturn has a much stronger set of support chips. The 32x doesn't really have any 2D or 3D hardware, as 3D rendering is all done in software. The 32X also relies on the Sega Genesis for 2D hardware. I feel like it is closer to being in the same range as the 3DO though.

Fight for Life on the Jaguar was released in a buggy incomplete state, the developer didn't give Atari the finished version because he didn't get paid. I've heard that the intentionally leaked Fight For Life "beta" is generally better than the retail game.

But looking at the game, it is not really better looking than , aside from having textured mapped graphics. Did Fight for Life even run at 60fps? Checkered Flag on the Jaguar looked worse than Virtua Racing Deluxe on the 32X.

Though granted, developers on the Jaguar also had issues getting the most out of the hardware, and would have to resort to using the Motorola 68000.

As for 3D gaming on the Jaguar, Iron Soldier 1 and 2 are pretty nice examples of the system's abilities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nF-htAcD1l4

A lot of Jaguar games used flat shaded polygons, and I could imagine it was a limitation of the cartridge sizes.

When it comes to 2D performance, the Jaguar is still a better machine than the 32x. Rayman 1 shows a good example of how the system can handle high colour sprites at 60fps.
AmyS
Member
(11-10-2017, 09:40 PM)

Originally Posted by Beerman462

Thanks for the info dump. So much nostalgia.

I remember going to the local Electronics/Furniture store. They had a huge games section with every console on demo. PS1, and Saturn on big screen. A 3DO, Panasonic CDI, Jaguar, SNES, Genesis and I think maybe a 32X. It was amazing.


No problem, I've got more articles I can post, but don't have time to put them all in chronological order.

Here's one from EGM on the M2 hardware getting upgraded, it's from the same time as the NG article 'Matsushita Breaks It's Silence'





moving on (not neccessarily in order, remember!)

baphomet
Member
(11-10-2017, 10:05 PM)
baphomet's Avatar
It's literally not even a contest. The Saturn outclasses 3do in literally every aspect.
MvCSpiderman
Member
(11-10-2017, 11:37 PM)
MvCSpiderman's Avatar

Originally Posted by PantsuJo

You are literally denying the fact, provided with numbers, graph, analysis and opinions from tech hi-experts.

I even bolded the part regarding color depth, music tracks, lighting effects and yet you are literally denying the truth, exposing your inconsistent opinion.

This isn't my point of view: this is science and DF make analysis using specific and public criteria avaliable to everyone.

"Alternatives facts"? No, maybe a delusional user with no courage of admitting facts and numbers.

I can understand the attachment to a platform, the nostalgia; I can also understand the preferences of a driving model rather than another.

I can't accept the fact that you (and people who agree with you) are denying the only reliable source of honest technical analysis we have today.

Given the ignorance (pardon the rudeness, but this is what a feel) of your inconsistent, void comments (not based on a gameplay perspective, but only on a completely faulted knowledge of technology) I stop every discussion here with you, in this thread, because there is no point talking to people who refuse science.

Thanks everyone.

It's amazing how almost every reviewer back then and an actual video show the 3DO version having better graphics but you are now crying and want to leave the thread.

Not only that the importance of which 3DO df is using is important as some games can't even run on the goldstar and the goldstar has many issues in graphics as well.

Heck the user above you even pointed out things missing in the PSX version. It's clear you didnt even look at the video or look up reviews.

Originally Posted by nkarafo

Yeah, i think i'm also going to take the word of Digital Foundry more seriously than any random poster in any forum.

Who also has video evidence that shows random poster is right and we don't know which 3DO DF used.
Crowza
Err......oops
(11-10-2017, 11:52 PM)
Crowza's Avatar
It's a shame about never getting to see the potential of M2, but the simple fact is the Sega Saturn was superior to the 3DO. The real fun back in the day was watching the Atari Jaguar and 3DO owner's flame wars on FidoNet and eventually Usenet.
MvCSpiderman
Member
(11-10-2017, 11:59 PM)
MvCSpiderman's Avatar

Originally Posted by MrCunningham

Using specs sheets is not pointless at all. Sure these systems have different architecture from each other (3DO is ARM based, Sega Saturn uses dual SH2 CPU's) but the way these systems function are not radically different from each other. There is no secret pixie dust in the 3DO that gives it an advantage over the Saturn.

The Sega Saturn has a clear advantage in raw CPU processing processing power, with two CPU's that are clocked much higher than the ARM60 in the 3DO. Granted, the dual CPU setup in the Saturn is not like a modern multi-core CPU seen in modern CPU's, most docs on the Saturn cited that it was a challenge for developers to keep both CPU's in synchronization with each other. Both CPU's share the same BUS and could tie each other up in waiting for one to finish a task. The general performance increase is something like a 50% boost over using one CPU.

Most third party developers didn't even use the second CPU because they could not be bothered to learn how it worked. But developers that did take advantage of both CPU's did get some interesting results.

The ARM CPU in the 3DO aint that hot in comparison. It runs at half the clock speed of a single Saturn SH2. But, I could only imagine that the 36 DMA channels do give the ARM CPU some leverage when used right. That is like blast processing x 36 in a way.

The Saturn also clearly has the advantage on 2D raster based sprites, as it has some strong dedicated hardware just for that. The Saturn most definitely did have the best 2D hardware of that generation.

As far as 3D goes they do both use quads to render polygons. They have that similarity. But the 3DO does appear to separate its tasks between two GPU's that seem to have the same functionality? The 3DO also does have a custom math co-processor. This is one area where it might be similar to the Saturn.

The Sega Saturn on the other hand, also has two video processing units, but for this machine the VPD1 and VPD2 have different functions. VPD1 handles all polygon rendering tasks, while VPD2 handles background layers and multiple mode 7 like playing fields.





You can make the case that any later game release in a console library will make better use of the hardware than earlier release hardware. Just compare early PS1 games to later releases. The Saturn really seemed like a hard machine to get the most out of, especially when it came to 3D. But when used to its full potential, it could still produce some interesting results. the PS1 was much easier for developers to get better results out of when it came to polygon rendering.

One of the better looking 3DO games is Blade Force, which is a late release in that system's life cycle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9VUNi2fNZM

It does show off some really good use of textured mapping and polygon environments. But I don't think it is comparable to what was seen on the Saturn during this point in time.

Though one interesting example of a game that looked better on the 3DO was StarFighter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwnbWbueCf8 which featured longer draw distances and no fogging, unlike the PS1, Saturn and PC versions.



The 32x shares some similarities to the Saturn. Both are based around dual SH2 CPU's. But the Saturn has a much stronger set of support chips. The 32x doesn't really have any 2D or 3D hardware, as 3D rendering is all done in software. The 32X also relies on the Sega Genesis for 2D hardware. I feel like it is closer to being in the same range as the 3DO though.

Fight for Life on the Jaguar was released in a buggy incomplete state, the developer didn't give Atari the finished version because he didn't get paid. I've heard that the intentionally leaked Fight For Life "beta" is generally better than the retail game.

But looking at the game, it is not really better looking than , aside from having textured mapped graphics. Did Fight for Life even run at 60fps? Checkered Flag on the Jaguar looked worse than Virtua Racing Deluxe on the 32X.

Though granted, developers on the Jaguar also had issues getting the most out of the hardware, and would have to resort to using the Motorola 68000.

As for 3D gaming on the Jaguar, Iron Soldier 1 and 2 are pretty nice examples of the system's abilities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nF-htAcD1l4

A lot of Jaguar games used flat shaded polygons, and I could imagine it was a limitation of the cartridge sizes.

When it comes to 2D performance, the Jaguar is still a better machine than the 32x. Rayman 1 shows a good example of how the system can handle high colour sprites at 60fps.

1. Using specs sheets regarding the Saturn and the Jaguar are completely pointless since most of the power displayed on paper isn't even accessible. Jaguar is stronger than the 3DO not one game shows it because you can use Tom and Jerry fully

2. I never said the 3DO was stronger so can the pixie dust talk, I said the Saturn took way to long to differentiate it significantly from the 3DO and even then it's primarily controlled 3D graphics games like fighting games that show the most difference. Visually.

3. The thing is it took PSX only till 96 to clearly shows a growing gap to the 3DO. It took the Saturn basically it's life (outside if Japan) and the Saturn should have been able to do that with even minimal use if it's VDPs. Number of first party and and many third parties looked similar to 3DO games for awhile with not many exceptions and even had ones that looked better be on 3DO which should have been near impossible

4. The Jaguar mostly had flatish polygons because developers mostly had no choice. Rebellion, makers of Alien Vs. Predator, basically made the dev kits. The whole project was mismanaged and IBM (Jaguar was a partnership) had a crappy layout.

5. The Jaguar because of the above, along with placing the 68k for quick ports and to bring over cancelled Panther games, make it impossible to use barely half the 3D processors power. Yet it's still impressive to see games like Alien Vs. Predator and World Tour(better than checkered flag) racing.

6. The 3DO and Jaguar are closer to the psx/sat than the 32X. The 32X is severely hampered and is likely closer to 3D in th likelike the ST or the SNES FX. Despite the shit games like cybermorph get on YouTube 32X would struggle running it let alone something like Super Burniut it Alien Vs. Predator, and given the 3DO is stronger and had Metal Gear Solid moved from it to the PSX for development well

7. Jaguar was no sloutch for 2D but the message was 3D at the time. It was even Ataris message which is why I never did understand why they even considered the 68k which was primarily out in for 2D games with a few smidgens if 3D effects here and there.

8. Now that I think about it I think the Atari Lynx is likely most similar to the 32X in power
lucius
Member
(11-11-2017, 12:08 AM)
lucius's Avatar
Played on Panasonic 3DO the EA games like Need for Speed, Madden, FIFA,Shockwave, played better than even PSX games I think only the first year though . Saturn had better 2D obviously but there were some problems with 3D on Saturn at first. 3DO with Svideo made a big difference for me . Crystal Dynamics at the time did some impressive stuff on it too.
shpankey
not an idiot
(11-11-2017, 01:44 AM)
Yeah, Gex was a really great game.
Bulk_Rate
Member
(11-11-2017, 01:50 AM)
Bulk_Rate's Avatar
I had 3DO during its time and a ton of games for it. I beat Killing Time, Slayer, Deathkeep plus lots of racing games on it. FIFA too. Road Rash was the tits.

A few years later I got a Saturn w/ action replay. Saturn destroyed 3DO. No contest not even close.
Crankshaft
Member
(11-11-2017, 02:06 AM)
Crankshaft's Avatar
Compare Lucienneís Quest on the 3do to the Saturn version. 'nuff said.
AmyS
Member
(11-11-2017, 02:07 AM)
Return Fire was one of the greatest original 3DO games ever. Got ported to PS1 but spent so many hours with my brother playing that game.
nkarafo
Member
(11-11-2017, 02:37 AM)
nkarafo's Avatar
I never understood why Alien VS Predator was the "state of the art" Jaguar game. It's engine was already obsolete when the game was released. It's just a bunch of flat corridors, just like Wolfenstein 3D. Only difference is the higher resolution, textured ceiling/floor and the very good sprites. Oh and the painfully slow frame rate. But DOOM on the same machine was way, WAY beyond that level. The DOOM engine allows much more complex level designs and the Jaguar version was also one of the best, running smoother than AVP as well. So more complex graphics and smoother frame rate at the same time. DOOM is probably the most technically advanced game for that console by far.

Considering the 32X was handling a more complex game like DOOM pretty well, then it should be able to handle a decent port of AVP easily.

Originally Posted by MvCSpiderman

Now that I think about it I think the Atari Lynx is likely most similar to the 32X in power

Dude what. The lynx would barely run something like Wolfenstein 3D (there's a demo that runs at 5 fps or something and there are no enemies iirc). Let alone a DOOM port that's half good as the 32X one (or even the SNES one). There is a huge gap right there.
MrCunningham
Member
(11-11-2017, 02:50 AM)
MrCunningham's Avatar

Originally Posted by MvCSpiderman

6. The 3DO and Jaguar are closer to the psx/sat than the 32X. The 32X is severely hampered and is likely closer to 3D in th likelike the ST or the SNES FX. Despite the shit games like cybermorph get on YouTube 32X would struggle running it let alone something like Super Burniut it Alien Vs. Predator, and given the 3DO is stronger and had Metal Gear Solid moved from it to the PSX for development well

The 32x is a big step above the SuperFX2 chip, we're talking about two 32bit CPU's @25MHz vs one 16bit RISC 21 MHz co-processor in a game cartridge.

Star Wars Arcade: https://youtu.be/eQUWEBhROTc?t=499
Shadow Squadron (32x): https://youtu.be/hkJRhjP7aa0?t=56
STAR FOX 2 (SNES Mini) : https://youtu.be/pN2TgUpUmuk?t=372

Yeah, the 32x games use software rendering for polygons, because the system does not have any real 3D hardware. But the dual CPU configuration was still fast enough to render flat shaded polygons at a reasonable enough speed. It was an upgrade from the 7-14FPS you would see in Super FX2 games.

the 32x can even produce some decent software scaling sprites, like in After Burner Complete and Space Harrier. Maybe not as fast as the Jaguar, but still a leap over the 16bit consoles. The 32x was not a great add-on, but it did get much closer to the 3DO and Jaguar than the SNES did with the SuperFX chip 2. It is a huge step above the Lynx, even though the Lynx was quite an impressive handheld for 1989. I would rank the Game Boy Advance closer to the 32x, as the GBA is heavily reliant on the CPU as well, and doesn't actually have any additional support chips. But the ARM7 CPU can handle floating point calculations pretty well.

Originally Posted by MvCSpiderman

7. Jaguar was no sloutch for 2D but the message was 3D at the time. It was even Ataris message which is why I never did understand why they even considered the 68k which was primarily out in for 2D games with a few smidgens if 3D effects here and there.

I agree that the Jaguar is an interesting piece of hardware that never really hit it's full potential. Some of the choices that Atari made for the final design did hamper the machine overall. Even John Carmack said somewhere that the Jaguar could have closer to the Playstation 1 with a few minor hardware revisions, and he coded Wolf 3D and Doom for the system. It was a shame that games like Checkered Flag have worse framerate than Virtua Racing Deluxe on the 32x.

The Jaguar does have nice 2D scrolling capabilities. The Atari Jaguar version of Rayman looks pretty good when compared to the PS1 game. Games like Super Burnout have that super smooth 60fps scaling. The 32x has no hardware for scrolling and has to rely on the Genesis to get smooth 60fps movement, as pointed out by Dark10X in his 32x DFRetro video. Even the 3DO has trouble with smooth scrolling, as seen in games like Gex. Which I think only ran at 30fps on the 3DO.


Originally Posted by Crankshaft

Compare Lucienneís Quest on the 3do to the Saturn version. 'nuff said.

Compare Lucienneís Quest to Grandia on the Saturn.
fvng
Member
(11-11-2017, 06:27 AM)
fvng's Avatar
3DO was such an underrated system. Also let's be happy about Lucienne's Quest coming to Saturn
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
(11-11-2017, 07:47 AM)
Freshmaker's Avatar

Originally Posted by MvCSpiderman

2. I never said the 3DO was stronger so can the pixie dust talk, I said the Saturn took way to long to differentiate it significantly from the 3DO and even then it's primarily controlled 3D graphics games like fighting games that show the most difference. Visually.

Sega Rally came out within months of the Saturn's release. As did VF2 and VFR. Nothing on the 3DO comes close.
Azelover
Member
(11-11-2017, 08:38 AM)
Azelover's Avatar
This a question? The Saturn was more advanced definitely.

The manufacturers of the 3DO had no participation on the software side as far as I'm aware, so they had no leverage to make the system cheaper.

Licensing the hardware was a terrible move, really stupid. It's like they just heard the pitch and never truly thought about it.
AmyS
Member
(11-11-2017, 10:18 AM)
NG #1 interview with Trip Hawkins, plus all the good stuff on the looming console war of the mid 90s.





dsmoke1986
Member
(11-11-2017, 02:03 PM)

Originally Posted by PantsuJo

?????



Source: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/di...need-for-speed

I don't know what kind of facts do you remember/read but this the truth: the facts exposed from DF.

I never owned the 3DO version, but did have the PSX version and remember us playing this shit out of it in college; I remember being blown away by the FMV on the Supra Turbo; so again; not trying to disagree, just sharing what I remember at the time.
eso76
(11-11-2017, 02:28 PM)
eso76's Avatar

Originally Posted by MrCunningham

Basically the Sega Saturn is a beast of a console for it's day, and the 3DO doesn't really stack up at all.

Yep.
And while it came out earlier I think the 3DO was a lot more expensive ?
MvCSpiderman
Member
(11-11-2017, 03:52 PM)
MvCSpiderman's Avatar

Originally Posted by eso76

Yep.
And while it came out earlier I think the 3DO was a lot more expensive ?

Saturen and 3DO were the same price when Saturn came out (without a game)

Originally Posted by MrCunningham

The 32x is a big step above the SuperFX2 chip, we're talking about two 32bit CPU's @25MHz vs one 16bit RISC 21 MHz co-processor in a game cartridge.

Star Wars Arcade: https://youtu.be/eQUWEBhROTc?t=499
Shadow Squadron (32x): https://youtu.be/hkJRhjP7aa0?t=56
STAR FOX 2 (SNES Mini) : https://youtu.be/pN2TgUpUmuk?t=372

Yeah, the 32x games use software rendering for polygons, because the system does not have any real 3D hardware. But the dual CPU configuration was still fast enough to render flat shaded polygons at a reasonable enough speed. It was an upgrade from the 7-14FPS you would see in Super FX2 games.

the 32x can even produce some decent software scaling sprites, like in After Burner Complete and Space Harrier. Maybe not as fast as the Jaguar, but still a leap over the 16bit consoles. The 32x was not a great add-on, but it did get much closer to the 3DO and Jaguar than the SNES did with the SuperFX chip 2. It is a huge step above the Lynx, even though the Lynx was quite an impressive handheld for 1989. I would rank the Game Boy Advance closer to the 32x, as the GBA is heavily reliant on the CPU as well, and doesn't actually have any additional support chips. But the ARM7 CPU can handle floating point calculations pretty well.



I agree that the Jaguar is an interesting piece of hardware that never really hit it's full potential. Some of the choices that Atari made for the final design did hamper the machine overall. Even John Carmack said somewhere that the Jaguar could have closer to the Playstation 1 with a few minor hardware revisions, and he coded Wolf 3D and Doom for the system. It was a shame that games like Checkered Flag have worse framerate than Virtua Racing Deluxe on the 32x.

The Jaguar does have nice 2D scrolling capabilities. The Atari Jaguar version of Rayman looks pretty good when compared to the PS1 game. Games like Super Burnout have that super smooth 60fps scaling. The 32x has no hardware for scrolling and has to rely on the Genesis to get smooth 60fps movement, as pointed out by Dark10X in his 32x DFRetro video. Even the 3DO has trouble with smooth scrolling, as seen in games like Gex. Which I think only ran at 30fps on the 3DO.




Compare Lucienneís Quest to Grandia on the Saturn.

1. I was thinking more 2d/Illusional 3D when talking about the Lynx not really the 3D polygons, as Steel Talons arcade port on the Lynx runs at like 12fps though still impressive.

2. The Issue was the 3D popularity came first to Atari so visual spectacle was ahead of performance for the 3D games that COULD run 30-60fps. Games like Alien Vs. predator, had no choice but to run a bit low (though AVP is consistent at most times) but Cybermorph and Checkered Flag, and Fight For Life (even in the unfinished state) should have easily gotten better performance. Same with Club Drive which they put so much taxing power on the structures and random lines in the backgrounds(that aren't images or pictures but actual polugon models for no reason)

3. Comparing Lucinnes Quest to Grandia in terms of performance is like Comparing overworld graphics of FF& to Quest 64. The latter of each clearly has the larger budget in that regard so not really a fair comparison.

As for scrolling many more intense 3DO games have quick scrolling movements, though still a bit hmph. I think the problem with Gex was mostly just the dev kit because Gex isn't one of those games were you can understand the 3DO version being choppy. Considering Goldstar Gex occasional becomes a slide show I think that is likely the right call.

4. As for the 32X I suppose a better home entertainment system of the time to compare it to would be the latter Atari computer configurations or maybe the Amiga.

Speaking of a comparison of some 3DO and Jaguar racing games:

3DO:



Jaguar:


It's amazing how much having a unified easier to code for structure (and interpolation for the graphics) make the 3DO seem 4-5x more powerful than the jaguar when it's not.

Like these are night and day.
SoulTas
Junior Member
(11-11-2017, 04:31 PM)

Originally Posted by MvCSpiderman

As for the 32X I suppose a better home entertainment system of the time to compare it to would be the latter Atari computer configurations or maybe the Amiga.

An upgraded Amiga 1200 with added acceleration perhaps. Because a stock Amiga 1200/CD32 would struggle running a Doom engine game at a smooth frame rate like the 32X did.

In terms of power i rate the systems mentioned so far like this:

Saturn > 3DO > Jaguar > 32X > GBA > Amiga 1200 > SNES+FX chip > SNES stock > Lynx
MvCSpiderman
Member
(11-11-2017, 05:03 PM)
MvCSpiderman's Avatar

Originally Posted by SoulTas

An upgraded Amiga 1200 with added acceleration perhaps. Because a stock Amiga 1200/CD32 would struggle running a Doom engine game at a smooth frame rate like the 32X did.

In terms of power i rate the systems mentioned so far like this:

Saturn > 3DO > Jaguar > 32X > GBA > Amiga 1200 > SNES+FX chip > SNES stock > Lynx

The Lynx is stronger than SNES stock.

Also i don't know, the 32X seems comparable to the CD32 in many areas.
SoulTas
Junior Member
(11-11-2017, 05:10 PM)

Originally Posted by MvCSpiderman

The Lynx is stronger than SNES stock.

No way. Lynx has some sprite scaling capabilities and that's it. It's nowhere near as powerful as a 16bit home console.
eso76
(11-11-2017, 05:15 PM)
eso76's Avatar

Originally Posted by MvCSpiderman

Saturen and 3DO were the same price when Saturn came out (without a game).

Ah right yeah i forgot the Saturn was super expensive
Alebrije
Member
(11-11-2017, 07:21 PM)
Alebrije's Avatar

Originally Posted by shpankey

I already mentioned it earlier. But unless you played both you really wonít have context. Games are not only about fps and they felt completely different. (sorry for the edits, using my phone here so itís hard to type, lol)

Sorry, here it is: 3do was a masterpiece in how the cars drove, responded to input and overall realism (for the time, for a console). You could even turn sharper by diag down left-right on the dpad. Something I still catch myself doing to this day.

By comparison psx ver felt very sloppy and arcadey. It (to me and many others) felt like a different game entirely from a different developer, like a bad clone. And I only mean this particular game. I loved my psx far far more. We had all been so excited for what we thought would be a better ver of a masterpiece, I canít even relay the major letdown when we finally got it.

Need for Speed and Road Rash were great on 3DO.

The main problem is that 3DO was mainly a port machine with little games developed based on its hardware and saddly a lot of those ports were lazy ones. Also M2 announcement distracted developers, remember recieved from 3DO a small book where you could see all the 3DO available games and future ones and a lot of them were marketed like "also coming to M2". M2 never was released and 3DO forgotten, the company tried to do something because exclusive games for M2 were ported to 3DO but the damage was done. Also the business model never let the console get a lower price, manufacturers wanted to get money on each sale like does Nintendo.

Saturn , PSX were technical superior but in some aspects 3DO had better games like the racing ones.
shawnbuddy
Member
(11-11-2017, 08:59 PM)
shawnbuddy's Avatar
The Saturn version of Lucienne's Quest looks worse because they took advantage of the increased power of the Saturn to do new textures and more complex geometry, killing the blocky, colorful charm of the original. An example of how more power isn't always better.
RobRSG
Member
(11-11-2017, 09:03 PM)
RobRSG's Avatar
Saturn trounces 3DO. Not even a contest.
RAIDEN1
Member
(11-11-2017, 09:16 PM)
RAIDEN1's Avatar
It is interesting to see though in some respects both the Saturn and 3DO were "conceptualised" I guess roughly around about the same time...Saturn was beginning to shape up in 1992, 3DO came out in 93..both came out relatively close to each other 93-95....back in 92 2d was still big, so Sega went with that, instead of thinking hey you know what lets try and get in some "Daytona technology" or as close as we can for the Saturn...and yet it wasn't giving you true arcade quality in the home when it should have done...

I haven't looked closely at the articles but surely if you are sitting on $100m worth of tech you'd make it a point to get it out there in the wild soon as possible instead of taking it down a route where it wouldn't exactly get maximum exposure...(I'm talking about the M2) who knows if Trip Hawkins still had the M2 tech would it have seen the light of day what would it have meant for all the other kids on the block (N64, PS-1, Saturn) circa 1995 the market was there for the taking for Sony...Nintendo were sunk into their Ultra 64 tech....Sega was in a complete mess with the Saturn, where the american arm didn't know what the Japanese arm was doing...along with the debacle that was the 32x...

The Jaguar was dead on arrival, Atari were 2nd rate even back in 1985 with the advent of the NES, the ST couldn't compete with the Amiga, the Lynx flopped ahead of the Gameboy...CD32 looked a million miles away from what you were getting on 3DO....and the Amiga was showing it's true colours in 93-94 when you couldn't even get a decent port of the likes of Streetfighter 2 or Doom on it..
s_mirage
Member
(11-11-2017, 09:25 PM)
s_mirage's Avatar
Saturn was more powerful - the 3DO lacked CPU grunt - but the 3DO did have some tricks. PO'ed was ported from the 3DO to the Playstation, but a faithful port to the Saturn would have been pretty much impossible due to the extensive use of translucent polygons. Also, streaming using the 3DO's multitasking OS, and graphic format flexibility that could save RAM, meant that a number of ports from it looked decidedly worse than the originals, or had more loading, even if they were smoother in motion.
AmyS
Member
(11-13-2017, 12:26 AM)
This game, Power Crystal, was once billed as M2's "Zelda 64 killer"..The engine ran in 640x480 at 60fps. The development kit used had just a single PowerPC CPU instead of the final hardware's dual CPUs.




Thread Tools