Framerates are not an issue, people!
Antmatic
"framerate problems" of both are nonexistant. I have not noticed a single
framerate problem in either game. Why are you people so bent on framerates?
Most people don't notice framerate problems, either.
"You don't have to like me... You're just mad, 'cause I tell it how it is, and
you tell it how it might be."- Puff Daddy
Visit the my site at http://members.aol.com/antmatic/antmatic.html with links
to my WWF, N64, and Sports pages.
FunkMst3k
>"framerate problems" of both are nonexistant. I have not noticed a single
>framerate problem in either game. Why are you people so bent on framerates?
>Most people don't notice framerate problems, either.
Damn straight!! A framrate problem should be when the game either stops moving
or is going at like 5-2 fps. Anything else is pretty good. I think we've been
spoiled with smooth frame-rates of other games like ______ (game with no
framerate problems) you know?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FUNK...@AOL.COM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gargantua Blargg
antm...@aol.com.america (Antmatic) wrote:
> I have played both Rogue Squadron and Turok 2 extensively, and the supposed
> "framerate problems" of both are nonexistant. I have not noticed a single
> framerate problem in either game. Why are you people so bent on framerates?
> Most people don't notice framerate problems, either.
blah blah blah
They aren't an issue for you, so they shouldn't be an issue to anyone
blah blah blah
Gargantua Blargg
funk...@aol.com (FunkMst3k) wrote:
> >I have played both Rogue Squadron and Turok 2 extensively, and the supposed
> >"framerate problems" of both are nonexistant. I have not noticed a single
> >framerate problem in either game. Why are you people so bent on framerates?
> >Most people don't notice framerate problems, either.
>
> Damn straight!! A framrate problem should be when the game either stops
moving
> or is going at like 5-2 fps. Anything else is pretty good. I think
we've been
> spoiled with smooth frame-rates of other games like ______ (game with no
> framerate problems) you know?
yeah, your definition of framerate problems is the same as everyone's
and anyone who notices framerates has been spoiled by a fast PC
blah blah blah
p.s. I don't have a fast PC and I don't play games on it either
NormaL916
Gargantua Blargg
> if your quoting puff daddy now i know for sure your gay!
And I guess you're gay for knowing who Puff Daddy is (someone having do to
with music?).
Idiot homophobe.
Jesse Dorland
>I have played both Rogue Squadron and Turok 2 extensively, and the supposed
>"framerate problems" of both are nonexistant.
This is subjective. It depends on what you think constitutes a "frame
rate problem."
I wouldn't be complaining if Turok 2 ran at a consistent frame rate --
even if it was a consistently *low* frame rate. But when a game is
constantly bouncing back and forth between "fully playable" and
"extremely choppy", it becomes a real nuisance. IMO, it's hard to
become absorbed in a game when the frame rate is so inconsistent.
>I have not noticed a single framerate problem in either game.
>Why are you people so bent on framerates?
We're so "bent" on it because it's something that, we think, affects
gameplay. If you disagree, so be it.
>Most people don't notice framerate problems, either.
"Most people" according to whom?
-Jesse
====================================================
Jesse Dorland
jessedorland AT hotmail DOT com
====================================================
Your Name Here
bla...@flash.net says...
>
>In article <19990102211348...@ng51.aol.com>,
>antm...@aol.com.america (Antmatic) wrote:
>
>> I have played both Rogue Squadron and Turok 2 extensively, and the supposed
>> framerate problem in either game. Why are you people so bent on framerates?
>
>
>They aren't an issue for you, so they shouldn't be an issue to anyone
>
>blah blah blah
If you want an action game that is of high quality you need a high
frame rate. Anything less will not please the connoissours.
Oh you get tired eyes and go for the sick bag too, when you play jerky
frame rated games.
60 fps will be standard in the future from the likes of Dreamcast/etc.
Cheers
Harvey / Zaxxon
Last Omar
>become absorbed in a game when the frame rate is so inconsistent.
It's not inconsistent at all. Save for the dinosaur, it is consistently medium.
Are you on drugs?
>We're so "bent" on it because it's something that, we think, affects
>gameplay.
Then you're an idiot.
Last Omar
>frame rate. Anything less will not please the connoissours.
I'm pleased plenty with Turok 2. Although it probably would be a problem for
people unable to spell "connoisseurs."
Pandagas
In article <19990104055439...@ng-ch1.aol.com>, last...@aol.com
(Last Omar) writes:
>
>>IMO, it's hard to
>>become absorbed in a game when the frame rate is so inconsistent.
>
>It's not inconsistent at all. Save for the dinosaur, it is consistently
>medium.
>Are you on drugs?
The framerate is consistent, apart from...?
---------
It surrrrre is nice outside! Climb a tree! Goof off! - Calvin and Hobbes
Trav
wrote:
>60 fps will be standard in the future from the likes of Dreamcast/etc.
>Cheers
>Harvey / Zaxxon
Not true. As soon as they up the graphical complexity of games, the
extra processing power of the machines will have to do more work.
Just look at how computers and computer games work.... you buy a new
computer and for a while, all the new games run smooth and fast. Your
older games run faster than they have ever run before. But then,
after companies push the hardware, the new games that come out run
slow, jerky, and then almost unplayable.... then you find you can't
even run the new games because you don't meet the system requirements.
Now granted, console games are designed to run with a standard set of
hardware - that's the good news. But the companies still design games
to push the hardware... and as they do, the limitations are met. All
systems have limitiations.... including the new Dreamcast and so will
Sony and Nintendo's new machines. Which means, we will most likely be
dealing with Ram, processing power, framerates, and slowdown for years
to come. Unless companies decide to restrict their artistic freedom,
this will always be the case. As the lifecycle of a gaming machine
matures, the games demonstrate the systems power as well as its
limitations. Both the Playstation and N64 are maturing, and although
I'm sure they have a way to go, we can already see the limits.
Trav
Gargantua Blargg
> On 4 Jan 1999 04:32:00 GMT, y...@somehost.somedomain (Your Name Here)
> wrote:
>
> >60 fps will be standard in the future from the likes of Dreamcast/etc.
>
> Not true.
I don't think either of you can say definitively what the future will hold.
> As soon as they up the graphical complexity of games, the
> extra processing power of the machines will have to do more work.
This has been the case with 3D systems so far.
> Just look at how computers and computer games work.... you buy a new
> computer and for a while, all the new games run smooth and fast. Your
> older games run faster than they have ever run before. But then,
> after companies push the hardware, the new games that come out run
> slow, jerky, and then almost unplayable.... then you find you can't
> even run the new games because you don't meet the system requirements.
Yes, with PCs this seems to be the case. But with console systems, the
model is significantly different.
> Now granted, console games are designed to run with a standard set of
> hardware - that's the good news.
And the big difference from PCs (your example above).
> But the companies still design games
> to push the hardware... and as they do, the limitations are met.
I only have mainly seen this on 3D consoles.
From what I have seen, 2D games, for the most part, have been 60 frames
per second for more than a decade. NES, Genesis, SNES, Turbografx 16,
portables, Playstation (for the few 2D titles it has), N64 (same thing,
for the few 2D titles it has), and arcade 2D games. Those have been
putting more and more on screen, but have limited it to what the console
can handle at 60 frames per second.
Surely this 60 fps standard on 2D games will one day carry over to 3D
games, once people see what it is like, and reject crappy slow 3D stuff.
Of course, with most of the older 2D systems, the graphics were handled by
simplistic dedicated graphics hardware that could either put out 60 fps
graphics, or choke. No lower framerates (or even a frame buffer to make
that possible).
> All
> systems have limitiations.... including the new Dreamcast and so will
> Sony and Nintendo's new machines. Which means, we will most likely be
> dealing with Ram, processing power, framerates, and slowdown for years
> to come.
I guess it all comes down to a company/companies pushing the envelope and
establishing some games that "raise the bar" for future games in that
genre. It'll be great when that happens! No more crappy low-framerate crap
like is on the N64.
...
> As the lifecycle of a gaming machine
> matures, the games demonstrate the systems power as well as its
> limitations.
As we are seeing acutely with the latest wave of N64 games. Personally, I
find it disappointing. I'll note tha the Playstation seems to have better
framerates in general, especially for fighting games (and none of that
crappy blur). Of course, the Playstation has the texture warping problems.
> Both the Playstation and N64 are maturing, and although
> I'm sure they have a way to go, we can already see the limits.
I don't think the N64 can go much further, at least graphically.
Fortunately, F-Zero X, a recent game, is silky-smooth 60 fps, and I love
it for that.
--
IF YOU DON'T THINK FOR YOURSELF, SOMEONE ELSE WILL
Gargantua Blargg | bla...@flash.net | http://www.flash.net/~blargg/
Jesse Dorland
>>IMO, it's hard to
>>become absorbed in a game when the frame rate is so inconsistent.
>
>It's not inconsistent at all. Save for the dinosaur, it is consistently medium.
>Are you on drugs?
No, I'm not. In fact, the first area in the first level is a pretty
good example of the game's inconsistent frame rate.
>>We're so "bent" on it because it's something that, we think, affects
>>gameplay.
>
>Then you're an idiot.
Thanks a lot. That's the last time I try to be civil with an
established asshole.
Brian Scanlon
the entire game, not just backgrounds. Not the Nintendo 8 bit system, that's
for sure. The thing crawled when there were more than a few sprites on the
system at any one time. Perhaps they ran near 30 fps, but there just isn't
enough horsepower in those old systems to dream about 60 fps, because I never
saw a game with that frame rate on any of them. After all, if you read the
specs for them, each one has a sprite limit, and lets not even get into games
using Mode 7, etc. No way I ever saw 60 fps on any of them.
Gargantua Blargg
> From what I have seen, 2D games, for the most part, have been 60 frames
> per second for more than a decade. NES, Genesis, SNES, Turbografx 16,
> portables, Playstation (for the few 2D titles it has), N64 (same thing,
> for the few 2D titles it has), and arcade 2D games. Those have been
> putting more and more on screen, but have limited it to what the console
> can handle at 60 frames per second.
Brian Scanlon <Shar...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> No console system before the PSX ever had a game that ran at 60 fps, meaning
> the entire game, not just backgrounds.
Respecfcully, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
> Not the Nintendo 8 bit system, that's for sure.
Oh, so how do you explain me playing Super Mario Bros. and never having it
slow down from its 60 fps rate? Super Mario Bros. 2? Super Mario Bros. 3?
Zelda 1? Zelda 2?
A few games did have some slow-down problems. Rambo (ugh! this always ran
at 30 fps), Athena (same thing, or even worse), Metroid at times, Dr.
Chaos (sloooow), Crystalis sometimes.
Perhaps you're used to playing these on an emulator?
Look, you shouldn't waste your time arguing. I am right, and you are not.
I may sound arrogant, but I do not argue a point like this unless I am
right.
> The thing crawled when there were more than a few sprites on the
> system at any one time.
In a few games, yes. Most games limited things.
Some early SNES games had this problem too. But not most. Most games ran
at 60 fps nearly all the time: Donkey Kong Country 1, 2, and 3, Super
Mario World, Yoshi's Island, Super Mario All-Stars, Super Metroid, Super
Mario Kart, Secret of Mana, Kirby Super Star, Super Mario RPG, Chrono
Trigger, Zelda, Harvest Moon.
> Perhaps they ran near 30 fps, but there just isn't
> enough horsepower in those old systems to dream about 60 fps,
You do not have your facts straight at all, or there's a miscommunication.
We are talking about NES, Genesis, and SNES, and you're saying that they
systems couldn't even dream about producing 60 fps 2D graphics?
> because I never
> saw a game with that frame rate on any of them.
Then either you haven't seen many games, haven't played on the real
hardware (emulators aren't the real thing), don't know how to tell 60
frames per second properly, or have some messed up TV/monitor arrangement,
or something else screwey in your system.
> After all, if you read the
> specs for them, each one has a sprite limit, and lets not even get into games
> using Mode 7, etc. No way I ever saw 60 fps on any of them.
You have problems of some sort, then. Oh, one last less-likely possibility
that I didn't consider: you could be a troll.
Castellan
>No console system before the PSX ever had a game that ran at 60 fps, meaning
>the entire game, not just backgrounds. Not the Nintendo 8 bit system, that's
>for sure. The thing crawled when there were more than a few sprites on the
>system at any one time. Perhaps they ran near 30 fps, but there just isn't
>enough horsepower in those old systems to dream about 60 fps, because I never
>saw a game with that frame rate on any of them. After all, if you read the
>specs for them, each one has a sprite limit, and lets not even get into games
>using Mode 7, etc. No way I ever saw 60 fps on any of them.
Sonic and Thunder Force 3 were both specced at 60 fps, as stated by
the developers themselves.
--- ---
Douglas L. Erickson - ECN Computer Publications and Training Specialist
mail to: dou...@mailhost.ecn.ou.edu --- http://www.ecn.ou.edu/~douglas
SegaNet: http://www.seganet.com/ for Sega-related info ICQ#: 12822495
--- ECN does not, in any way, sponsor or endorse my rabid opinions. ---
Brian Scanlon
which always runs at 60 fps. I can see the gaps in smoothness quite clearly,
something you don't see with games that run at 60 fps. Many games were actually
quite choppy at times, less than 30 fps. Incidentally, TV's only support 30 fps,
so I suppose you don't know what the hell you are talking about...
Gargantua Blargg wrote:
Trav
wrote:
>I don't think either of you can say definitively what the future will hold.
Agreed. Everything is speculation until we see for sure. But it's
fun to extrapolate, isn't it? :-)
>This has been the case with 3D systems so far.
Which is what I was referring to, and where the gaming standard has
headed (console and PC).
>I only have mainly seen this on 3D consoles.
Well what consoles did you think I was referring to? <G>
>From what I have seen, 2D games, for the most part, have been 60 frames
>per second for more than a decade.
I'm not even addressing 2d games, but since you brought it up, there
have definitely been 2d games that experienced slowdown and framerates
less than 60 frames per second. But really, I was definitely
referring to 3d games, which have now become the standard in gaming
(like it or not).
>I don't think the N64 can go much further, at least graphically.
>Fortunately, F-Zero X, a recent game, is silky-smooth 60 fps, and I love
>it for that.
Yeah yeah yeah, everyone said the same thing on the SNES..... and then
Donkey Kong Country raised the graphical bar. There are always
tweaked graphical engines and programming techniques that can push the
hardware further. But at this point, I'm very happy with the graphics
that N64 games have delivered. And with the extra RAM with the
expansion pak, games will push the system even further. And I have no
bias.... I will also say that the Playstation can be pushed further
and the graphics on that system have come a long way as well.
Trav
Evil Jesus
Brian Scanlon wrote in message <36917B1F...@prodigy.net>...
I believe that there is a misunderstanding going on here. If I understand
you correctly, you are talking about how many frames of animation the
characters have. While I believe that Gargantua Blargg is referring to the
character and background scrolling.
An example would be Mortal Kombat, although the character animation is not
all that smooth(well below 60fps), the character and background scrolling is
very smooth.
I do believe however that there were some games with character animations at
60fps (If I remember correctly, Vectorman for the Genesis is one).
BTW, televisions are capable of 60fps (broadcasts are at 30fps).Also, you
should not make such definitive statements unless you are absolutely
possitive that what you say is fact, because you just end up looking like an
asshole.
Evil Jesus
I apologise for the mistakes in my previous post's last paragraph. It should
have read:
BTW, televisions are capable of 60fps ( broadcasts are at 30fps).Also, you
should not make such definitive statements unless you are absolutely
positive that what you say is fact, because you just ended up looking like
an asshole.
Joe Ottoson
<Shar...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> No way those games were 60 fps, they don't look anything like Sega
arcade games
> which always runs at 60 fps. I can see the gaps in smoothness quite clearly,
> something you don't see with games that run at 60 fps. Many games were
actually
> quite choppy at times, less than 30 fps.
Which ones? Pen Pen, VF3 and Godzilla run at 60fps so far. (Sonic's up for
debate) There aren't any other Sega arcade games so far, and not one
review has mentioned DC games running "choppy" (you'd think Videogames.com
would've been whooping and hollerin' if that was the case)
> Incidentally, TV's only support 30 fps,
Nope.
Real faith is objective
Gargantua Blargg
> No way those games were 60 fps, they don't look anything like Sega
arcade games
> which always runs at 60 fps. I can see the gaps in smoothness quite clearly,
> something you don't see with games that run at 60 fps. Many games were
actually
> quite choppy at times, less than 30 fps. Incidentally, TV's only
support 30 fps,
> so I suppose you don't know what the hell you are talking about...
You, sir, are totally ignorant on this issue. Shut up while you're ahead.
Gargantua Blargg
<6...@noreligion.net> wrote:
> Brian Scanlon wrote in message <36917B1F...@prodigy.net>...
> >No way those games were 60 fps, they don't look anything like Sega arcade
> games
> >which always runs at 60 fps. I can see the gaps in smoothness quite
> clearly,
> >something you don't see with games that run at 60 fps. Many games were
> actually
> >quite choppy at times, less than 30 fps. Incidentally, TV's only support
> 30 fps,
> >so I suppose you don't know what the hell you are talking about...
>
> I believe that there is a misunderstanding going on here. If I understand
> you correctly, you are talking about how many frames of animation the
> characters have. While I believe that Gargantua Blargg is referring to the
> character and background scrolling.
Thank you! Perhaps it is a miscommunication after all. Sort of. Most TVs
can be tricked into displaying 60 frames per second.
By frames per second, I mean just that, displayed different frames of
video per second. I don't mean how many cels of animation a particular
character has drawn for them. Hell, pong runs at 60 frames per second, yet
only has one cel per object. Just blocks.
I can see what Brian means by arcade games having 60 actual cels of
animation per second for characters. This is true, in general, that arcade
games have more cels of animation for characters (and Neo Geo games too, I
imagine).
...
> I do believe however that there were some games with character animations at
> 60fps (If I remember correctly, Vectorman for the Genesis is one).
Interesting. I'll have to check out Vectorman.
> BTW, televisions are capable of 60fps (broadcasts are at 30fps).Also, you
> should not make such definitive statements unless you are absolutely
> possitive that what you say is fact, because you just end up looking like an
> asshole.
Yes. Brian clearly stated that the older console systems were not even
capable of 60 frames per second, and that TVs aren't, which is pure
bullshit.
Gargantua Blargg
tr...@NOSPAM.qconline.com (Trav) wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jan 1999 17:18:46 GMT, bla...@flash.net (Gargantua Blargg)
> wrote:
...
> >I only have mainly seen this on 3D consoles.
>
> Well what consoles did you think I was referring to? <G>
Obviously 3D, but I was commenting that this issue of slowdown wasn't
really much of a problem for the previous consoles, with their 2D
graphics.
...
> But really, I was definitely
> referring to 3d games, which have now become the standard in gaming
> (like it or not).
Not like it :-)
> >I don't think the N64 can go much further, at least graphically.
> >Fortunately, F-Zero X, a recent game, is silky-smooth 60 fps, and I love
> >it for that.
>
> Yeah yeah yeah, everyone said the same thing on the SNES..... and then
> Donkey Kong Country raised the graphical bar.
Actually, the Donkey Kong Country series is nothing special. The main
difference is that they have large ROM sizes, and very colorful, large
graphics. I may be wrong, but I doubt there was really any special
programming used in the games. Hell, they didn't even use Mode 7 scaling
and rotation at all. I think the game's main "revolution" was using
rendered graphics with lots of colors (more graphics data, i.e. 16 and 32
color sprites and backgrounds instead of 8 color ones).
...
> But at this point, I'm very happy with the graphics
> that N64 games have delivered.
But doesn't the blurring bother you? Just play any 3D game on the
Playstation and you'll see how much more crisp the graphics are.
> And with the extra RAM with the
> expansion pak, games will push the system even further. And I have no
> bias.... I will also say that the Playstation can be pushed further
> and the graphics on that system have come a long way as well.
I prefer the Playstation's feel, since it feels more like the previous 2D
console systems, with the ability to do 2D console games well. The N64 has
blurring and stuff in the 2D games on it (all two of the :-)
Of course, I prefer Super NES for 2D games over N64 or Playstation.
Castellan
>No way those games were 60 fps, they don't look anything like Sega arcade games
>which always runs at 60 fps. I can see the gaps in smoothness quite clearly,
>something you don't see with games that run at 60 fps. Many games were actually
>quite choppy at times, less than 30 fps. Incidentally, TV's only support 30 fps,
>so I suppose you don't know what the hell you are talking about...
Brian, don't be an idiot. 30 FRAMES per second equals 60 FIELDS per
second, where each field CAN BE an individually-rasterized image, giving a
VERY convincing illusion of running at 60 FRAMES per second. Sonic and Thunder
Force 3 for the Genny were both specced by the developers to run at 60 FIELDS
per second on an NTSC TV.
Gargantua Blargg
douglasBE...@mailhost.ecn.uoknor.edu (Castellan) wrote:
> Brian Scanlon <Shar...@prodigy.net> writes:
>
> >No way those games were 60 fps, they don't look anything like Sega
arcade games
> >which always runs at 60 fps. I can see the gaps in smoothness quite clearly,
> >something you don't see with games that run at 60 fps. Many games were
actually
> >quite choppy at times, less than 30 fps. Incidentally, TV's only
support 30 fps,
> >so I suppose you don't know what the hell you are talking about...
>
> Brian, don't be an idiot. 30 FRAMES per second equals 60 FIELDS per
> second, where each field CAN BE an individually-rasterized image, giving a
> VERY convincing illusion of running at 60 FRAMES per second.
"convincing illusion"? They do run at 60 frames per second. Hell, right
now I'm staring at my TV and it's outputting 60 frames of video for the
game per second. No interlace or anything (obviously half the vertical
resolution of an NTSC frame).
Trav
wrote:
>But doesn't the blurring bother you? Just play any 3D game on the
>Playstation and you'll see how much more crisp the graphics are.
I do play 3d games on the PSX and I'm impressed by the polygonal
processing power, but the graphics? They are decent, but I guess I
would prefer a little blur when close up than pixelization and lines
in the textures. I am most impressed graphically by games like Turok
2 and Banjo Kazooie, but I assume you aren't because you prefer 2d
games, right? I miss the 2d games of old too, but I still love 3d.
>I prefer the Playstation's feel, since it feels more like the previous 2D
>console systems, with the ability to do 2D console games well. The N64 has
>blurring and stuff in the 2D games on it (all two of the :-)
>Of course, I prefer Super NES for 2D games over N64 or Playstation.
Granted. If you're a 2d kind of guy, then neither the N64 or PSX are
the best in that category. And I too wish they would develop more 2d
games. But I'm having a lot of fun with 3d now, so I can't really
complain with either the N64 or PSX 3d games.
Trav
Gargantua Blargg
> On Tue, 05 Jan 1999 12:47:05 GMT, bla...@flash.net (Gargantua Blargg)
> wrote:
>
> >But doesn't the blurring bother you? Just play any 3D game on the
> >Playstation and you'll see how much more crisp the graphics are.
>
> I do play 3d games on the PSX and I'm impressed by the polygonal
> processing power, but the graphics? They are decent, but I guess I
> would prefer a little blur when close up than pixelization and lines
> in the textures.
Yes, many 3D games suck on PSX, graphically, because of this, but the ones
that are good, are good, and couldn't be done on the N64.
> I am most impressed graphically by games like Turok
> 2 and Banjo Kazooie,
Turok 2 definitely has sharp graphics, partly thanks to high resolution
mode. But the framerate is shit.
> but I assume you aren't because you prefer 2d
> games, right?
Perhaps prefer is the wrong word. I prefer an appropriate medium for the
game, not 3D for everything.
> I miss the 2d games of old too, but I still love 3d.
I certainly love 3D for its strong qualities: immersive environments.
Zelda is great at this. So is Metal Gear Solid.
...
> And I too wish they would develop more 2d
> games. But I'm having a lot of fun with 3d now, so I can't really
> complain with either the N64 or PSX 3d games.
I just wish the public, and companies as a result, would consider anything
but the latest wow-cool medium (3D) for games.
Brian Scanlon
compared to games that do run at 60 fps. I do realize that almost all DC games
will run at 60 fps. However, last time I checked, the TV had an interlaced signal,
30 fields per half screen, ever other line, which means after 30 frames, you are
already into the next frame, at least that was my understanding of how it worked.
Joe Ottoson wrote:
> Which ones? Pen Pen, VF3 and Godzilla run at 60fps so far. (Sonic's up for
> debate) There aren't any other Sega arcade games so far, and not one
> review has mentioned DC games running "choppy" (you'd think Videogames.com
> would've been whooping and hollerin' if that was the case)
>
> > Incidentally, TV's only support 30 fps,
>
> Nope.
Brian Scanlon
second? 320x240x60 ? I did not think that the old Nintendo was actually using a
more advanced chip than what is used in modern systems... 4 pixels per clock cycle,
hell not even a Voodoo 2 can do that with TWO processors. But I will admit I
screwed up with the TV issue, which was really just a misunderstanding of what was
going on, and I will admit further that the SNES could have had games running at 60
fps, but most certainly not the Nintendo, unless you can show me where my
calculations are wrong...
Gargantua Blargg
<Shar...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> Gargantua Blargg wrote:
>
> > You, sir, are totally ignorant on this issue. Shut up while you're ahead.
>
> I do have a question then. How can a 1 MHz system draw 4 million pixels per
> second? 320x240x60 ?
Answer: The CPU has nothing to do with graphics generation.
These systems use dedicated graphics processors that make one scanline at
a time internally. They draw the background and sprites for each scaline,
as it is being output to video, i.e. no video buffer.
> I did not think that the old Nintendo was actually using a
> more advanced chip than what is used in modern systems...
Advanced is vague. It works differently. Modern systems, as far as I know,
have frame buffers (like PCs have had for ages). The early ones had
nothing of the sort.
...
> But I will admit I
> screwed up with the TV issue, which was really just a misunderstanding
of what was
> going on,
Some video people argued that you can't get 60 fps, at least by standard
NTSC. This is true. Video game systems trick the TV into displaying the
same field each 1/60 of a second, instead of alternating them, this being
equivalent to low-res (vertically) 60 frames per second video.
> and I will admit further that the SNES could have had games running at 60
> fps, but most certainly not the Nintendo, unless you can show me where my
> calculations are wrong...
Most major systems up through around the SNES, Genesis, and TG 16 had
dedicated graphics hardware withOUT a frame buffer, just the
scanline-at-a-time processing, and lack of any real 3D capabilities. Hell,
even pong did 60 fps graphics (as far as I know).
Brian Scanlon
the I'm right your wrong thing we had going earlier. As you can see, I am not
really a troll, just someone who was lacking information. I said what I thought
was true, but you have adequately explained something I over looked. I'm not an
asshole, just a little bit stubborn at times, but again, thanks for the info.
Gargantua Blargg wrote:
8-Bit Star
> less than 60 frames per second. But really, I was definitely
> referring to 3d games, which have now become the standard in gaming
> (like it or not).
Personally, I'm fine with 3D Games, as long as companies don't follow
the lead of Nintendo and Square and start making all-Graphic/hype and no
Gameplay games, and as long as people still make 2D/Anime-ish Graphic
games. Gaming will just suck without Japanese influence.
Unfortunately, Graphics have become the prime definer of a good game.
If a game has no 3D Effects, people look past the good points of the
game and automatically say it sucks no matter how good it really is.
If Zelda 64 was 2D using Sprites instead of Polygons, people would hate
it.
I don't expect people to respond to me, because this is one truth that
no one can deny.
As for the Subject header..... No, framerates are not an issue, and its
stupid to bring it up just so you can bash a game, I mean, you HAVE to
look for it in alot of games that people claim "Have" it, and even then
you still might not find it (I looked in Goldenye and found no Framerate
problems, even when people pointed at where to look). Really, I say if
people bash a game and use "Framerate" that means they hate the game,
but couldn't think of something else to look at but didn't want to say
"Its just boring" so they have to look for non-existant problems.
8-Bit Star
> Yes! Let me ask you this:
Ok.
> do you think 3D games have as much character as 2D ones?
Not really, I mean, The GAME Xenogears was 3D, but Fei would not be who
he is if he was in 3D so they made him a Sprite!
(BTW Square, that "MAin character has a secret past that he doesn't
recollect due to amnesia" scenario is getting old).
> I hope Anime and the influenced 2D games are around forever.
Wishful htinking, but it doesn't seem to be happening. If 2D Dies
out, then I most definately WILL stop playing Next-Gen consoles.
But since now all games *MUST* have 3D Graphics and people are actually
THAT dumb, It doesn't seem likely. Hell, Castlevania is even going 3D!
I personally hope Capcom DOESN'T make a sequal to Bionic Commando, that
game can NOT work in 3D!
> Well, bad graphicss do make a game bad.
Only if it has no other redeemable features as well.
> Every aspect is important, in that any one done especially poorly will > have a significant impact on the entire game.
Except Graphics. I'd rather FF7 Take away from the graphics to add
to the Length of the game rather than have those Polygons everywhere.
Anyway, most of my favorite games have little/no graphics. Hell, If
Shining Force had EGA Graphics and my characters were just Xs while the
enemies were Os on a grid which had no real coloring and had letters to
picture everything, it would still be better than Final Fantasy Tactics.
> Does F-Zero X fit into this category?
Probably, I never played it.
> I personally love the game, since it's so smooth and has a great feel.
> I think it shows that a 3D Game can be every bit as good as a 2D one
> in terms of smooth graphics, game play and feel, and fun (Smashing > into machines and watching them spark and fly off the track is a > blast). Sector Beta, baby!
One: "Fun" is covered by "Gameplay." Two: Thanks for proving my point,
Keyword was WATCHING.
> But I get your point, 3D as a rule is stupid.
If only other gamers would realize this...... can't we hold a demand for
like at least ONE MORE 2D Side-Scroller?! PLEASE! ONE MORE!
Also, from what I hear The companies are supporting that rule. I hear
that N64 and PSX can't do sprites very well and that almost all the
hardware is dedicated to polygons (I wonder if anyone has heard of
Ellipsoids yet?) I also heard a rumor that Sony no longer allows anyone
to make 2D Games for PSX..... But someone told me the said Rumor was a
lie, and I'm glad. If it is now illegal to make 2D Games, then I'll
stop playing games!
Gargantua Blargg
> I appreciate you taking the time to explain this to me. It is a lot
better than
> the I'm right your wrong thing we had going earlier.
Sorry about that, but what can I say?
> As you can see, I am not
> really a troll, just someone who was lacking information.
Not a good idea to argue with ignorance (nothing personal).
> I said what I thought
> was true, but you have adequately explained something I over looked.
I'm not an
> asshole, just a little bit stubborn at times, but again, thanks for the info.
You are definitely cool in my book now.
Eddie Saxe
Gargantua Blargg <bla...@flash.net> wrote:
>In article <3694b0a0...@news.alterdial.uu.net>,
>tr...@NOSPAM.qconline.com (Trav) wrote:
>> But at this point, I'm very happy with the graphics
>> that N64 games have delivered.
>
>Playstation and you'll see how much more crisp the graphics are.
It's a tradeoff that game designers make: blurriness, versus aliasing.
Aliasing artifacts in backgrounds draw attention away from the main
characters. Aliasing artifacts in main characters can be even more
annoying, but happen much less often because characters stay about the same
distance away from the camera. Some people, though, prefer the look
produced by point-sampling textures, even including the aliasing that
causes.
The difference, of course, is that the PSX *only* offers point-sampling,
while the N64 gives developers the choice of bilinear filtering and
MIP-mapping, in addition to point-sampling.
Most blurring complaints are due to MIP-mapping, for technical reasons that
I could go into, but won't, because I'm sleepy. I'll gloss over the issue,
and say that it's because MIP-mapping's filtering is isotropic, it blurs
evenly in all directions. In order to prevent aliasing in one direction, it
has to blur in the other as well, or not blur at all. So, for walls and
floors, often at an angle to the viewer, you have a choise of either
blurring in one direction, or aliasing in the other.
The good news is that some PC graphics boards today are offering limited
anisotropic MIP-map filtering. If Nintendo is smart[1], they'll put similar
abilities into their next-generation console.
[1] Which I haven't yet been convinced of. But, they've got some smart
engineers working for them, who might be able to sneak the features in while
Nintendo isn't watching.
Eddie
--
You know but that you go on. You know that but you go on.
Bombac1
>No way those games were 60 fps, they don't look anything like Sega arcade
>games
>which always runs at 60 fps. I can see the gaps in smoothness quite clearly,
>something you don't see with games that run at 60 fps. Many games were
>actually
>quite choppy at times, less than 30 fps. Incidentally, TV's only support 30
>fps,
>so I suppose you don't know what the hell you are talking about...
>
>
I suppose the gaps in smoothness was actually the spaces in the frames of
animation (Like Street Fighter2)
"I am Ash Ketchum, and I am destined to become the Worlds Greatest Pokèmon
Trainer!"
Check out my site at http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Fortress/5389
While you're there check out my cool Mario Paint Songs!
Bombac1
>Some video people argued that you can't get 60 fps, at least by standard
>NTSC. This is true. Video game systems trick the TV into displaying the
>same field each 1/60 of a second, instead of alternating them, this being
>equivalent to low-res (vertically) 60 frames per second video.
>
So what about those PSX games that are High res and 60 frames per second?
Gargantua Blargg
> bla...@flash.net (Gargantua Blargg) wrote:
>
> >Some video people argued that you can't get 60 fps, at least by standard
> >NTSC. This is true. Video game systems trick the TV into displaying the
> >same field each 1/60 of a second, instead of alternating them, this being
> >equivalent to low-res (vertically) 60 frames per second video.
>
> So what about those PSX games that are High res and 60 frames per second?
It's a slightly-complex issue. I'll try to let you figure out how to
explain it to yourself :-)
An NTSC frame of video is made up of two fields, with one field containing
the even lines of the picture, and the other containing the odd lines.
There are 60 fields per second, so 30 frames per second:
even lines odd lines
-----------
-----------
-----------
-----------
-----------
-----------
etc.
If the image changes between fields, you can effectively get 60 frames per
second, with some artifacts (after-images that look like they've had every
other line taken from them). It's not perfect, but it can look better than
low-res 60 frames per second graphics. For still parts of the scene (or at
least those that aren't moving quickly), there is more sharpness.
Here are a couple of links I found when trying to help someone a few weeks
ago with interlace:
http://home.earthlink.net/~demografx/intrlce.html
http://software.ffwd.bc.ca/lurker/fields/fields.html
AAScudiero
>I have played both Rogue Squadron and Turok 2 extensively, and the supposed
>"framerate problems" of both are nonexistant. I have not noticed a single
>framerate problem in either game. Why are you people so bent on framerates?
>Most people don't notice framerate problems, either.
>
Although I'm very happy with the enhanced graphics from the expansion
pak, I have noticed a bit of lag in hi-res on Turok2. Haven't had a
chance to sample RS yet.
I attribute this lag to the framerates issue, but I don't expect it to
be perfect.
Let's face it, it's not a Pentium 400 running a voodoo2 card.
For the price though, I think it's worth it.
Now, the controls are another issue all together.
For Turok, I'm not at all pleased.
Gargantua B.
...
> Now, the controls are another issue all together.
> For Turok [2], I'm not at all pleased.
You know you can configure them to be like Goldeneye's 1.2 Solitaire
controls, right? I think it's the "expert" control mode in Turok 2.
Trav
Adventure" for the Dreamcast on Next Gen that says:
"Graphically, Sonic Adventure is stunning and breathtaking. Running
under the high resolution mode (640 x 480, at a rate of 60 fps), with
many of the Dreamcast power tools enabled, this is one amazingly
detailed and attractive game. Unfortunately there are times when the
game slows down quite noticeably..."
In an earlier post, I mentioned that even games on the newer systems
like Dreamcast will have framerate and slowdown issues. And although
the framerate for SA seems to be good, it also appears to slow down
"quite noticeably". By extrapolating further into the lifecycle of
the Dreamcast, I submit that there will be further slowdown and even
framerate issues as the system is pushed, just as we are seeing now on
the other systems. Now I don't say this to diminish the awe and
excitement of the new systems coming out, but only to suggest that
these encounters aren't going to go away as the hardware gets more
powerful... even on console systems.
Personally, framerate and slowdown only become issues for me when it
detracts considerably from the gameplay experience. There are a good
number of games that experience some form of slowdown, choppiness,
etc. Turok 2 has gotten a lot of attention for this. However, from
my experience with the game (playing in hi-res letterboxed mode) is
that the gameplay has not been compromised at all, except in the case
of riding the dinosaur at the beginning of level 2. But the majority
of the time, the game runs quite smoothly. I have never felt cheated
or frustrated when trying to kill enemies, etc. Furthermore, T2 is
one of the most atmospheric and immersive games I have ever played,
which is why I am defending it. If others have experienced a
framerate or slowdown issue with T2 that detracted you from the
gameplay, then by all means, you are justified in saying you don't
like the game. It is not my intention to persuade anyone to like T2
(or any other game) if they don't like it, but only to share my
experience (just like everyone else does).
<getting off of soap box now>
Trav
RONALD P BONYAK
>>gameplay.
>
>Then you're an idiot.
FRAME RATE DOES EFFECT GAME PLAY. Ever played Carmageddon (sp?) 2 on a
pentium 166? Trust me, it does, it really does!
Charles Phipps
bla...@flash.net (Gargantua Blargg) wrote:
> In article <19990102211348...@ng51.aol.com>,
> antm...@aol.com.america (Antmatic) wrote:
>
> > I have played both Rogue Squadron and Turok 2 extensively, and the supposed
> > "framerate problems" of both are nonexistant. I have not noticed a single
> > framerate problem in either game. Why are you people so bent on framerates?
> > Most people don't notice framerate problems, either.
>
> blah blah blah
>
> They aren't an issue for you, so they shouldn't be an issue to anyone
>
> blah blah blah
The human eye can only see 27 fps...Any more and it makes no difference..
--
Charles Phipps
cph...@airmail.net
Michael Sims
Phipps) wrote:
> The human eye can only see 27 fps...Any more and it makes no difference..
Care to back this up with facts, or can we assume that this a
totally groundless assertion?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Sims
michaels at akamail dot com
"By eliminating covalence inhibitors, we create triple dense
carbohydrates, and thus the so called 'super doughnut'"
--Homer Simpson after getting a Pentium II cranial implant
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Seidl
difference..
Then why, pray tell, are games designed to run at 60 frames per second?
How can companies possibly justify the extra cash spent to include a
feature that, as you claim, "makes no difference".
Gargantua B.
> bla...@flash.net (Gargantua Blargg) wrote:
>
> > antm...@aol.com.america (Antmatic) wrote:
> >
> > > I have played both Rogue Squadron and Turok 2 extensively, and the
supposed
> > > "framerate problems" of both are nonexistant. I have not noticed a single
> > > framerate problem in either game. Why are you people so bent on
framerates?
> > > Most people don't notice framerate problems, either.
> >
> > blah blah blah
> >
> > They aren't an issue for you, so they shouldn't be an issue to anyone
> >
> > blah blah blah
>
> The human eye can only see 27 fps...Any more and it makes no difference..
This is very vague. Please elaborate on it.
I believe the basic fact is that the light sensors in the eye have a
persistence effect of something around 40 milliseconds (I derived this
from the film rate of 24 frames per second, calculating the time for one
frame).
One effect of this is that a *stationary* light source that is flashing at
a rate of 24 Hz or higher, with a duty cycle of something like 10% on, or
more, will appear continuously illuminated, and not flashing.
If a light source is moving and flashing, the limit to how high a
frequency you can detect is based on the resolution of your eye, and how
quickly the light source is moving. This relates to video games, since
they have moving objects.
I'll try to dig up/make some materials that explain in more detail why 60
frames per second (or even 200 frames per second) is still detectable by a
human player of a video game. Perhaps this will provide some of you some
more insights into this issue.
Kyle...just Kyle
Matt Seidl wrote in message ...
>> The human eye can only see 27 fps...Any more and it makes no
>difference..
>
>
>How can companies possibly justify the extra cash spent to include a
>feature that, as you claim, "makes no difference".
Because they're trying to break into the communist gaming market. Don't be
fooled by western capitalistic misinformation about pinko commie bastards
having no cash. They have their own hardware and software developers, and
they're very keen on locking scum capitalistic games out in favour of games
produced by their own comrades. Communist children are genetically altered
at the age of six to be able to perceive up to 60FPS, that's why some games
run that way. Any developer who develops a 60 FPS game is secretly working
with the CIA and NSA too break into the communist gaming industry. They
hope to gain a significant chunk of it and thereby unsettle the entire
communist economic system.
------------------------------------------------------------
Digital-Ages Online -- Dreamcast, N64, PSX, etc
http://www.digital-ages.com
------------------------------------------------------------
There are no happy endings. If you come across something that looks like
one, you just haven't finished the story yet.
------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Ottoson
<25A347F4A9076703.10796345...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
cph...@airmail.net (Charles Phipps) wrote:
> In article <blargg-0201...@p252.amax20.dialup.aus1.flash.net>,
> bla...@flash.net (Gargantua Blargg) wrote:
>
> > In article <19990102211348...@ng51.aol.com>,
> > antm...@aol.com.america (Antmatic) wrote:
> >
> > > I have played both Rogue Squadron and Turok 2 extensively, and the
supposed
> > > "framerate problems" of both are nonexistant. I have not noticed a single
> > > framerate problem in either game. Why are you people so bent on
framerates?
> > > Most people don't notice framerate problems, either.
> >
> > blah blah blah
> >
> > They aren't an issue for you, so they shouldn't be an issue to anyone
> >
> > blah blah blah
>
> The human eye can only see 27 fps...Any more and it makes no difference..
>
Umm... That's astoundingly wrong. Try a 70fps limit and you'd be closer to
the facts...
Real faith is objective
Matt Seidl
>with the CIA and NSA too break into the communist gaming industry.
They
>hope to gain a significant chunk of it and thereby unsettle the entire
>communist economic system.
Ah, sort of the modern day equivalent of the space race or the arms
race, eh? "Eef the Amerikans haff game dat run at 30 frames per second,
ve shall beat them mit games that run at 60 fps". ;)
Just skipping around to a few sites last night, I found details of some
experiments revolving around this issue. When flashing a stationary
light bulb, the light seems to take on a steady glow (ie, the blinking
is no longer detectable) at around 50-80 blinks per second (with the
brightness of the light playing a factor). Another site quoted the
upper range as 48 fps.
I think some folks are confused by the fact that 24 fps is all that is
"required" (ie, the minimum) for persistence of vision to create the
illusion of a smooth picture.
Brian Scanlon
a consensus on it yet. :)
Brian Scanlon
when they were doing the tests <G>
Joe Ottoson wrote:
> I'm just going by sensory threshold limits as stated in almost every
> Psychology textbook. I suppose there's a reason why they'd feel compelled
> to lie about it, but if there is, it completely eludes me. ;)
Joe Ottoson
<Shar...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> Unfortunately, on this issue, everyone has different facts! <G> I have
never seen
> a consensus on it yet. :)
>
I'm just going by sensory threshold limits as stated in almost every
Psychology textbook. I suppose there's a reason why they'd feel compelled
to lie about it, but if there is, it completely eludes me. ;)
Either way, 27fps is an astoundingly low limit. That's usually around
where beaks in motion aren't detectable by all accepted standards. (inthat
case, consenus doesn't have to be reached when there's overwhelming
evidence to the contrary)
> Joe Ottoson wrote:
>
> >
> > Umm... That's astoundingly wrong. Try a 70fps limit and you'd be closer to
> > the facts...
> >
Gargantua B.
<nes_...@hotmailSPAMBLOCK.com> wrote:
> Trav wrote:
>
> > less than 60 frames per second. But really, I was definitely
> > referring to 3d games, which have now become the standard in gaming
> > (like it or not).
>
> Personally, I'm fine with 3D Games, as long as companies don't follow
> the lead of Nintendo and Square and start making all-Graphic/hype and no
> Gameplay games, and as long as people still make 2D/Anime-ish Graphic
> games. Gaming will just suck without Japanese influence.
Yes! Let me ask you this: do you think 3D games have as much character as
2D ones? Can they? I don't think they can, personally.
I hope Anime and the influenced 2D games are around forever.
> Unfortunately, Graphics have become the prime definer of a good game.
Well, bad graphics do make a game bad. Every aspect is important, in that
any one done especially poorly will have a significant impact on the
entire game. Since 3D games can be done so badly, I can see why there
would be an emphasis on graphics. The emphasis is because graphics are
obviously a volatile issue, and are often messed up very badly.
> If a game has no 3D Effects, people look past the good points of the
> game and automatically say it sucks no matter how good it really is.
Does F-Zero X fit into this category? I personally love the game, since
it's so smooth and has a great feel. I think it shows that a 3D game can
be every bit as good as a 2D one in terms of smooth graphics, game play
and feel, and fun (smashing into machines and watching them spark and fly
off the track is a blast). Sector Beta, baby!
> If Zelda 64 was 2D using Sprites instead of Polygons, people would hate
> it.
I think this is justified. People wanted a Zelda that immersed them in 3D
dungeons (at least that's what I wanted). Some things do work in 3D, Zelda
and Metal Gear Solid (though it was too linear). These games were about
exploration and immersion into the environment, so they naturally fit 3D.
But I get your point, 3D as a rule is stupid.
> I don't expect people to respond to me, because this is one truth that
> no one can deny.
The ultimate truth! Hehe.
I'll elaborate on your truth: There are games that are better done as 2D
than 3D (or aren't even possible as true 3D), but the direction of games
is to 3D only.
> As for the Subject header..... No, framerates are not an issue, and its
> stupid to bring it up just so you can bash a game, I mean, you HAVE to
> look for it in alot of games that people claim "Have" it, and even then
> you still might not find it (I looked in Goldenye and found no Framerate
> problems, even when people pointed at where to look).
Having played Goldeneye recently after playing Zelda, I can say that
Goldeneye often has a *better* framerate than Zelda. But both are not a
problem during the game, except possibly a few bad areas. Contrast this to
Turok or Southpark in multiplayer. I just couldn't get used to it.
Framerate is an issue to be brought out into the open, but not necessarily
as a reason for "death" of the game. Some people don't notice it at all,
while others are acutely aware of it (myself).
> Really, I say if
> people bash a game and use "Framerate" that means they hate the game,
> but couldn't think of something else to look at but didn't want to say
> "Its just boring" so they have to look for non-existant problems.
Can we can agree that a sufficiently low framerate would make a game
unplayable? Exactly what that is depends on the individual, but the fact
that some minimum exists is important. Personally I find the feel of a
game, as in the basic character controls, to be crucial to enjoyment. If
it's tedious to do even the most basic of tasks, I won't have fun. I don't
play games to get the control of blowing a marble through a maze, nor
dragging a stick through mud.
--
D.A.R.E. to say no to majority. Think for yourself.
Kyle...just Kyle
8-Bit Star wrote in message <3691C8...@hotmailSPAMBLOCK.com>...
>As for the Subject header..... No, framerates are not an issue, and its
>stupid to bring it up just so you can bash a game, I mean, you HAVE to
>look for it in alot of games that people claim "Have" it, and even then
>you still might not find it (I looked in Goldenye and found no Framerate
>people bash a game and use "Framerate" that means they hate the game,
>but couldn't think of something else to look at but didn't want to say
>"Its just boring" so they have to look for non-existant problems.
The fact that you're not bothered by low frame rates doesn't mean that the
next guy over isn't. I'm about to give my Goldeneye away because of its low
frame rates. And because a friend got an N64 for Christmas.
Ken Small
<nes_...@hotmailSPAMBLOCK.com> wrote: >Trav wrote:
>If a game has no 3D Effects, people look past the good points of the
>game and automatically say it sucks no matter how good it really is.
>If Zelda 64 was 2D using Sprites instead of Polygons, people would hate
>it.
>
>I don't expect people to respond to me, because this is one truth that
>no one can deny.
While I largely agree, there are some excpetions. Abe's Oddysee has
sold over a million copies in the US, and is completely 2D, and has no
3D effects, unless you count FMV. SOmetimes a great game shines depite
people's prejudices.
>As for the Subject header..... No, framerates are not an issue, and its
>stupid to bring it up just so you can bash a game, I mean, you HAVE to
>look for it in alot of games that people claim "Have" it, and even then
>you still might not find it (I looked in Goldenye and found no Framerate
>problems, even when people pointed at where to look). Really, I say if
>people bash a game and use "Framerate" that means they hate the game,
>but couldn't think of something else to look at but didn't want to say
>"Its just boring" so they have to look for non-existant problems.
Framerates sure were an issue before I upgraded my PC, and they still
are an issue in some games.
===
Ken
Ken Small
<see_signatur...@flash.net> wrote:
>I think this is justified. People wanted a Zelda that immersed them in 3D
>dungeons (at least that's what I wanted). Some things do work in 3D, Zelda
>and Metal Gear Solid (though it was too linear). These games were about
>exploration and immersion into the environment, so they naturally fit 3D.
>But I get your point, 3D as a rule is stupid.
I presonally wouldn't want my racers, plane-based shooting games, or
vehicular combat games to be 2D. Twisted Metal in 2D would suck. The
last great 2D racer I can think of is Outrun, and it gains nothing by
being in 2D, except highly-pixellated roadside objects as the scale
past. It also goes for 3D shooters, although I'm not that personally
into them. Oh boy, 2D Goldenye and Quake!
I think saying a number of dimensions "as a rule is stupid" is not a
very well-thought-out comment.
>I'll elaborate on your truth: There are games that are better done as 2D
>than 3D (or aren't even possible as true 3D), but the direction of games
>is to 3D only.
I think in the last couple of years there's been a trend mack to
2D gameplay, only using polyganal graphics. Certainly with the
shooters.
If there's any truth, it's that taking old 2D games and trying to make
3D games based on them is quite tricky, given that the change in
perspective means possibly a whole new style of gameplay, a loss of the
character animation that was already established, and wrestling with
issues that the original game didn't have to (camera placement,
framerate, new control config). The best 3D games seem to mostly be
either born in 3D, or were trying to mimic 3D in the first place (old
racers and flight sims). There are of course exceptions. Metal Gear
Solid manages to retain the top-down look, only in polygons, and uses
other aspects of 3D only as they make sense (first-person perspective
mode to look around, and with the sniper rifle). Other games manage to
make the jump simply becuase they're very carefully planned-- Zelda.
===
Ken
Gargantua B.
> On Sat, 09 Jan 1999 22:28:49 GMT, Gargantua B.
> <see_signatur...@flash.net> wrote:
>
> >I think this is justified. People wanted a Zelda that immersed them in 3D
> >dungeons (at least that's what I wanted). Some things do work in 3D, Zelda
> >and Metal Gear Solid (though it was too linear). These games were about
> >exploration and immersion into the environment, so they naturally fit 3D.
> >But I get your point, 3D as a rule is stupid.
>
> I presonally wouldn't want my racers, plane-based shooting games, or
> vehicular combat games to be 2D. Twisted Metal in 2D would suck.
What about Spy Hunter? Top-view vertical scroller shooters?
> The last great 2D racer I can think of is Outrun, and it gains nothing by
> being in 2D, except highly-pixellated roadside objects as the scale
> past.
Pixellation has nothing to do with 2D or 3D. Scale past? That implies 3D.
Outrun was 3D as far as I know. Hell, Rad Racer on NES was 3D, though the
hardware wasn't capable of a very good implementation of it.
> It also goes for 3D shooters, although I'm not that personally
> into them.
> Oh boy, 2D Goldenye and Quake!
Goldeneye and Quake get lots of their value as a game from the fact that
they are 3D, putting you into the environment. They simply wouldn't work
as 2D games.
> I think saying a number of dimensions "as a rule is stupid" is not a
> very well-thought-out comment.
As a general rule. Obviously some games, as you mention, simply aren't 2D
games. Let me restate: any general rule that says 3D (*or* 2D) should be
used is stupid. Use the appropriate medium for the game idea.
> >I'll elaborate on your truth: There are games that are better done as 2D
> >than 3D (or aren't even possible as true 3D), but the direction of games
> >is to 3D only.
>
> I think in the last couple of years there's been a trend mack to
> 2D gameplay, only using polyganal graphics. Certainly with the
> shooters.
I don't mind this, though the 2D pixel drawn art aspect is lost, for the
most part. Klonoa was essentially a side-scroller game, done in 60 frames
per second with polygons, in a 3D world, where the plane of game play
twisted around. It is a very cool game.
> If there's any truth, it's that taking old 2D games and trying to make
> 3D games based on them is quite tricky, given that the change in
> perspective means possibly a whole new style of gameplay, a loss of the
> character animation that was already established, and wrestling with
> issues that the original game didn't have to (camera placement,
> framerate, new control config).
Right. A few games, like Zelda and Metal Gear, made the transition OK. I
think the distinction has to be made between the game perspective and
essential characteristics of the game, to allow transition to 3D. Some
games' characteristics are separate from the view, while others aren't.
Racing games, for example, don't really work from an overhead perspective
:-)
> The best 3D games seem to mostly be
> either born in 3D, or were trying to mimic 3D in the first place (old
> racers and flight sims).
But old racers and flight sims *were* 3D already. Certainly a flight sim
had to keep track of x, y, and z coordinates!
> There are of course exceptions. Metal Gear
> Solid manages to retain the top-down look, only in polygons, and uses
> other aspects of 3D only as they make sense (first-person perspective
> mode to look around, and with the sniper rifle). Other games manage to
> make the jump simply becuase they're very carefully planned-- Zelda.
Right.
AAScudiero
>On Tue, 05 Jan 1999 02:06:51 -0600, 8-Bit Star
><nes_...@hotmailSPAMBLOCK.com> wrote: >Trav wrote:
>
>>If a game has no 3D Effects, people look past the good points of the
>>game and automatically say it sucks no matter how good it really is.
>>If Zelda 64 was 2D using Sprites instead of Polygons, people would hate
>>it.
>>
>>I don't expect people to respond to me, because this is one truth that
>>no one can deny.
>
>While I largely agree, there are some excpetions. Abe's Oddysee has
>sold over a million copies in the US, and is completely 2D, and has no
>3D effects, unless you count FMV. SOmetimes a great game shines depite
>people's prejudices.
Abe was really a puzzle game, not an action adventure.
Like Lemmings crossed with Prince of Persia.
Even then, the cinema's were 3D.
Despite the fact I loved Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, 2D is
OLD!!!
With Spyro, Metal Gear, Zelda, Banjo and the upcoming Castevania64,
there is no reason why any game company should go back to 2D unless
it's for puzzles or strategy games. The competition will smother them.
Gargantua Blargg
> On 10 Jan 1999 15:24:21 GMT, k...@news.xnet.com (Ken Small) wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 05 Jan 1999 02:06:51 -0600, 8-Bit Star
> ><nes_...@hotmailSPAMBLOCK.com> wrote: >Trav wrote:
> >
> >>If a game has no 3D Effects, people look past the good points of the
> >>game and automatically say it sucks no matter how good it really is.
> >>If Zelda 64 was 2D using Sprites instead of Polygons, people would hate
> >>it.
> >>
> >>I don't expect people to respond to me, because this is one truth that
> >>no one can deny.
> >
> >While I largely agree, there are some excpetions. Abe's Oddysee has
> >sold over a million copies in the US, and is completely 2D, and has no
> >3D effects, unless you count FMV. SOmetimes a great game shines depite
> >people's prejudices.
>
> Abe was really a puzzle game, not an action adventure.
> Like Lemmings crossed with Prince of Persia.
> Even then, the cinema's were 3D.
> Despite the fact I loved Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, 2D is
> OLD!!!
Old is bad. Even though it worked, it's just bad.
> With Spyro, Metal Gear, Zelda, Banjo and the upcoming Castevania64,
> there is no reason why any game company should go back to 2D unless
> it's for puzzles or strategy games. The competition will smother them.
Because they've got sheep like you as game players.
Aristotle
>no one can deny.
This is one of the most pathetic arguing tactics.
"Dont bother answering" just makes your points look weak.
You made good points in your post. It is too bad you made yourself look really
childish with that one statement.
-Aristotle (thre...@threshold-rpg.com)
======================================================================
Join us at Threshold!
~*~ High Fantasy Multi-User Online Role Playing Game ~*~
http://www.threshold-rpg.com -or- telnet threshold-rpg.com 23
Ken Small
<see_signatur...@flash.net> wrote:
>k...@news.xnet.com (Ken Small) wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 09 Jan 1999 22:28:49 GMT, Gargantua B.
>> <see_signatur...@flash.net> wrote:
>>
>> >I think this is justified. People wanted a Zelda that immersed them in 3D
>> >dungeons (at least that's what I wanted). Some things do work in 3D, Zelda
>> >and Metal Gear Solid (though it was too linear). These games were about
>> >exploration and immersion into the environment, so they naturally fit 3D.
>> >But I get your point, 3D as a rule is stupid.
>>
>> I presonally wouldn't want my racers, plane-based shooting games, or
>> vehicular combat games to be 2D. Twisted Metal in 2D would suck.
>
>What about Spy Hunter? Top-view vertical scroller shooters?
I wouldn't want those to be in 3d, particularly.
>> The last great 2D racer I can think of is Outrun, and it gains nothing by
>> being in 2D, except highly-pixellated roadside objects as the scale
>> past.
>
>Pixellation has nothing to do with 2D or 3D. Scale past? That implies 3D.
>Outrun was 3D as far as I know. Hell, Rad Racer on NES was 3D, though the
>hardware wasn't capable of a very good implementation of it.
Outrun used scaled sprites for graphics. A pretty poor attempt
to appear 3D, compared to polygons.
>> It also goes for 3D shooters, although I'm not that personally
>> into them.
>
>> Oh boy, 2D Goldenye and Quake!
>
>Goldeneye and Quake get lots of their value as a game from the fact that
>they are 3D, putting you into the environment. They simply wouldn't work
>as 2D games.
Exactly. We agree here.
>> I think saying a number of dimensions "as a rule is stupid" is not a
>> very well-thought-out comment.
>
>As a general rule. Obviously some games, as you mention, simply aren't 2D
>games. Let me restate: any general rule that says 3D (*or* 2D) should be
>used is stupid. Use the appropriate medium for the game idea.
Hear hear.
>> >I'll elaborate on your truth: There are games that are better done as 2D
>> >than 3D (or aren't even possible as true 3D), but the direction of games
>> >is to 3D only.
>>
>> I think in the last couple of years there's been a trend mack to
>> 2D gameplay, only using polyganal graphics. Certainly with the
>> shooters.
>
>I don't mind this, though the 2D pixel drawn art aspect is lost, for the
>most part. Klonoa was essentially a side-scroller game, done in 60 frames
>per second with polygons, in a 3D world, where the plane of game play
>twisted around. It is a very cool game.
I agree. And I do think that hand-drawn art is a strenght that
shouldn't be abandonded as much as it is. I'm personally sad that the
last great, great-looking 2D Platformers, Rayman and Castlevania, are
going 3D.
>> If there's any truth, it's that taking old 2D games and trying to make
>> 3D games based on them is quite tricky, given that the change in
>> perspective means possibly a whole new style of gameplay, a loss of the
>> character animation that was already established, and wrestling with
>> issues that the original game didn't have to (camera placement,
>> framerate, new control config).
>Right. A few games, like Zelda and Metal Gear, made the transition OK. I
>think the distinction has to be made between the game perspective and
>essential characteristics of the game, to allow transition to 3D. Some
>games' characteristics are separate from the view, while others aren't.
>Racing games, for example, don't really work from an overhead perspective
>:-)
Except Super Sprint. :)
>> The best 3D games seem to mostly be
>> either born in 3D, or were trying to mimic 3D in the first place (old
>> racers and flight sims).
>
>But old racers and flight sims *were* 3D already. Certainly a flight sim
>had to keep track of x, y, and z coordinates!
Ya got me. I was thinking "polygonal" when I said that. Old racers
often are essentially 2D games though, where turing around is
impossible because new stuff is simply srolled at you through
a faux-3D perspective.
Gargantua B.
Small) wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jan 1999 21:12:18 GMT, Gargantua B.
> <see_signatur...@flash.net> wrote:
>
> >k...@news.xnet.com (Ken Small) wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 09 Jan 1999 22:28:49 GMT, Gargantua B.
> >> <see_signatur...@flash.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I think this is justified. People wanted a Zelda that immersed them in 3D
> >> >dungeons (at least that's what I wanted). Some things do work in 3D, Zelda
> >> >and Metal Gear Solid (though it was too linear). These games were about
> >> >exploration and immersion into the environment, so they naturally fit 3D.
> >> >But I get your point, 3D as a rule is stupid.
> >>
> >> I presonally wouldn't want my racers, plane-based shooting games, or
> >> vehicular combat games to be 2D. Twisted Metal in 2D would suck.
> >
> >What about Spy Hunter? Top-view vertical scroller shooters?
>
> I wouldn't want those to be in 3d, particularly.
So you agree that some games are better suited for 2D. Good. We're making
progress.
> >> The last great 2D racer I can think of is Outrun, and it gains nothing by
> >> being in 2D, except highly-pixellated roadside objects as the scale
> >> past.
> >
> >Pixellation has nothing to do with 2D or 3D. Scale past? That implies 3D.
> >Outrun was 3D as far as I know. Hell, Rad Racer on NES was 3D, though the
> >hardware wasn't capable of a very good implementation of it.
>
> Outrun used scaled sprites for graphics. A pretty poor attempt
> to appear 3D, compared to polygons.
But 3D is 3D, whether poorly implemented or not. It refers basically to
having a three-vector transform to get the objects on screen, i.e. having
to consider an object's relative position to the camera in all three axes
(x, y, z).
...
> >> >I'll elaborate on your truth: There are games that are better done as 2D
> >> >than 3D (or aren't even possible as true 3D), but the direction of games
> >> >is to 3D only.
> >>
> >> I think in the last couple of years there's been a trend mack to
> >> 2D gameplay, only using polyganal graphics. Certainly with the
> >> shooters.
> >
> >I don't mind this, though the 2D pixel drawn art aspect is lost, for the
> >most part. Klonoa was essentially a side-scroller game, done in 60 frames
> >per second with polygons, in a 3D world, where the plane of game play
> >twisted around. It is a very cool game.
>
> I agree. And I do think that hand-drawn art is a strenght that
> shouldn't be abandonded as much as it is. I'm personally sad that the
> last great, great-looking 2D Platformers, Rayman and Castlevania, are
> going 3D.
Yeah! I noticed that about Rayman and was puzzled. That was a 2D game with
definite character. Same for Castlevania, though it has certainly changed
over the years (Castlevania 1, 2, 3, then IV, then X, Bloodlines, SoTN,
lots of changes). But I just accept that they will go to hell as
yet-another-3D-platformer-with-little-character. Oh well.
So now that computers render stuff realistically, we have no need for any
hand-drawn art, right? Haha. Trick question. Art is expression. There is
no optimal medium for expression. Art is anything.
...
> >> The best 3D games seem to mostly be
> >> either born in 3D, or were trying to mimic 3D in the first place (old
> >> racers and flight sims).
> >
> >But old racers and flight sims *were* 3D already. Certainly a flight sim
> >had to keep track of x, y, and z coordinates!
>
> Ya got me. I was thinking "polygonal" when I said that.
Yeah, and above with Outrun too.
Polygons aren't the only way to handle 3D environments.
> Old racers
> often are essentially 2D games though, where turing around is
> impossible because new stuff is simply srolled at you through
> a faux-3D perspective.
Yeah, racers are really 2D as far as the physics are concerned, it's just
that the camera is situated in a way that brings all three axes into view
(as opposed to a totally-overhead view like Spy Hunter). Point taken,
though.
--
"I don't like my language watered down" - Ani DiFranco