PS1 resolution
barrywa...@yahoo.com
across this very interesting post (link below). This guy claims that
according to his "new gameshark" device, the resolutions of both DOA
and Tobal2 are 512x480. This is contrary to what many of the game
magazines back in the day said, but of course that wouldn't be the
first time that they got technical details wrong. As for Tekken 3's
res, it's listed as 368x480, yeah even lower than Tobal2. Other
interesting information is the 320x240 resolution of Ridge Racer 1. I
say interesting because the fps display box that can be viewed in ePSXe
is bigger in both width and height than most of the other PS1 games
that I have tested. In all 512x480 high resolution games like Bloody
Roar 2 and DOA, the fps display box is *much* smaller than the one in
RR which apparently indicates the higher screen res. The other PS1
fighting games like the Toshindens, Tekkens, and Street Fighter Exes
all have *significantly* smaller fps display boxes than RR suggesting
that those games are above 320x240. But as expected, they're not quite
as small as the ones in BR2 and DOA. Mortal Kombat Trilogy was the only
fighting game in my collection that had a fps display box equal in size
to RR. And there was only one game I tested, that being Doom, that had
a bigger fps display box than RR, so apparently Doom ran below 320x240
which had always been suspected by some. This all points to the PS1
standard resolution being at the very least 320x240, not lower. Many
PS1 games, especially the 3D fighters, ran higher.
Of course, whether all this is accurate depends on whether the guy's
information in the post below is accurate. Anyone ever heard of a
gameshark device being able to tell the resolution of games?
barrywa...@yahoo.com
ePSXe is bigger in both width and height than most of the other PS1
games that I have tested."
The display box I'm talking about in the qoute above is the Ridge Racer
(RR) one.
Scott H
I know that it was capable of higher resolutions, but the default
resolution was 256x224, as per Sony's own specs. Whether or not the
"average" game ran at this, or 320x240 is almost impossible to prove, I
don't have enough games to represent a mean. It could be said that the
top titles were higher, especially if we can get screenshots that
default to that resolution, but to say that "most" games were higher is
just not very easily supported. From what I've seen, most games of this
generation handled resolution and special effects in very unique ways to
work around hardware limitations, sometimes this makes a same resolution
game look better, sometimes this makes a technically superior game (i.e.
Burning Rangers, Fighters Megamix vs Tomb Raider and VF2) look worse.
http://www.us.playstation.com/consoles.aspx?id=1/info/415007665.html
--
Scott
barrywa...@yahoo.com
popular titles that I have tested run at the same resolution or higher
using the "fsp display box" method I described in the previous post. In
512x480 resolution games, the fps box is not only much smaller but also
a lot crisper. It's fuzzy in games like RR. So the fps box is
definitely connected to screen resolution of the game.
The popular PS1 games I tested;
Tomb Raider 1, 2, 3, Last Rev (equal and higher, and I would assume
chronicles runs at least 320x240 as well)
Crash Bandicoot 1, 2, 3 (all higher)
Tekken, 1, 2, 3 (all higher, with Tekken 3 being the highest as
expected)
Ehrgiez (same res as Tekken 3 apparently)
Star Gladiator (higher)
Street Fighter EX 1 and 2 (all higher)
Toshinden 1, 2, 3 (all higher)
Tobal (512x480)
DOA (512x480)
Soul Blade (higher)
Ridge Racer 2 (equal)
Resident Evil 1, 2, 3 (equal)
Doom (lower)
Symphony of the Night (lower, same as Doom)
Bloody Roar 1 and 2 (higher and 512x480 default)
Dino Crisis 1 and 2 (equal)
Rival Schools (higher)
Bushido Blade (higher than Tekken 3, but slightly lower than Tobal)
Scott H
> If Ridge Racer is indeed 320x240 as that guy claims, then all of the
> popular titles that I have tested run at the same resolution or higher
> using the "fsp display box" method I described in the previous post. In
> 512x480 resolution games, the fps box is not only much smaller but also
> a lot crisper. It's fuzzy in games like RR. So the fps box is
> definitely connected to screen resolution of the game.
I can't get ePSXe to run on my system without crashing, so I can't
confirm anything. Can you take screenshots demonstrating this and
e-mail them to me? I'd like to put them all up as a comparison on the
website, and adjust any of the individual game's observations accordingly.
> The popular PS1 games I tested;
> Tomb Raider 1, 2, 3, Last Rev (equal and higher, and I would assume
> chronicles runs at least 320x240 as well)
> Crash Bandicoot 1, 2, 3 (all higher)
> Tekken, 1, 2, 3 (all higher, with Tekken 3 being the highest as
> expected)
> Ehrgiez (same res as Tekken 3 apparently)
> Star Gladiator (higher)
> Street Fighter EX 1 and 2 (all higher)
> Toshinden 1, 2, 3 (all higher)
> Tobal (512x480)
> DOA (512x480)
> Soul Blade (higher)
> Ridge Racer 2 (equal)
> Resident Evil 1, 2, 3 (equal)
> Doom (lower)
> Symphony of the Night (lower, same as Doom)
> Bloody Roar 1 and 2 (higher and 512x480 default)
> Dino Crisis 1 and 2 (equal)
> Rival Schools (higher)
> Bushido Blade (higher than Tekken 3, but slightly lower than Tobal)
>
--
Scott
Russell Marks
> I know that it was capable of higher resolutions, but the
> default resolution was 256x224, as per Sony's own specs. Whether or
Quoting the Sony page you linked to:
GRAPHIC PROCESSOR (GPU)
[...]
Resolution: 256x224 up to 640x480 dots
Those are clearly the minimum/maximum resolutions supported, but
there's no mention of any default.
> not the "average" game ran at this, or 320x240 is almost impossible to
> prove, I don't have enough games to represent a mean. It could be
Well, I can help you out there. :-) I have 77 PS1 games with a
reasonable mix of genres, release dates, etc., and it's fair to say
that 320x240-ish is the standard. I reckon 8 of them use higher
resolutions ingame (rather than e.g. just for menus, like Rage Racer
and the Tony Hawk games), and I believe one uses a lower resolution. I
expect this is pretty representative.
> said that the top titles were higher, especially if we can get
> screenshots that default to that resolution, but to say that "most"
> games were higher is just not very easily supported. From what I've
Agreed. I would even say that not many of the top titles were running
at more than 320x240, unless I'm missing large numbers of them...
-Rus.
barrywa...@yahoo.com
confirm anything."
Are you trying to run them from a CD-ROM? You need to rip the contents
in bin or ISO format with a freeware program like ISObuster. Playing
PS1 games with ePSXe is more stable this way. You also need Pete's
SoftGPU plugin so the that the games will run in the original PS1
resolutions. The openGL and Direct X plugins run the games at higher
than original resolutions, and therefore would not be good for this
test.
"Can you take screenshots demonstrating this and
e-mail them to me?"
I took a few screenshots with F8, but unfortunately the fps display box
is not captured. Not only that, but the pics came out a little funky.
Perhaps I should hunt down a program that would allow you to take
snapshots of your desktop. The windowed screen might accurately be
captured that way.
Scott H
> Scott H <weapo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I know that it was capable of higher resolutions, but the
>>default resolution was 256x224, as per Sony's own specs. Whether or
>
>
> Quoting the Sony page you linked to:
>
> GRAPHIC PROCESSOR (GPU)
> [...]
> Resolution: 256x224 up to 640x480 dots
>
> Those are clearly the minimum/maximum resolutions supported, but
> there's no mention of any default.
640x480 dots is not the same as saying 640x480 resolution, the same as
the Jaguar specs saying "up to" 640x480 pixels is not the same. Also,
with Sony's documented tendency to blow their specs out of proportion,
why would they undercut themselves by indicating a lower than standard
resolution?
>
>>not the "average" game ran at this, or 320x240 is almost impossible to
>>prove, I don't have enough games to represent a mean. It could be
>
>
> Well, I can help you out there. :-) I have 77 PS1 games with a
> reasonable mix of genres, release dates, etc., and it's fair to say
> that 320x240-ish is the standard. I reckon 8 of them use higher
> resolutions ingame (rather than e.g. just for menus, like Rage Racer
> and the Tony Hawk games), and I believe one uses a lower resolution. I
> expect this is pretty representative.
There are over one thousand, possibly two thousand PS1 games out
there. That is what I'm saying. The "average game" is not represented
by the "top titles".
>
>>said that the top titles were higher, especially if we can get
>>screenshots that default to that resolution, but to say that "most"
>>games were higher is just not very easily supported. From what I've
>
>
> Agreed. I would even say that not many of the top titles were running
> at more than 320x240, unless I'm missing large numbers of them...
According to rec.games.video.sony, there are over 160 of them...
http://www.gamepilgrimage.com/PS1.htm
> -Rus.
--
Scott
barrywa...@yahoo.com
Russell Marks
> Russell Marks wrote:
> > Scott H <weapo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I know that it was capable of higher resolutions, but the
> >>default resolution was 256x224, as per Sony's own specs. Whether or
> > Quoting the Sony page you linked to:
> > GRAPHIC PROCESSOR (GPU)
> > [...]
> > Resolution: 256x224 up to 640x480 dots
> > Those are clearly the minimum/maximum resolutions supported, but
> > there's no mention of any default.
>
> 640x480 dots is not the same as saying 640x480 resolution, the same as
Unless you're now denying that the PS1 had a 640x480 mode, I think it
might as well be. :-)
> the Jaguar specs saying "up to" 640x480 pixels is not the same. Also,
> with Sony's documented tendency to blow their specs out of proportion,
> why would they undercut themselves by indicating a lower than standard
> resolution?
Well, there are various possible reasons, but I don't think jumping to
the conclusion that 256x224 is "default" or "standard" is really a
good idea when everything else would seem to indicate that it's hardly
used at all.
> >>not the "average" game ran at this, or 320x240 is almost impossible to
> >>prove, I don't have enough games to represent a mean. It could be
> > Well, I can help you out there. :-) I have 77 PS1 games with a
> > reasonable mix of genres, release dates, etc., and it's fair to say
> > that 320x240-ish is the standard. I reckon 8 of them use higher
> > resolutions ingame (rather than e.g. just for menus, like Rage Racer
> > and the Tony Hawk games), and I believe one uses a lower resolution. I
> > expect this is pretty representative.
>
> There are over one thousand, possibly two thousand PS1 games out
> there. That is what I'm saying. The "average game" is not
> represented by the "top titles".
Fair enough, but what point are you trying to prove here? If anything
higher-res games are seriously over-represented in the games I have,
which suggests that 10% is probably the highest possible proportion of
PS1 games that could reasonably be called higher-res (assuming that
only ingame use of such a mode counts). Which, frankly, shouldn't come
as a great shock to anyone.
-Rus.
Scott H
It must have bounced back, they haven't arrived yet.
--
Scott
barrywa...@yahoo.com
Scott H
> I resent it. Check again.
>
http://www.gamepilgrimage.com/PS1RES.htm
That pretty much settles it for me, the vast majority of top titles run
at or above 320x240. Let me know if I got, Tekken 1+2 mixed up, and
whether I titled the Mortal Kombat and Doom shot correctly.
Thanks,
Scott