-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Most ambitious, impossible console ports of all time?
- Thread starter Romulus
- Start date
Onironauta
Member
No doubt! Still the most technically impressive 3DS game for me
01011001
Banned
they didn't not use Unity for Doom 2016, where the hell did you read that?
for one, this would most likely run like shit, because Unity, and also would require the whole game to be remade.
Doom 2016 on Switch is simply a pretty straight port with the game settings being turned down to the lowest possible and some additional tweaks here and there
molasar
Banned
Lol. No, Jag and PS1's ports were better. And I am not even a fan of the franchise.
Hudo
Member
I have re-read the discussion from where I took the information and you are right. I made a mistake: The port of the original Doom and Doom II are Unity-based. The Doom 2016 port is a straight port of their id Tech engine.
EDIT: Also, I strongly object that Unity "runs like shit" per default. It only runs like shit (on every platform) when inexperienced developers use the engine (see the remake of Shin Megami Tensei III, which Atlus already have announced to patch). It can run very well, see Desperados III, the newest Pokemon Mystery Dungeon or Hollow Knight.
Last edited:
Romulus
Member
Read my post. I said one way or another. The SNES version had more faithful recreations of the PC maps. That's a fact. Framerate, resolution, etc, etc, the other versions smoked it.
Last edited:
Nikana
Go Go Neo Rangers!
I think no matter what way you cut it, its impressive it exists, but it would be more impressive if it was a good port. But I think the end result of it running at like 8 FPS at times and being unplayable in many circumstances on harder difficulties shows it wasn't possible to make a good port of Doom on the SNES. This is after having to make major chnages to the game to get it to even run at all.
To me, thats like saying if you put Control on Switch with RTX but it runs at 12 FPS is impressive. Its cool that it exists, but its not a good product. Does it run? Sure does, but I dont want to play it.
Romulus
Member
It's less impressive on Switch because engines today are designed to be scalable, that's my entire point. This had to be completely rewritten to run on hardware not even remotely comparable. Ambitious and impossible, but it was decently playable at that time to be playing the most advanced PC game on an SNES, hardware that was outdated the day it released.
Psos
Neo Member
Yeah, the ugliest W3 ever but it's still W3. And it's playable, unlike Cyberpunk...Witcher 3 on Switch is pretty ambitious, no?
Captain Toad
Banned
It launched as a PS360 game - not a port.
molasar
Banned
It does not matter. Having a choice no one would pick up this port other those I mentioned in 1995.
Barakov
Member
I think the thread was more about impossibly good instead of impossibly terrible.
Romulus
Member
What doesn't matter is your point. This is about ambitious ports, not which port was better. Shocking that the more powerful hardware had the better ports. Hell almost no port in this thread would get mentioned by that logic, there's almost always a better version than the games mentioned in this thread.
Last edited:
Phobos Base
Member
SNES Doom was a remarkable achievement, but completely unplayable today. The massively pixilated enemies, no circle strafing and no infightning remove all strategy aside run for the exit and shoot at anything that may be a monster.
GBA Doom 1&2 on the other hand, are very impressive. Yes there are still a lot of compromises, but they still play well today
When played on the original hardware the lack of detail is far less noticeable
GBA Doom 1&2 on the other hand, are very impressive. Yes there are still a lot of compromises, but they still play well today
When played on the original hardware the lack of detail is far less noticeable
Romulus
Member
It's playable. I beat the entire campaign dying once on 2nd highest difficulty about 4 years ago with my gf. Not as good as GBA of course, but we're talking more powerful hardware then for Doom type games.
Last edited:
molasar
Banned
I was not impressed by it at all in 1995. It just used FX2 chip and they did with it what they could.
Nikana
Go Go Neo Rangers!
I guess our definition of playable is different. I would not call Doom on SNES playable unless in extreme circumstances even at the time of its release.
Does it boot? Yes.
Can you control it? Yes.
Can you finish it? Yes.
But 2 of those need an * next to it for obvious reasons.
An engine being scaleable doesn't really factor into it for me as its the same mentality as the SNES port. The engine might be easier to beat down and to get the code where you need it to be, but the engine is also doing far more things than an engine of the past. Having to scale to more pieces of hardware is just as big of a task as having to replace parts of an engine from 93 as they were far more simple in those times. Granted, the compute power was obviously vastly different as well, so saying they are equal tasks might not be fair as my coding experience with an old engine is next to nothing.
It really comes down to playability for me. I found something like Doom Switch to be playable and get mostly the same experience as the counterpart it is compared against. Where as Doom SNES is so far inferior to the PC port that I couldn't even recommend it to someone if it was their only option.
The Red Cart looks legit in my collection though.
S
SLoWMoTIoN
Unconfirmed Member
Street Fighter Alpha 2 on the SNES.
junguler
Banned
i must be blind or something because i'm just now noticing that.
Romulus
Member
I guess our definition of playable is different. I would not call Doom on SNES playable unless in extreme circumstances even at the time of its release.
Does it boot? Yes.
Can you control it? Yes.
Can you finish it? Yes.
But 2 of those need an * next to it for obvious reasons.
An engine being scaleable doesn't really factor into it for me as its the same mentality as the SNES port. The engine might be easier to beat down and to get the code where you need it to be, but the engine is also doing far more things than an engine of the past. Having to scale to more pieces of hardware is just as big of a task as having to replace parts of an engine from 93 as they were far more simple in those times. Granted, the compute power was obviously vastly different as well, so saying they are equal tasks might not be fair as my coding experience with an old engine is next to nothing.
It really comes down to playability for me. I found something like Doom Switch to be playable and get mostly the same experience as the counterpart it is compared against. Where as Doom SNES is so far inferior to the PC port that I couldn't even recommend it to someone if it was their only option.
The Red Cart looks legit in my collection though.
It's more a product of evolution in gaming. Scalability is absolutely a factor when it comes to playability. It just affords you more in terms of framerate(we're discussing shooters).
You would recommend Doom 2016 now in 2020 over 1995 SNES DOOM? lol. So would I. Even 20 years from now I would. That's not what I'm getting at though. Also, the other part is Doom 2016 was a large team of developers, Doom SNES was like 3 guys.
Last edited:
Romulus
Member
It was too ambitious for the hardware. Far too much.
cireza
Member
Resolution was higher on 32X, as well as the framerate (game was playable and enjoyable on 32X, on SNES certainly not). Also, SNES could not allow input of three buttons at once, making circle strafe impossible. No ground and ceiling textures as well. Sure it was a great port, but let's not dismiss the 32X version (which was the first to be released, the SNES port arrived much later).
Considering the embedded hardware in the cartridge and the end result, I don't find it impressive. Recent Wolfenstein homebrew on MegaDrive is much more impressive.
Last edited:
molasar
Banned
That is why it did not deliver a core Doom experience like Jag and PS1's one.
Last edited:
Romulus
Member
That's why I think its incredible. It was very close to that core Doom experience. If the frames would have been maybe 5fps average higher it would have been good for the time.
Romulus
Member
I think time of release is less important because of the hardware differences.
32x version has a smaller window too, displaying less of the game screen than SNES version, along with less monsters and levels despite being what, 5x more powerful than SNES? Or more? Something like that.
the embedded chip was only 21mhz for FX2, and Wolf is far more simple of a game, especially using modern homebrew techniques.
Last edited:
molasar
Banned
Far from being very close. It was more like a cash grab based on hype. On the other hand check out how Killer Instinct was downgraded on SNES or GB. Yet its core experience has been kept without any extra chip.
Space Runaway
Member
Street Fighter Alpha 3 on the GBA was pretty impressive.
I recall the team wanted to attempt a SF3 GBA port too.
I recall the team wanted to attempt a SF3 GBA port too.
Romulus
Member
I disagree, I had both the PS1 and SNES version at the time. Was great for the hardware.
Not sure how the FX2 would have helped KI or else they would have used it.
Nikana
Go Go Neo Rangers!
I mean if you want to break down what the engines are doing today with the hardware they have been given you could easily make a comparison to previous generations. Scalability only goes so far. You still have to accommodate for features that are at the GPU level that are not as efficient as newer versions on newer architectures at the API level. Even if a feature is supported by the hardware that doesn't mean its an auto win. Especially as you look at the amount of features supported.
Even at the time I wouldn't have recommended Doom SNES. I was lucky enough to have a powerful PC at that time due to my father working in the field so I was able to play Doom in all its glory and I remember getting on the SNES when I was 8 or so and being extremely confused due to not having any idea what a port was. When it said Doom on the cart i expected to throw it in my SNES and play Doom and what I was playing didnt feel even remotely the same.
Perhaps its a matter of having a baseline of playing the PC version that I would call Doom SNES unplayable. But I would struggle to believe that anyone who had played SNES Doom with no prior knowledge to how the PC version runs would be nearly as high on the game.
Redneckerz
Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
It doesn't actually use the Doom Engine.
It and Resurrection of Evil can actually run at 720p on a Original Xbox if you double the RAM (from 64 MB to 128 MB). There are quite a few games that effectively can run at native 720p using a hex patch.
It should be quite impossible given the specs of the Xbox... but it works. Performance obviously tanks a bit more but its still playable.
Now this is an actual title pushing the hardware. But, like Doom SNES, not using the actual engine.
Its really impressive how the framerate is pretty nigh on 30, which, in the PS1 era, was unheard of.
Nakasan
Member
You beat me to the post by 10 minutes!
Like other games mentioned there's frames missing, resolution differences and pallete changes BUT, unlike some impossible ports here, it plays absolutely brilliantly in it's own right.
Romulus
Member
The issue is there was virtually no scalable with the original doom compared to Doom 2016. From the very beginning, the newer doom was built around working well with weaker hardware. That's just not comparable to what the SNES doom story is. Just read how he completely rewrote it. It was an absolute nightmare and he had very little help on a time crunch. Imagine the original doom engine built in a way to scale to weaker hardware. He literally had to find the instructions himself for Doom SNES. There's a long story behind it.
molasar
Banned
I disagree as well. I played Doom on Jag first in the beginning of 1995. My friend had it on SNES later on and it was not anything special. Like leaving anyone with a 'wow' impression. I am not even sure if they squeezed all juices out of SNES and SFX2 hardware combo.
In regards to KI, FX2 could be utilized in Orchid, Cinder and Spinal stages. Also it would raise a cost. BTW I wish we could get a prototype rom of its sequel for comparison purposes with an arcade version too.
01011001
Banned
every game running on Unity that has even remotely complex graphics runs exponentially worse than comparably complex games using other engines.
there's no exception to this rule that I know of.
Sub_Level
wants to fuck an Asian grill.
People who say this is a bad port lack perspective. You needed a good gaming PC to run HL2 in 2005 without major compromises (i.e. low texture quality, shadow quality). Being able to just pop in a $50 disc into your console made it a good way to play back then.
Surely the term 'impossible port' is a massive misnomer though, as if a port was done, it was possible? Sorry to be a pedant but this term is thrown around way too much on YouTube for clicks, for example. Usually with a thumbnail showing a guy with a beard and a wearing a gaming t-shirt, hat and an exasperated expression.
Pegasus Actual
Member
Yeah it also didn't require Windows 95 which came out almost 2 years later. 66Mhz was pretty much top end when Doom came out, not the minimum, and it certainly didn't require 8mb of RAM.
DOOM 2016 System Requirements Guide - Can I run it?
🎮 Discover the DOOM 2016 system requirements to ensure your PC meets the specifications for optimal gaming. Learn about the minimum and recommended ...www.sysrequirements.com
Nikana
Go Go Neo Rangers!
The fact that one guy, mostly one guy, was able to port the entirety of the engine is my point from earlier. Porting an entire engine sounds like such a gargantuan task compared to scaling an engine. But when you look at what each one takes for the time of which they were relevant, I think saying that scaling a modern engine to work is comparable. Engines were far less complex in 93 than they are today.
I think the story behind SNES Doom just sounds better on paper because of the fact is one guy, the engine didnt work, etc etc.
But then I think about something like Frostbite having to be used to create Dragon Age when it didn't even support a majority of the features that Bioware needed and basically having to retrofit an entire modern engine to make it work. Yes, somethings scaled because of the modern engine and how they are built, but because of the complexity and how engines are built to support features and API's etc, it took months of people trying to make it work. It sounds less impressive but as someone who has coded casually with modern engines and have dabbled in OG Doom map making, I see the picture as much more in favor of Dom 2016.
Romulus
Member
Well yeah, jaguar had much more processing power and about 15x more RAM. Lol
Romulus
Member
The link says minimum specs, but like many games you run it with less. But we're talking about a console with 128kb of RAM
Romulus
Member
To me, that's what makes it more impressive. It was under crunch and it managed more content than many other versions. Despite having less power, and especially memory. Add to that, he wasn't alone and hes considered one of the most impressive coders of the time.
Romulus
Member
I think it works well with the OP and a few others. Some games in their original form needed almost complete reworking to be considered possible.
Evil Calvin
Afraid of Boobs
And the whole game AND two expansions (about 40 hours for those) all on one cart with no download.Witcher 3 on Switch is pretty ambitious, no?
molasar
Banned
Do you want to know the hardware difference between SNES and KI-Arcade? Lol.
GrayFoxPL
Member
Duke Nukem 3D on PS1.
Old school developer Aardvark Software squeezed the whole Build Engine in 2 MB of Ram. That is whole huge map, textures, enemies, sprites, effects, weapons, everything loaded to PS1 2MB Ram in full - as in you could pull out the disc and play the whole map. Think about it.
Nowadays developers wouldn't squeeze pacman sprite in 20mb of ram.
Last edited:
Romulus
Member
I'm sure its also massive. But I always thought a KI port would work well looking at Donkey Kong country and imagining 2 characters onscreen. And alot of those arcades arent being pushed to limit either I would assume. Lots of extra power.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll