Well, then we seem to be in disagreement in that regard. But if we want to generalize, it might be better founded to say that general purpose engines, like Unreal Engine or Unity, generally run worse than more specialized, purpose-developed engines. Unreal Engine can run like shit as well, it certainly is a pain in the arse to work with, IMHO but that's off-topic, I guess.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.
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.
Will have to agree to disagree. I am not trying to downplay its impressiveness, I just think the end result wasn't a great product and in fact was a bad version of something great. I think the product was better off not existing but its a cool moment in gaming history.
OT but
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.
not really a port but still:
OT but
Is this playable on the 1x/XSX in BC mode?
So fucking cool! Thanks for sharing.I remember being asked to make low poly models of Resident Evil characters for a port. Pretty sure it was for GBA. This was years ago and i had just finished working at Acclaim.
No, it's not playable on 1X or SeriesX.Yes, but its not 60fps.
No, it's not playable on 1X or SeriesX.
Only on 360.
The 360 version is playable on 1X/SeriesX.
But... the link... is wrong. Like, factually incorrect. Those aren't the minimum requirements for Doom in 1993. They didn't advertise those specs. They didn't put them on the box. Clearly you didn't play Doom back in the day or maybe you don't have such a great memory.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
SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------
DOOM(TM) requires an IBM compatible 386 or better with 4 megs of
RAM, a VGA graphics card, and a hard disk drive. A 486 or
better, a Sound Blaster Pro(TM) or 100% compatible sound card
is recommended. A network that uses the IPX protocol is
required for network gameplay.
Warcraft 2 on the PS1. Up until mission 10 for both orks and humans, everything was fine. Then the game turns into a single digit fps slideshow. Unplayable. I still enjoyed it as a kid.
But... the link... is wrong. Like, factually incorrect. Those aren't the minimum requirements for Doom in 1993. They didn't advertise those specs. They didn't put them on the box. Clearly you didn't play Doom back in the day or maybe you don't have such a great memory.
From the README:
SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS ------------------------------------------------------------- DOOM(TM) requires an IBM compatible 386 or better with 4 megs of RAM, a VGA graphics card, and a hard disk drive. A 486 or better, a Sound Blaster Pro(TM) or 100% compatible sound card is recommended. A network that uses the IPX protocol is required for network gameplay.
And let's face it, the SNES port was bad. Maybe it was about as good as they could manage but the thing about Doom is that it really was a "wow" moment when it hit. The SNES version was 2 years after the fact and was a lot worse than running it on even a fairly crappy computer. The PSX came out around the same time as the SNES port with obviously much more impressive 3D stuff going on. It wasn't worth playing
And the thing is, the SNES was so far ahead of the IBM PC world in its day in the types of games it was actually made for. That super smooth 60 fps scrolling gameplay with big colorful sprites basically didn't exist on PC at the time. Not to mention Mode 7.
Me and my mate would take out TV’s backing off find the horizontal size knob and increase it to give scan bars and a more arcade look lol.I remember Street Fighter 2 when it came to the Super Nes looked and played almost as well as the arcade version which was a rarity in those days.
SFIV 3DS is an impressive game still.No doubt! Still the most technically impressive 3DS game for me
Pretty much anything on the saturn by labotomy.Saturn Quake.
I want to know who's ambitious idea it was for the ports of FF8, 9, maybe 7 I can't remember to have cheats right in the pause menu or right on the controller? That shit was a terrible idea.
Still the game runs at a higher resolution and framerate. It is obvious to the eye when playing both games. SNES game doubles the pixels, so even if the window is bigger, it is much lower resolution.32x version has a smaller window too
Doom can run on a 386 SX-25. Postage stamp size though.But... the link... is wrong. Like, factually incorrect. Those aren't the minimum requirements for Doom in 1993. They didn't advertise those specs. They didn't put them on the box. Clearly you didn't play Doom back in the day or maybe you don't have such a great memory.
It totally was worth playing for the technical feats alone + that it actually ran semi-decently. SNES Doom is a unique version of Doom and has its fair share of fans.And let's face it, the SNES port was bad. Maybe it was about as good as they could manage but the thing about Doom is that it really was a "wow" moment when it hit. The SNES version was 2 years after the fact and was a lot worse than running it on even a fairly crappy computer. The PSX came out around the same time as the SNES port with obviously much more impressive 3D stuff going on. It wasn't worth playing
Driver 2 and Driv3r for the GBA
Actually, almost all 3D games on the GBA are imposible ports
Still the game runs at a higher resolution and framerate. It is obvious to the eye when playing both games. SNES game doubles the pixels, so even if the window is bigger, it is much lower resolution.
Not saying that the SNES game is not a great achievement. But I don't really like when games use special chips. It kind of blurs the ability to really appreciate the achievement. I find many "stock" SNES games much more impressive. Like Maui Mallard, to give one example.
And it is largely inferior technically speaking. I think we agree with this.Well yeah, but even with the chip it's still a far cry from the 32x in terms of power, not to mention well over 4x the RAM.
And it is largely inferior technically speaking. I think we agree with this.
Sprites aren't larger, and all pixels are doubled anyway. SNES has better music and colors indeed.We do, I'm just saying for the snes version to have some big advantages is crazy considering the vast power and memory gulf. Larger sprites is another one I forgot along with way more content. The music and effects are all better on snes too.
Sprites aren't larger, and all pixels are doubled anyway. SNES has better music and colors indeed.
The most impressive thing the SNES does (in my opinion) is casting shadows on a distance.
Yes, all the ports are based on the same basis (32X, Jaguar, 3DO, Saturn, PSX) and use only a handful of textures. This is ridiculous honestly.The colors disparity with the 32x version is because it uses less wall textures strangely.