Early 3D gaming graphical showcase thread (Atari ST, Amiga, Acorn Arc32)

SirTerry-T

Member
Arc can run Star Fighter of course it can run Doom.

Atari STE could run doom in a smaller window.

Atari Falcon can run ultimate doom with ease, and is arguably comparable in some ways to the Jaguar.

It's really just the Amiga that would have a problem with it, they did try a doom clone, a very bad pixelated one based on the AGA chipset. Alien Breed 3D I believe it was called, they also ported it to that failed game console and I believe it ran even worse on that but it's been awhile since I've seen it.


Theres a few games that show the gap between the Amiga 500 and 1200, Big Run is another one



The post you quoted was about 3D games comparing the ST and Amiga in general not Virus. Most 3D games aren't optimized for the Amiga to be honest as that's not what it's focus was, but there are Amiga devs who have made 3D games optimized for it, or as much as they could.
I think the way the Amiga handled it's bitplanes was why Doom clones were hampered somewhat on that machine.
"Chunky" (pc) Vs “Planar"(Amiga).
 
Last edited:

Fredrik

Gold Member
Well I'm in the USA so don't have to worry about the PAL stuff from the 90's, or the 50fps on consoles luckily.

But even if Virus runs sub-par it's still an impressive title for the Amiga given its limitation.
Wasn’t NTSC Amiga bad? Almost all big devs were from Europe and the PAL machines have the original speed for the games.
How were the games converted? Did they run too fast? How did they deal with the fewer vertical pixels?
 

Shifty

Gold Member
Great thread, my buddy's older brother's Acorn Archimedes gave us untold hours of fun back in the day, though mostly by way of less demanding 2D fare like Lemmings and Mad Professor Mariarti.

It's cool to look back years later and find that it was actually a total beast. Zarch on the Archie is incredible for the time.
 
Last edited:

nkarafo

Member
Atari STE could run doom in a smaller window.

Lies No GIF


Sorry, i know you are pretty well versed in home computer games, especially ST, but there is no way an STE can run DOOM.... Unless by "run" you mean 1 frame per second?

Even in a small window, in low quality, it would still not run faster than a few frames.

Also, here's a video of DOOM on Archimedes.



Doesn't look like it's running it with "ease" and i don't know if this particular model is the original one either. Seems like a later model and the author even says it's overclocked, which means the vanilla original machine would have even lower frame rate.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, i know you are pretty well versed in home computer games, especially ST, but there is no way an STE can run DOOM.... Unless with "run" you mean 1 frame per second?

Even in a small window, in low quality, it would still not run faster than a few frames.

You seem to be forgetting that the STE is actually stronger than some of the weaker PC's that can run the game in windowed.

Also, here's a video of DOOM on Archimedes.


Doesn't look like it's running it with "ease" and i don't know if this particular model is the original one either. Seems like a later model and the author even says it's overclocked, which means the vanilla original machine would have even lower frame rate.

This is puzzling because there's literally a gif in the OP with Acorn running Star Fighter that runs circles around doom in complexity with a fully polygonal fly anywhere game with effects and destructible environments/objects.
 
Last edited:

nkarafo

Member
There's a modern Doom engine now that actually runs playable on OCS / stock A500. But the author is building his own game with it, so we're unlikely to ever see a direct Doom replica, though it looks within realm of possibility.

That's not the DOOM engine though. And apart from the missing lighting system and floor/ceiling textures, the level design in this demo is very simplistic, with very low architecture detail and low height.

It looks much better and more advanced than Wolfenstein but it's not close to the DOOM engine and it's maps. Even the guy in the video said it's something between Wolf 3D and DOOM. It's still impressive however. I wouldn't expect the stock Amiga to handle something better than Wolf 3D.


You seem to be forgetting that the STE is actually stronger than some of the weaker PC's that can run the game in windowed.

DOOM needs a 386 CPU to run on PCs. With a 386DX/40 the game struggles and you need to run it in low-res mode with a medium sized window. And even then it will run around 15 to 20 fps on average.

The STE has a 68000 CPU. There is no magic in this world that would make DOOM run even remotely to such CPU. If you have some proof though i'm very curious to see.


This is puzzling because there's literally a gif in the OP with Acorn running Star Fighter that runs circles around doom in complexity with a fully polygonal fly anywhere game with effects and destructible environments/objects.

Star Fighter is nowhere near as complex as DOOM. It's a big flat surface with a bunch of boxy polygonal shapes for structures. DOOM's architecture detail in it's maps is far beyond that game.

Also, it doesn't look as fast on a stock machine:



Still, i think the videos i posted prove my points. Maybe there's a different video showing DOOM running faster on the same machine? I do believe the Archimedes could run DOOM but not the PC version. Maybe the 32X or GBA version would be much more playable on that machine. Even that Star Fighter game looks like the kind of game you would see on a 32X.
 
Last edited:

Fafalada

Fafracer forever
That's not the DOOM engine though. And apart from the missing lighting system and floor/ceiling textures, the level design in this demo is very simplistic, with very low architecture detail and low height.
It looks much better and more advanced than Wolfenstein but it's not close to the DOOM engine and it's maps. Even the guy in the video said it's something between Wolf 3D and DOOM. It's still impressive however. I wouldn't expect the stock Amiga to handle something better than Wolf 3D.
Yes, but that's from an older build - end of 2021 they got elevation support working - and literally have E1M1 running in a demo:
Obviously concessions you mention to lighting(OCS didn't have the color depth to do that, regardless of performance) or floor/ceiling textures are there - but that's like GBA or SNES ports that also did similar cuts to make it fit.
 
Last edited:

nkarafo

Member
Yes, but that's from an older build - end of 2021 they got elevation support working - and literally have E1M1 running in a demo:
Obviously concessions you mention to lighting(OCS didn't have the color depth to do that, regardless of performance) or floor/ceiling textures are there - but that's like GBA or SNES ports that also did similar cuts to make it fit.

It's impressive, it really is. But how would this E1M1 map run with collisions and monsters, weapons, effects, music, sfx, etc. As it is now, it looks close to the SNES version (the GBA version is still much better, with textured ceilings/floors and some of the PC lighting). But the SNES version is a full game with all the aforementioned features, though it doesn't really run on the SNES, it runs on the FX2 chip.
 

SF Kosmo

The Trigglypuff
? 2d scrolling games were picking up since 81. Even CV had several and it didn't even have hardware support for it like the A52 because it was the direction the industry was going, multiple scroll directions (which Japan locked to one direction going backwards ironically)
I said scrollong platformers in particular. While it's true there might have been a couple odd experiments like Snokie on C64, the genre didn't really exist as such until Pac Land (1984) in the arcade and Super Mario Bros on NES, which released the same year as Mercenary.

But yes, Mercenary was incredibly impressive for the time, never denied that. But II and III was when the devs finally got the hardware to make their intended vision a reality and it shows.
Agreed, the first game was definitely shooting for something more that the hardware was meant for.
 
That's not the DOOM engine though. And apart from the missing lighting system and floor/ceiling textures, the level design in this demo is very simplistic, with very low architecture detail and low height.

It looks much better and more advanced than Wolfenstein but it's not close to the DOOM engine and it's maps. Even the guy in the video said it's something between Wolf 3D and DOOM. It's still impressive however. I wouldn't expect the stock Amiga to handle something better than Wolf 3D.




DOOM needs a 386 CPU to run on PCs. With a 386DX/40 the game struggles and you need to run it in low-res mode with a medium sized window. And even then it will run around 15 to 20 fps on average.

The STE has a 68000 CPU. There is no magic in this world that would make DOOM run even remotely to such CPU. If you have some proof though i'm very curious to see.




Star Fighter is nowhere near as complex as DOOM. It's a big flat surface with a bunch of boxy polygonal shapes for structures. DOOM's architecture detail in it's maps is far beyond that game.

Also, it doesn't look as fast on a stock machine:


Still, i think the videos i posted prove my points. Maybe there's a different video showing DOOM running faster on the same machine? I do believe the Archimedes could run DOOM but not the PC version. Maybe the 32X or GBA version would be much more playable on that machine. Even that Star Fighter game looks like the kind of game you would see on a 32X.

The Arc can run the PC version, you are talking about the entry level stock hardware. The Arc is only maybe a third weaker at the mid-end than a Falcon, and only marginally weaker on the high end. Star Fighter is also more complex than doom, there's articles on the making of the game, it takes higher specification to run. The PC unpublished port needed a 486 to run at full frame-rate with full screen, and the enhanced/remaster official published version needed a Pentium

Considering the Falcon can run ultimate doom super smooth in comparison, than I'm going to say yes.

As for the STE, that's more flexible than a 386SX so...

I said scrollong platformers in particular. While it's true there might have been a couple odd experiments like Snokie on C64, the genre didn't really exist as such until Pac Land (1984)

You're ignoring other PC's and consoles with this. There were quite a few scrolling platformers before Pac-Land and MSB, it's just post SMB the clone and templates were over used so it seems like in comparison there wasn't much there, but when you ignore the "craze" element it was the typical genre output you would see with other genres that were coming into commonality.
 
Last edited:

Fafalada

Fafracer forever
It's impressive, it really is. But how would this E1M1 map run with collisions and monsters, weapons, effects, music, sfx, etc.
Yea we won't know that until some future update I guess. Though the game didn't seem to lose that much with other activities in play when running simpler levels - the fact this rasterizer is using all of Amiga's stock chipset, not just the CPU helps I guess.
 

SF Kosmo

The Trigglypuff
You're ignoring other PC's and consoles with this. There were quite a few scrolling platformers before Pac-Land and MSB,
I call BS on this. There were like maybe 5. Snokie, Jungle King, B.C.'s Quest for Tires, Jump Bug... And they were all pretty different from each other. It wasn't until Pac-Land and SMB that the genre's conventions crystalized into something recognizable.

And that was my only point, I wasn't saying Mercenary predates platform games, I am saying scrolling platformers were still essentially frontier country when Mercenary was attempting to invent the 3D open world action adventure.
 
Last edited:

nkarafo

Member
The Arc can run the PC version, you are talking about the entry level stock hardware. The Arc is only maybe a third weaker at the mid-end than a Falcon, and only marginally weaker on the high end. Star Fighter is also more complex than doom, there's articles on the making of the game, it takes higher specification to run. The PC unpublished port needed a 486 to run at full frame-rate with full screen, and the enhanced/remaster official published version needed a Pentium

Considering the Falcon can run ultimate doom super smooth in comparison, than I'm going to say yes.

As for the STE, that's more flexible than a 386SX so...
DOOM also needed a fast 486DX to run DOOM at full speed (35 fps). A 386SX would be a slideshow. Even on a 386DX the game struggled a lot.

I'm still waiting for some proof that the stock/original Arc can run DOOM "easily". The proof i posted so far shows a more modern version of the machine struggling to run it, despite being overclocked.
 
I call BS on this. There were like maybe 5. Snokie, Jungle King, B.C.'s Quest for Tires, Jump Bug... And they were all pretty different from each other. It wasn't until Pac-Land and SMB that the genre's conventions crystalized into something recognizable.
This seems to be just your lack of research on the topic if anything, the art style from SMB for the floor and the colorful triangular hills/mountains were already a thing before the game was out. (also why are you using Jump Bug, most platformers were horizontal scrolling on NES not vertical)

And that was my only point, I wasn't saying Mercenary predates platform games, I am saying scrolling platformers were still essentially frontier country when Mercenary was attempting to invent the 3D open world action adventure.
Even mercenary wasn't the first to try it. But I'd say it was the best attempt given how weak graphics hardware was when it came out, at least that was consumer grade.

DOOM also needed a fast 486DX to run DOOM at full speed (35 fps). A 386SX would be a slideshow. Even on a 386DX the game struggled a lot.

Yes and the STE is closer to a 396DX, so yes it can run doom, in windowed, which was my point from the start. i never claimed it could run doom at full frame rate at full screen.

Falcon can however. Which is part of the same computer family.

DOOM also needed a fast 486DX to run DOOM at full speed (35 fps). A 386SX would be a slideshow. Even on a 386DX the game struggled a lot.

I'm still waiting for some proof that the stock/original Arc can run DOOM "easily". The proof i posted so far shows a more modern version of the machine struggling to run it, despite being overclocked.
You have not shown a modern version of the machine, you THINK you have. Starfighter is undeniably a more complex game to run than doom and would require 486 at minimum and a Pentium for the PC enhanced version as I said before, which literally only adds more texture mapping and some shadow improvements, and bumps the frame rate a bit. Not to mention I think I mentioned this before if not I must have forgot, but Arc can run Quake somewhat which last I checked threw Doom out the window.

Doom isn't that powerful a game bro to beat a 3d fly anywhere game with physics, destructible environments, and a bunch of real-time elements. Arcs Amiga 1200 equal (not in power but in having a upgraded base consumer computer) is only maybe 20% weaker than a Falcon and that can compete in ways with the Jaguar.
 
Last edited:

Gusy

Member
DOOM also needed a fast 486DX to run DOOM at full speed (35 fps). A 386SX would be a slideshow. Even on a 386DX the game struggled a lot.

I'm still waiting for some proof that the stock/original Arc can run DOOM "easily". The proof i posted so far shows a more modern version of the machine struggling to run it, despite being overclocked.

If you wanted the full screen experience, a 486 DX2 66 was a must. Anything less was either sub 30 fps or you had to sacrifice window size or hit that dreaded F5 key to lower resolution
 

nkarafo

Member
Yes and the STE is closer to a 386DX, so yes it can run doom, in windowed, which was my point from the start. i never claimed it could run doom at full frame rate.
A 16bit home computer close to a 386DX? Not a chance, unless you upgraded it somehow with more powerful CPUs.

Sorry man. I like your thread but now you post fever dreams. You seem to know stuff about home computers but also have a bias for them.

No, i don't believe the stock STE would run Doom, not even at 32X or GBA Doom quality. Of course you are free to prove your claims if you want.
 
A 16bit home computer close to a 386DX? Not a chance, unless you upgraded it somehow with more powerful CPUs.

Sorry man. I like your thread but now you post fever dreams. You seem to know stuff about home computers but also have a bias for them.

No, i don't believe the stock STE would run Doom, not even at 32X or GBA Doom quality. Of course you are free to prove your claims if you want.

I think the issue is you don't really understand what the STE can do and are only looking at "bits" which don't mean anything by itself. It's similar to how for certain impressive 2D games one would not expect the Amiga to run them but it can due to some tricks and features of its chipset.

I also never said doom would run in full screen or "great" but that seems to be what you keep implying I'm saying and seems to be the whole basis of why you're pushing back. I think that's where the issue is.



Yes, I finally found the other gifs for Acorn I knew I had somewhere to add to OP.

Here's futuristic racer Drifter


Then here's a pretty impressive 3D game on the Acorn, Brutal Horse Power


Also has FP view:


Of course, the weaknesses are starting to show here in the frame rates ability to handle a polygonal racing game with multiple cars and actual objects in the environment. But this is pretty good considering the hardware.
 
Last edited:

lefty1117

Member
I didn’t play the game back then, but looking at the tech behind Frontier Elite II, having the entire galaxy, with full planetary landing and seamless transfer to space, in fucking 1993??

Blow Your Mind Wow GIF by Product Hunt
This is what I was going to say ... I had an ST and after playing the original Elite on my C64, a few years later I was completely stunned by Frontier Elite 2. I couldn't believe it, I thought we had arrived at the end of video gaming. The game still kind of holds up today when you consider the functionality, even against Elite Horizons.

It's funny with the ST ... I knew it was competitive with the Amiga from a technical perspective, but it always felt like the little brother. Like it didn't quite have the support or the games that Amiga was getting. But I was 11 years old at the time.
 

SF Kosmo

The Trigglypuff
This seems to be just your lack of research on the topic if anything, the art style from SMB for the floor and the colorful triangular hills/mountains were already a thing before the game was out. (also why are you using Jump Bug, most platformers were horizontal scrolling on NES not vertical)
Ok, dipshit, if you've researched this so much, name five platform games with a scrolling playfield that pre-date Pac-Land, other than the ones I listed. I'm sick of your posturing bullshit to fight me on a fairly obvious point without anything to back it up.

I literally have no idea why you are bringing up things about art style that have nothing to do with anything I said.

And I brought up Jump Bug because it is literally the first platform game to feature a scrolling playfield (it also scrolled mostly horizontally, so I guess you haven't played it or even watched a video of the first stage, and yet still felt the need to fucking correct me on it). It is very different than later platform games, and that's literally my fucking point, that while a handful of examples did exist, most of them didn't much resemble the games that came later because it we hadn't seen the genre's conventions crystalize yet.

Even mercenary wasn't the first to try it. But I'd say it was the best attempt given how weak graphics hardware was when it came out, at least that was consumer grade.
What else would you say was? I mean I can think of games like Elite and Rescue of Fractalus that had the 3D exploration, but nothing that let you explore both open areas and individual rooms or interact with individual objects, or even get into and out of vehicles, which I think is a pretty defining mechanic.

You're being contrarian here but you aren't giving real examples, so it doesn't seem like you know as much as you're pretending.
 
Last edited:
Ok, dipshit, if you've researched this so much, name five platform games with a scrolling playfield that pre-date Pac-Land, other than the ones I listed. I'm sick of your posturing bullshit to fight me on a fairly obvious point without anything to back it up.
Flipping out unreasonably and then shifting goal posts to wanting a list only before Pac-Land is not a sign of someone who wants a reasonable conversation or who's really all there. I got Jump Bug confused with a similar game that did only scroll upwards oops, and I have no issue admitting I got the game mixed up, so you should have no issue being humble as well, admitting you haven't done any research even during the course of this conversation and attacking me based on what you WANT to believe.

But even with your goal post move, this is short work. 5 Games before Pac Land (August 1st 1984)

1. Son of Blagger (July 1984)
2. Aztec challenge (A8 ver) (1982)
3. Frak (13th May 1984)
4. Trolls and Tribulations (13th march 1984)
5. BC II Grogs revenge (the sequel to that game you mentioned) (5th feb 1984)

There's five, eh, why not double it

6. Journey to the centre of the earth (2nd may 1984)
7. Busy Baby (1983)
8. Caverns of Khafka (A8 ver) (1983)
9. Cave Fighter (June 12th 1984)
10. Roland in the caves (surprise jump scroller on the CPC) (June 10th 1984)

wel-

11. Quo Vadis ( 1984, Conflicting dates)
12. Big Ben (July 1984)
13. Tom (March 13th 1984)
14. Pine Applin (MSX 1984, Conflicting dates)
15. Theseus (MSX, 1984 conflicting dates)

...whoops I'm listing too many. That's already triple what you said, but I though it would be nice to list some Japanese stuff instead of just American/Euro stuff so people could know about them. Maybe I should make a thread on the scrolling platforms at some point. Split it by platform, have them all be before SMB, and bold the ones before Pac-Land. Maybe at some point.


, most of them didn't much resemble the games that came later
This is irrelevant, and also something I never (or you) originally ever argued, and it was irrelevant when you said this same thing 2-3 posts ago, but I ignored it because I wasn't interested in goal post moving(although several of the games listed have many similarities with each other so you were wrong on that claim too bit it's not relevant). Your claim was the genre basically didn't exist, then expanded later saying there weren't more than "like 5" as you say, platformer games that had a scrolling playfield. You were wrong.

Sometimes people make mistakes, like I was able to admit at the top of the post when I got jump bug mixed with something else(both used cars), it's not the end of the world when you make mistakes.
 
Last edited:

DT MEDIA

GAF's Resident Saturn Omnibus
Ahh, Trolls and Tribulations! I had that on Atari 800XL. I loved that game, although it’s one that has aged pretty roughly.

I also wasn’t aware there was a Mercenary III. I played the original on Atari 8-bit again, enjoying flying around and wandering through underground bases, even flying a giant cheese wedge. I just could never figure out what you were actually supposed to do. I could never find these aliens who were supposed to hire you for missions.

Those Atari computers were amazing for 3D graphics in those days. Ballblazer, Koronis Rift, that Afterburner-style shooter with the tower and the Bach music, everything by Microprose, especially F-15 Strike Eagle. Wow. Wish I could play those right now. That’s my all-time favorite gaming platform.
 
Ahh, Trolls and Tribulations! I had that on Atari 800XL. I loved that game, although it’s one that has aged pretty roughly.

I also wasn’t aware there was a Mercenary III. I played the original on Atari 8-bit again, enjoying flying around and wandering through underground bases, even flying a giant cheese wedge. I just could never figure out what you were actually supposed to do. I could never find these aliens who were supposed to hire you for missions.

Those Atari computers were amazing for 3D graphics in those days. Ballblazer, Koronis Rift, that Afterburner-style shooter with the tower and the Bach music, everything by Microprose, especially F-15 Strike Eagle. Wow. Wish I could play those right now. That’s my all-time favorite gaming platform.

My issue with the Atari line is Atari messed up accessibility and general consumer adoption, so they basically handed it over to Commodore. If the Atari 8-bits were more successful we may have seen a push for 3D style games more. Instead Atari ended up with a bunch of C64 ports, or programmers bringing their 1980 style games over.

Btw, they got a Wolfensteinesque 3D engine working on the A8

Someone ported Stunt Car racer too.
 

SF Kosmo

The Trigglypuff
Flipping out unreasonably and then shifting goal posts to wanting a list only before Pac-Land is not a sign of someone who wants a reasonable conversation or who's really all there.
It's not shifting the goal posts unless you completely misunderstand the point I was trying to make in the first place, which was not about the absolute non-existence of these games but by the relative rarity and unclear set of conventions. To imply these games were somehow common involves some real reaching.

It's telling that you also sort of shifted your own self-imposed goal posts from console games to computer games with ambiguous release dates.
1. Son of Blagger (July 1984)
2. Aztec challenge (A8 ver) (1982)
3. Frak (13th May 1984)
4. Trolls and Tribulations (13th march 1984)
5. BC II Grogs revenge (the sequel to that game you mentioned) (5th feb 1984)

There's five, eh, why not double it

6. Journey to the centre of the earth (2nd may 1984)
7. Busy Baby (1983)
8. Caverns of Khafka (A8 ver) (1983)
9. Cave Fighter (June 12th 1984)
10. Roland in the caves (surprise jump scroller on the CPC) (June 10th 1984)

wel-

11. Quo Vadis ( 1984, Conflicting dates)
12. Big Ben (July 1984)
13. Tom (March 13th 1984)
14. Pine Applin (MSX 1984, Conflicting dates)
15. Theseus (MSX, 1984 conflicting dates)
Points for knowing your 8 bit computers, I suppose, although you're still missing my larger point which you seem to acknowledge...

This is irrelevant, and also something I never (or you) originally ever argued,
Except it's literally my entire point and the thing you were responding to when you started arguing with me, so if you acknowledge that then we really have no quarrel.

My whole point was that the genre of side scrolling platformers was extant but still forming, that it was really just barely a thing. So the fact that these games were all really different from each other and not crystalized into clear genre convention literally is my point, the very one you felt the need to start arguing with.
Sometimes people make mistakes, like I was able to admit at the top of the post when I got jump bug mixed with something else(both used cars), it's not the end of the world when you make mistakes.
I made a mistake in underestimating your knowledge of 8-bit micro games but I didn't actually say anything incorrect, and you're now backing off of the very point we were arguing in the first place as if it never happened.
 

Wildebeest

Member
I played lots of Starglider 2 (released 1988) as well, not mentioned here, it was like an early No Man’s Sky, seamless travel from planet to planet down to the surface.
Starglider 2 (and 1) were programmed by Jez San who went on to help develop the Super FX chip which made Star Fox possible.

Some other early stuff.

Freescape engine running adventure game Driller (1987) on the ZX Spectrum and Amiga.


Geoff Crammond. Revs (1984 BBC Micro), The Sentinel (1986 Amiga), Stunt Car Racer (1989 Amiga).

 
Last edited:
It's not shifting the goal posts unless you completely misunderstand the point I was trying to make in the first place,

This is your original reply

And in 1985 no less, like 2D scrolling platformers were just starting to exist

Which was wrong.

This is the next reply

I said scrollong platformers in particular. While it's true there might have been a couple odd experiments like Snokie on C64, the genre didn't really exist as such until Pac Land (1984) in the arcade and Super Mario Bros on NES,
Which was also wrong.

You didn't inject this new goal post until later, talking about the formation of the genre into something recognizable (which is still wrong as the ones before has many similarities to each other), which was never part of your original argument.

So the fact that these games were all really different from each other
Several are actually similar to each other design wise, but I'd be a fool for expecting you to have actually looked into each game on YT or whatnot.

you're now backing off of the very point we were arguing in the first place as if it never happened.
No, this is what never happened. You have convinced yourself that your imagination is reality. At no point in your original hosts did you hint at this new point that was never relevant to the conversation, and I intentionally ignored when you first brought it up because it was not relevant,

which was not about the absolute non-existence of these games but by the relative rarity and unclear set of conventions.
Except it was, as shown above in your own quote. Conventions were never originally part of the conversation.

To imply these games were somehow common involves some real reaching.
No it's not, are you really going to put your foot in your mouth again? Why make these absolute claims you've already somewhat admitted you don't know already?
 
Last edited:

OldBoyGamer

Banned
The 8 bits were doing it before then....


The Speccy even had a 3d authoring package as part of its suite of pack in software.


These early 3d games were the one style of game where the ZX Spectrum could have bragging rights over any C64 version.....the 64's processor just wasn't as capable for that style of game.
Came to Say this. And that’s filled in 3D. The 8 boys were more than capable of making vector 3D games long before those even.

Someone mentioned Elite above. Catch 23 was another and of course 3D starstrike.
 
Came to Say this. And that’s filled in 3D. The 8 boys were more than capable of making vector 3D games long before those even.

Someone mentioned Elite above. Catch 23 was another and of course 3D starstrike.
8-bits didn't have the output though, it was more common to see 3D games, and several of the 8-bit 3D games came from downgrades from the 16-bits, or the 32-bit Acorn.

They are still impressive given the hardware, the ZX was pretty weak compared to its contemporaries so those aren't a small feat at all.
 

SF Kosmo

The Trigglypuff
This is your original reply



Which was wrong.
No, it's really not. By any sane metric, it was a nascent genre in 1985. There are a handful of mostly obscure and/or weird examples, which I acknowledged from the jump, but it was still very much a new frontier.

This is the next reply


Which was also wrong.

Again it's not. I think you're failing to understand the difference between a handful of games that retroactively meet a criteria and the existence of a recognized set of conventions that constitute a genre.

Like, there are a plenty of early games that are first person and involve shooting, stuff like Panther or Spasim, and even stuff that more resembles and directly influences later stuff like MIDI Maze, but to act like anyone would have thought of these as first person shooters at that point in time is revisionist, it doesn't become a genre until these games get popular and people start to copy them.


Several are actually similar to each other design wise, but I'd be a fool for expecting you to have actually looked into each game on YT or whatnot.
I'm already familiar with most of them and I think retroactively we would put those games in with what came later, but I don't know that we would have back then.

It's like how we call Stooges or MC5 proto punk now but that framing didn't exist at the time.

No, this is what never happened.
Or maybe you're mistook my point and you're just digging in like a maniac instead of listening to anything I am saying.
 
Last edited:
No, it's really not. By any sane metric, it was a nascent genre in 1985. There are a handful of mostly obscure and/or weird examples, which I acknowledged from the jump
You didn't acknowledge nothing from the jump, i quoted your posts. There's also more than a handful, you are continuing to say things you KNWO and have partially ADMITTED to not knowing about and are still making absolute claims. Stop it.

Again it's not. I think you're failing to understand the difference between a handful of games that retroactively meet a criteria and the existence of a recognized set of conventions that constitute a genre.

I understand you are moving goal posts, and continuing to add things to the discussion you never originally brought up. While also ignoring that several games I listed among many I haven't, did share in several conventions, and they even had names for these games before "1985". But despite still being wrong none of this was ever in you original posts anyway, like now you are just injecting new things in and pretending they were there from the start, as if the original posts and the quotes of them aren't still readily available to read.

if you want to have a separate conversation about whether or not games (which they were many) before SMB had conventions or not that's fine, but I don't really like how you're clearly trying to backpedal and mislead about what you actually said at the start of this conversation. Which is ONLY that:

1. Scrolling platformers didn't exist before SMB and Pac-Land (wrong)
2. Scrolling Platformers were just starting to exist (wrong)

Those were your first to posts, anything else you added later. Simple as that.

I'm already familiar with most of them and I think retroactively we would put those games in with what came later, but I don't know that we would have back then.

So you're comment from before saying that "there are only like, 5 games that existed" was deliberately misleading for no reason? Or are you lying about already being familiar with most of the games i listed?

Again

This is your original reply

And in 1985 no less, like 2D scrolling platformers were just starting to exist

Which was wrong.

This is the next reply

I said scrollong platformers in particular. While it's true there might have been a couple odd experiments like Snokie on C64, the genre didn't really exist as such until Pac Land (1984) in the arcade and Super Mario Bros on NES,
Which was also wrong.

You also said this in the post you abruptly attempted to change topic,

I call BS on this. There were like maybe 5. Snokie, Jungle King, B.C.'s Quest for Tires, Jump Bug...

But now say this in response to my list

I'm already familiar with most of them

So I'm having trouble analyzing your reliability in this conversation. It's hard to "mistook" a point that never originally existed.
 
Last edited:

SirTerry-T

Member
8-bits didn't have the output though, it was more common to see 3D games, and several of the 8-bit 3D games came from downgrades from the 16-bits, or the 32-bit Acorn.

They are still impressive given the hardware, the ZX was pretty weak compared to its contemporaries so those aren't a small feat at all.
It wasn't that weak, if we look past the lack of custom graphics hardware...the Speccy's processor was pretty fast for the 8-bit home micros of that era, which is why most of those early 3d titles performed the best on the Sinclair hardware.

There were plenty of 3d games on the 8-bit micros before the 16-bit machines arrived too.

Starglider 2 on the ST was probably the first of the 16-bit 3d games to really grab the computing press headlines of the time.
 
Last edited:

SirTerry-T

Member
Starglider 2 (and 1) were programmed by Jez San who went on to help develop the Super FX chip which made Star Fox possible.

Some other early stuff.

Freescape engine running adventure game Driller (1987) on the ZX Spectrum and Amiga.


Geoff Crammond. Revs (1984 BBC Micro), The Sentinel (1986 Amiga), Stunt Car Racer (1989 Amiga).

Stunt Cat racer was one of the first "cross play" games too, you could play 2 player races with an ST connected to an Amiga via the serial port on each machine.

Crammond was a bit of a genius on the quiet :)
 

SF Kosmo

The Trigglypuff
You didn't acknowledge nothing from the jump, i quoted your posts. There's also more than a handful, you are continuing to say things you KNWO and have partially ADMITTED to not knowing about and are still making absolute claims. Stop it.
No, dude, you are inferring things I never said and straight up refusing to listen when I explain. You're willfully ignoring context and straight up bullshitting about what I said.

I understand you are moving goal posts,
It's not moving goal posts it's clarifying what I said since you obviously didn't understand. JFC.

I never said I didn't think these games exist. I didn't think you could name that many because they were rare and obscure, and on that I was wrong and I give you props, but you're still ignoring the point.

While also ignoring that several games I listed among many I haven't, did share in several conventions
, and they even had names for these games before "1985".
I never said that none of these games shared any conventions, again I said that it was still a new genre in the process of being defined. And again the context in which I said this was to frame Mercenary and how ahead of its time it was, that this game was attempting a genre that really wouldn't take off in the mainstream consciousness for many years.
1. Scrolling platformers didn't exist before SMB and Pac-Land (wrong)
Absolutely never said anything of the sort. I am obviously well aware of the existence of earlier games and named several.

2. Scrolling Platformers were just starting to exist (wrong)

But again, that's true. Platform games would eventually come to be the most dominant genre of the 8-bit and 16-but generations, but in 1985 they were pretty uncommon and novel. Nothing you have said in any way contradicts that point and yet you still won't let it go.
 
No, dude, you are inferring things I never said a
I directly quoted you.. i didn't infer a thing.

It's not moving goal posts it's clarifying what I said
This goal post move isn't going to work and I'm not letting you steer the conversation away from what you said. Took you multiple posts to even bring up conventions and the first time you brought it up you weren't even explaining anything that happened AFTER. For multiple posts before either, you doubled down on a false statement and explained jack shit. Stop this attempt to manufacture your own posts into something you didn't say.

I never said that none of these games shared any conventions,
You've said this and implied it heavy multiple times now, and all your psots are clearly visible to anyone with working eyes.

Absolutely never said anything of the sort. I am obviously well aware of the existence of earlier games and named several.
I directly quotes you saying this, which again, is obvious to anyone with working eyes.

But again, that's true. Platform games would eventually come to be the most dominant genre of the 8-bit and 16-but generations, but in 1985 they were pretty uncommon
They were not uncommon, you literally are sitting here lying about something you KNWO you DOM'T KNOW with no proof, several of these games I listed are talked about not just back in the day among gamers and the press, but even now, and that still is not even half the amount of games that existed, just say "I don't know how popular or common these games are" and things would be fine instead of continuing to make absolute claims that continue to be wrong.
 

SF Kosmo

The Trigglypuff
I directly quoted you.. i didn't infer a thing.
Then you don't know how the English language works, dude.

I directly quotes you saying this, which again, is obvious to anyone with working eyes.
No, you fucking didn't. I never said Pac Land and SMB were the first, and you didn't quote me saying anything if the sort.

They were not uncommon,
Then we have vastly different concepts of what common means. Except we don't, because you're making a complete double standard just for me.

Like, you know how you named this thread "early" 3D, even though 3D gaming in some sense goes back to the 1970s, because in the grand scheme of things, 3D was still relatively uncommon and novel in the late 80s and early 90s?

Because everyone here got what you meant by saying the genre was early/relatively new. And no one felt the need to reply to you 10 times like an aspie lunatic, because it was fairly easy to glean what you meant.

But somehow when someone else discusses another genre in almost exactly the same way, your brain shuts down and you forget how these same basic linguistic concepts work.
 
Last edited:
Man, this thread started so nice. Now it's just annoying and unnecessary shit-flinging.

/Unsubscribe
It's one guy acting like people can't read multiple of his posts, and he's trying to go backwards and pretend he said something else, trying desperately to fully change the original discussion which I'm not letting happen. Personally, there's nothing more to talk with him about, and no one is going to be tricked.

So moving on, I've got more gifs coming up for some more 3D games I found recently, I just need to organize them for each console.
 
Last edited:

OldBoyGamer

Banned
8-bits didn't have the output though, it was more common to see 3D games, and several of the 8-bit 3D games came from downgrades from the 16-bits, or the 32-bit Acorn.

They are still impressive given the hardware, the ZX was pretty weak compared to its contemporaries so those aren't a small feat at all.
I originally played elite on the zx spectrum. Ran like a dream at the time. :)

Edit (Lenslock aside). 😁
 
Last edited:
I originally played elite on the zx spectrum. Ran like a dream at the time. :)

Edit (Lenslock aside). 😁

I always wondered how the ZX would have done in the US if it was marketed correctly as an affordable entry level device. I know there was a renamed model or clone that came out back in the day but it was handled so poorly and presented less as affordable and more as "cheap junk" that was completely taken a back by how horrendous the marketing was.

US consumers are very fickle, there's a fine line between having a product that's seen as good value and affordable compared to one that's a cheap compromised alternative or knockoff.
 

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
Let me add some stuff here too (Amazing thread by the way:)

Vyper (Mindset Personal Computer, 1984):


The Mindset was quite literally the Amiga before the Amiga. Boasting a 80186 processor, The Mindset implemented a blitter much in the same vein the Amiga OCS and Atari STE had one. Except this one did it first :p (And was done by ex-Atari engineers much like the Amiga)

Because of it, it drew 50 times as fast as a CGA adapter. Due to the custom hardware, it never sold well. And as for games? Well, there are just a handful, the best well known being Vyper. It is a strange game, but it is also ultra impressive for its time. Remember, back then, the top visuals delivered were in the arcades:
  • Namco Pole Position (1982) 2x Zilog Z8002 co-processors)
  • Sega VCO Object (1981) (Sprite scaling)
  • Atari I, Robot (1983) (Uses a Math-Box built out of 4x 4-bit AMD 29001 bit-slice processors to create a 16-bit CPU, one of the first games to use shaded polygons)
  • Cube Quest (1983) (by Simutrek. One of the first uses of the 68000 in games, and one of the very first 3D games, even predating I-Robot)
  • Atari System IV (1985) (Used for The Last Starfighter, hugely expensive)
So to have this kind of stuff at home, was very special.

Ofcourse this is ignoring Evans & Sutherland and SGI stuff.

I could list the 3D stuff for the Apple Pippin, but thats a mid-90's machine in the PSX era. Probably not that interesting.

Onto the comments:
What exactly is the ‘Acorn Archimedes 32’? Wikipedia says there’s an Acorn Archimedes 300 series from 1987, as well as an ‘3020’ model from 1992; but I can’t find anything about a ‘32’ model. Dark Wood in particular looks impressive; if that actually runs on the 300 model from 1987 then that would be truly amazing. But if it’s the 3020 model from 1992 then not quite as much.
It is likely a shortened name for Acorn Archimedes, 32 bit because that is what they advertised the device with back at the time.
Atari STE could run doom in a smaller window.
I love to see this backed up somehow. Contrary to belief, both Amiga and Atari STE are notoriously bad for games like Doom due to their blitters working with chunky data. Doom is a game with planes, so a C2P (Chunky 2 Planar) conversion needs to take place, which drags things down.

A 020/030 really is the minimum for Doom, and it starts to play nice with a fast 040 but a 060 would be best.

Novacoder uses that as a target for his various ports of Doom to Amiga 68K (ZDoom 1.22, Odamex, Boom, and so on). All of these should also run on a Falcon if that was targetted. See also the DoomWiki page on Amiga Doom (Which i created).

Atari Falcon can run ultimate doom with ease, and is arguably comparable in some ways to the Jaguar.
Better so: Atari Falcon has Bad Mood, which is rather a hybrid engine (similar to Dread, actually, in that its mostly a custom renderer rather than the Doom renderer itself) that renders Doom levels. Doug Little (Who also did an even more insane Quake 2 like engine on Falcon) is a technical tour de force for the platform, utilizing Falcon's DSP as a proto-GPU in similar fashion to how the SPU's in PlayStation 3 were utilized. The result is Doom with some features unique for the platform, which is what one would recieve if Doom was officially ported to Falcon and taken advantage of its hardware.
The post you quoted was about 3D games comparing the ST and Amiga in general not Virus. Most 3D games aren't optimized for the Amiga to be honest as that's not what it's focus was, but there are Amiga devs who have made 3D games optimized for it, or as much as they could.
The infamous Alien Breed 3D2: The Killing Grounds comes to mind. Heck, its incredibly impressive - But one game beats it out:

Trapped 2.


Not only does it have things like light sourcing, reflections, 3D models and so on, it also actually runs decent on a mere 030/040. Trapped 2 (and Trapped: Das Rad Von Talmar) were done by Michael Piepgras of Oxyron, a demoscene group noteworthy for their C64 demo's... In short, Trapped 2 hits the hardware hard and pushes Amiga further than most games. One could argue that Quake 2 bests it, but that's a PC port. Trapped 2's engine is designed for Amiga.
There's a modern Doom engine now that actually runs playable on OCS / stock A500. But the author is building his own game with it, so we're unlikely to ever see a direct Doom replica, though it looks within realm of possibility.
Dread's engine is very much like Bad Mood's or even Doom SNES - a custom engine that interprets Doom levels. It is incredibly impressive given the constraints of the hardware it targets (A500/Atari ST) in a world where Wolfenstein 3D for ST was already impressive. Stuff like floors and room-over-room? It is happening. Once again developed by a demoscener (It is the way to go to push your hardware), it works with similar level design tools as for modern Doom mapping. Because of it, it is relatively easy to create new levels.
DOOM needs a 386 CPU to run on PCs. With a 386DX/40 the game struggles and you need to run it in low-res mode with a medium sized window. And even then it will run around 15 to 20 fps on average.
This is where FastDoom comes in - A rather insane port that is designed to run Doom as fast as possible on 386 PC's. It supports tons of old CGA/EGA/VGA adapters and has optimized assembly to run even faster. Doomworld thread.


Star Fighter is nowhere near as complex as DOOM. It's a big flat surface with a bunch of boxy polygonal shapes for structures. DOOM's architecture detail in it's maps is far beyond that game.
Far as i can tell Star Fighter implements a 3D renderer with proper true looking up and down. By default that beats it out with Doom.

What you are describing is the artstyle and the detail presented there. Doom's texture work is (dare i say) superior to Star Fighter's, but Star Fighter's look is decidely, cleaner, i'd say. It makes more use of solid colors and little textures which is what is so admirable on that 80's 3D show.

This concludes my TED talk. Thank you for reading.
 
Last edited:

Fafalada

Fafracer forever
Let me add some stuff here too (Amazing thread by the way:)
Vyper (Mindset Personal Computer, 1984):
Pretty fascinating - I've never heard of this one before. Even more so given Vectrex came out just 2 years prior and the jump here is pretty large for a home device indeed.


Dread's engine is very much like Bad Mood's or even Doom SNES - a custom engine that interprets Doom levels.
I mean yes, that's true - but I'd say it's also semantics. When people debate 'can it run X' it's never a question of 'can it run the same code for X' - but whether it can reproduce (or how closely) the experience of X. ;)
Especially when it comes to translating engine that ran 100% on CPU to special hw of a SNES or Amiga, because the respective CPUs could never keep up on their own (even without the graphic-packing limitations).
 

SirTerry-T

Member
I always wondered how the ZX would have done in the US if it was marketed correctly as an affordable entry level device. I know there was a renamed model or clone that came out back in the day but it was handled so poorly and presented less as affordable and more as "cheap junk" that was completely taken a back by how horrendous the marketing was.

US consumers are very fickle, there's a fine line between having a product that's seen as good value and affordable compared to one that's a cheap compromised alternative or knockoff.
Years (decades) ago, C&VG magazine... (arguably one of the best video game mags that ever sat on a newsagents shelf) ran an article where some US Video Game Champion Team, or such like, had a play on some of the machines that were not really common on American shores. The Spectrum was one of them.

Surprisingly enough, it wasn't the infamous ZX Spectrum attribute clash or lack of graphics hardware that bothered them but the sound.

The Speccy sound was far from great but with the right person behind it some incredible results could be prised out of it....Tim Follin's work with the ZX "beeper" is nothing short of genius.
 
Last edited:
Years (decades) ago, C&VG magazine... (arguably one of the best video game mags that ever sat on a newsagents shelf) ran an article where some US Video Game Champion Team, or such like, had a play on some of the machines that were not really common on American shores. The Spectrum was one of them.

Surprisingly enough, it wasn't the infamous ZX Spectrum attribute clash or lack of graphics hardware that bothered them but the sound.

The Speccy sound was far from great but with the right person behind it some incredible results could be praised out of it....Tim Follin's work with the ZX "beeper" is nothing short of genius.

Sound was a big thing in the US, Tandy had to replace some computers due to consumer dissatisfaction with sound. When you look at early computer history the only platform that got away with bad sound was when IBM PC started to come out and the clones not long after. Not just weak in sound but graphics as well for quite some time.

The whole PC speaker vs. Soundblaster thing was alien to Micro users. Something that was seen as impressive on PC like CGA Commander Keen got puzzling looks.
 
You know I was relooking at the accomplishment to get BHP running on the Acorn and I think that the Acorn may have been stronger, well maybe not stronger but could more easily produce better 3D graphics than many Jaguar games:

BHP on the Acorn



Jaguar Checkered Flag


The only advantage I see from this gif is that the Jaguar could produce larger polygons but they are simple and flat. I don't think that Atari Jaguar could handle a game like BHP. You can see the flat buildings and mountains are towering over the car showing that the Jaguar can have large polys but if you can't do anything with them des that matter?

I tried to look for other driving games on search for the jaguar and found this on Atariage



World Tour Racing. This is a more comparable game but I'm seeing a worse frame rate, and still seeing a lot of solid polygons without much detail and single colored blocks. I'm assuming that when there's another car on the screen the frame rate drops even worse. It does look miles better than the above Jaguar game but it also looks more grainy and smudged too.

Maybe World Tour Racing is more impressive and I'm seeing things, but to me BHP looks better and if anything that's quite a mark against the Jaguar, it's either weaker than the Acorn line for 3D, which shouldn't be the case, or Jaguar development was so bad this was among the best you can do with it. I'm also making an assumption this gif is showing a race and the other cars are off-screen, if this is some practice trial where there's only one car than this is pretty damning.
 
Top Bottom