No doubt! Still the most technically impressive 3DS game for mestill pretty impressive, though.
they didn't not use Unity for Doom 2016, where the hell did you read that?From a technical point of view, I found Capcom's Resident Evil Revelations for 3DS pretty impressive and also Nintendo's Captain Toad port for 3DS.
I was also impressed with the Doom 2016 port for Switch, especially when I heard that they used Unity for it.
Lol. No, Jag and PS1's ports were better. And I am not even a fan of the franchise.It also outshined all the other ports of that time in some way or another despite being the least powerful machine by a huge stretch. Whether it be more content, music etc. Ultra impressive.
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.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
Lol. No, Jag and PS1's ports were better. And I am not even a fan of the franchise.
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.Wouldn't that make it make it even more impossible though? The normal engine didn't work, so they rewrote it to make it... possible.
That's even more impressive because no one knew it was a different engine until the developer told us so. Everyone else just saw it as downgraded Doom. And on top of that, the maps were more faithful to PC on SNES than all the other ports of the time, despite being the most underpowered console by miles.
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.
Yeah, the ugliest W3 ever but it's still W3. And it's playable, unlike Cyberpunk...Witcher 3 on Switch is pretty ambitious, no?
out of the games i have played i think gtav on ps3 is the most impressive i have seen.
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.
I think the thread was more about impossibly good instead of impossibly terrible.Cyberpunk 2077 for PS4 and Xbox One seems pretty impossible.
It does not matter. Having a choice no one would pick up this port other those I mentioned in 1995.
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
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 verison.
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.
i must be blind or something because i'm just now noticing that.It launched as a PS360 game - not a port.
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.
I was not impressed by it at all in 1995. It just used FX2 chip and they did with it what they could.
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).It included more levels, monsters, sound effects, a bigger screen, and better music than the 32x version.
It was too ambitious for the hardware. Far too much.
That is why it did not deliver a core Doom experience like Jag and PS1's one.
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).
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.
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.
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.
It doesn't actually use the Doom Engine.I'll start
DOOM SNES
Minimum specs for PC were 66mhz CPU and 8mb of RAM
SNES(FX2) was only 21mhz and 128KB of RAM for gaming lol
It included more levels, monsters, sound effects, a bigger screen, and better music than the 32x version. It actually has a more faithful PC map conversation than all the ports of that time. The framerate and resolution definitely suffered, but considering the specs it was insane.
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.They did a damn good job porting Doom 3 to the original XBox.
Now this is an actual title pushing the hardware. But, like Doom SNES, not using the actual engine.Quake 2 on the original PlayStation always impressed me. It had split screen multi player too if I recall. Obviously needed a multitap but still quite a feat.
Street Fighter Alpha 3 on the GBA was pretty impressive.
I recall the team wanted to attempt a SF3 GBA port too.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Well yeah, jaguar had much more processing power and about 15x more RAM. Lol
Do you want to know the hardware difference between SNES and KI-Arcade? Lol.