Jerry Orbach
Member
The Diamond Stealth 3D 3000 launched in '96, the S3 Virge chipset in '95. In '94, a PC video card was just a dumb framebuffer, at least as far as games were concerned.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Virtua Fighter 3. What a badass game!
- Thread starter Trojan X
- Start date
The Diamond Stealth 3D 3000 launched in '96, the S3 Virge chipset in '95. In '94, a PC video card was just a dumb framebuffer, at least as far as games were concerned.
My PC knowledge of the time is limited... but I'm actually not even convinced at this point that it's more limited than your is.
Your arcade knowledge for that period of time is evidently non-existent however comparatively.
You're also simultaneously arguing "it had Model 2 ports, with says a lot" whilst also stating "Saturn ports, they don't count" when those ports are shown to not be comparable to the Model 2 versions at all.
I'm well aware that PCs were more powerful than Saturns... but I'm also aware that they weren't on the same level as specialist hardware in the arcades.
The original point you were making was that the PCs were on par. First with Model 3 (lol), and then with Model 2. You weren't claiming that they were simply closer to arcade hardware, you were claiming they were on par.
You've had ample chance to demonstrate this, by detailing hardware or software of the time that was comparable.. but have constantly failed to offer this. The reason for this, is that you're wrong and have nothing to offer as evidence for your claims.
The Gorby Congressmanz
Banned
That period of time? The model 2 came out in 1996?
The fact vf2 can run at arcade settings prove it's on par with model 2 fps aside. For model 3 I used 1998 which a few here actually agreed with.
You seem to have gotten lost in this thread somewhere.
I'm still waiting to be proven wrong, I'm 1998 the pc was running with the dreamcast and past it a bit later and that was naomi. That's Check for model 3.
Fps aside, VA can be played in a playable state on an UNACCELERATED GRAPHICS CARD at arcade quality according to the link above. Let alone an accelerated one. Check for model 2.
Where am I wrong?
Model 2 is 1993 with Daytona USA.
Model 3 was 1996 with Virtua Fighter 3.
Virtua Fighter 2 can't run with the arcade settings. It had Model 2 based character models (which I'm convinced you only know because I just told you...), but it was always stuck with a 2D background, whereas the Model 2 game had fully 3D backgrounds and more advanced lighting. Even then enabling the Model 2 character models on the home port was performance suicide right up to when the Dreamcast would come into play.
Your argument against Model 3 comes 2 years after the point where you originally tried to claim PCs were a match (Virtua Fighter 3, a 1996 game). You did this in contrast to consoles btw... so pushing the timeline back until a point where there was a console that was equivalent to Model 3 is just silly. And nobody agreed with the example you tried to offer up against Scud Race. That was one of the more humorous things I've seen on this forum over the years.
I'm not the one lost in this conversation.
The Gorby Congressmanz
Banned
Literally have links showing on a unaccelerated card an arcade quality vf2 confirming model 2. We have people knowingly admitting that the dreamcast and pc were trading multiplies in 1998-199 which is naomi hardware but the pc can't beat model 3?
Im not sure how much more prof is needed. But seems we are getting nowhere.
Im not sure how much more prof is needed. But seems we are getting nowhere.
The Gorby Congressmanz
Banned
I know it was 1993, you said by questions on model 2 meant I knew nothing on hardware in the period the thread was discussing. Which was 1996.
The gs review of pc vf2 contradicts your claim, it can run vf at arcade quality although with some sacrifices with an UNACCELLERATED CARD. Imagine it with an accelerated card. You are completely lost.
My model 3 isn't wrong either pc was particularly g with the dc which was naomi hardware 1998+.
Spladam
Member
Then it was my Virge in 95 and the Voodoo in 96, The Voodoo would get replaced with a Riva about two months before that machine imploded. It doesn't seem like 20 years though... but it was indeed a long time ago.
The Gorby Congressmanz
Banned
Im tired of the circles bottom line:
1.pc could run vf with some sacrifices on a card without acceleration according to gs, so with a card that did it should be obvious it can run.
2. Naomi is Dreamcast hardware , pc was running with then passing dreamcast in 1998 and later. Which makes it strange why people still think the pc couldn't touch the model 3 unless the naomi hardware was drastically weaker than the model 3. By 2000 it would be ahead of both so I don't se how 1998+ is wrong.
Now then. Back to vf3 stuff.
1.pc could run vf with some sacrifices on a card without acceleration according to gs, so with a card that did it should be obvious it can run.
2. Naomi is Dreamcast hardware , pc was running with then passing dreamcast in 1998 and later. Which makes it strange why people still think the pc couldn't touch the model 3 unless the naomi hardware was drastically weaker than the model 3. By 2000 it would be ahead of both so I don't se how 1998+ is wrong.
Now then. Back to vf3 stuff.
nkarafo
Member
Gorby, you have to realize that the PC made huge jumps after 1996 ended.
Basically, in 1996 it would struggle against PS1/N64 and in 1998 it reached Dreamcast levels. And all that thanks to 3D accelerators becoming the standard.
As for when the PC reached Model 2 levels, i would say around mid 1997. And Model 3 levels somewhere in 1998. In 1999 it surpassed the Dreamcast, i know this because i had a Voodoo 3 and i could play Quake 3 at 60fps while the DC port was lower resolution at 30fps.
Basically, in 1996 it would struggle against PS1/N64 and in 1998 it reached Dreamcast levels. And all that thanks to 3D accelerators becoming the standard.
As for when the PC reached Model 2 levels, i would say around mid 1997. And Model 3 levels somewhere in 1998. In 1999 it surpassed the Dreamcast, i know this because i had a Voodoo 3 and i could play Quake 3 at 60fps while the DC port was lower resolution at 30fps.
To put it bluntly... GS would also not know what they're talking about in that case. I owned the VF2 port for PC, on a PC you couldn't have even built in 1996. It absolutely cannot match the Model 2 version.
And you were wrong about the PC being on par with Model 3 in 1996. You walked it back to 1998 later, but your example for them was still bad regardless.
The Gorby Congressmanz
Banned
I never said at model 3s launch I never walked back anything. You are again lost in the thread.
And I'm sure gs knows what hardware their pcs had for the multiple games they reviewed with it especially when they specified it was nonacelerated. Face it you lost. Even the gs link backfired.
My point still stands and now the excuse is gs has no idea what they are doing? Lol.
As for model 3 just admit it was on par I'm 1998+ as I said pages back. It was on par and later surpassed the dc so by common sense it was on par then past the model 3 unless you're saying naomi hardware was much weaker than the model 3.
nkarafo
Member
Best looking PC games in
1996 - Quake 1 (below Model 2 levels)
1997 - Dark Forces 2, Quake 2 (around Model 2 levels)
1998 - Unreal, Falcon 4.0, Half-Life (early Model 3 levels)
1999 - Unreal Tournament (later Model 3, Naomi, DC levels)
Late 1999/early 2000 - Quake 3 (above DC levels)
I think that's how it went down.
1996 - Quake 1 (below Model 2 levels)
1997 - Dark Forces 2, Quake 2 (around Model 2 levels)
1998 - Unreal, Falcon 4.0, Half-Life (early Model 3 levels)
1999 - Unreal Tournament (later Model 3, Naomi, DC levels)
Late 1999/early 2000 - Quake 3 (above DC levels)
I think that's how it went down.
Spladam
Member
I can endorse that. Also, good to see the Falcon 4.0 mention in there.
The Gorby Congressmanz
Banned
I agree mostly but I think pc did a. Bit of dc level in 98.
nkarafo
Member
I suppose the hardware did exist if you had the cash and maybe these 1998 examples could be pushed at higher frame rates to reach that level, maybe.
Edit: Thanks for these scans AmyS!
And yeah, i don't think the Voodoo 2 was as good as the Model 3. IMO it goes like this: Voodoo 2<Model 3<Voodoo 3
Spladam
Member
Yeah, Voodoo 2 released in early 1998.
Speaking of Voodoo 2...
Wow, you could get a Voodoo 1 for $99 in 1998.
Also, Lol, great spot.
Nostalgia, Sierra online was still publisher and Hexen was still a thing. I had forgotten about that sadness that was Daikatana.
Great article.
The Gorby Congressmanz
Banned
I think the voodoo 2 had the capability with high end hardware. At least step 1. I'd say in 1998 you could find some dc like games.
PdotMichael
Banned
Well, the Voodoo 2 couldn't even do T&L on their own and were dependent to the CPU for all kind of calculations and effects.
Though two Voodoo 2 cards in sli-mode were pretty beasty.
Though two Voodoo 2 cards in sli-mode were pretty beasty.
Team Andromeda
Banned
I don't agree there. Lots of N64 games didn't run at anywhere near 30 fps and 99% run is low res and washed out and blurry graphics and games like Wave Race couldn't even handle a full screen display even on a NTSC system, never mind its sub par 30 fps.
The chipset was pretty rubbish imo, but I do think its a great console because of the games
Spladam
Member
Wave Race was an amazing game and one of my favorites of that generation. The gameplay was so tight I would routinely duplicate lap times down to the thousandth of a second.
On Topic: I very much wish we could play Virtua Fighter against each other online on the PS4.
Team Andromeda
Banned
I agree, but the game was running in low res, didn't support full screen window and didn't run at 30 fps. I though the SGI N64 chipset to be lame and the lack of sound hardware a huge step back from the mighty Snes sound hardware
You're right. I meant to say that most N64 games were "30fps rather than 60fps", even those many weren't even close to 30fps. The N64 chipset wasn't that great, and Sega passed up an early version of it in 1993. Nintendo 64 released almost a year late and under powered. Zelda Ocarina of Time ran at 22fps.
Still, Nintendo 64 had some amazing, groundbreaking games that were so much fun to play and Nintendo masterfully made the leap from 2D to 3D. It seems like Nintendo struggled much more making the jump from standard definition to HD which is sort of ironic since going from games in 2D to fully 3D seems like a much more dramatic change in gameplay.
Spladam
Member
What is this about not supporting full screen, this is new to me. Are you talking about the PAL version (Just found that video searching for waver race frame rate)? I remember it had some slowdown sometimes, but I recall it running rather smoothly. Maybe it's just my nostalgic memory. I can't find anything about the frame rate in internet search, would love to know more though.
-Edit: The water physics still impress me, it's one of the few N64 games I can go back to anytime and play.
FWIW, i played for 4 hours straight last night on XB1
would love a PS4 / Steam port tho
The Gorby Congressmanz
Banned
It meant that Nintendo would have to actually use decent hardware for HD which Nintendo always never had. Nes and snes were made for additions in the cartridges because the Base platforms were weak. N64 was released a year late, barely stronger I'm SOME areas than the psx which wasn't even that much of a leap from the 3do.
I mean it's one reason the DC releasing in 1999 was a good thing to me. Consoles were back in 86 when consoles were so far behind all 3 contenders were basically using coleco hardware.
I would love to play you, but I don't have faith on a chile-usa match
Team Andromeda
Banned
It runs in bordered display even on NTSC system a bit like RE 4 on the Cube, but nowhere near as bad as Daytona USA on the Saturn.
It had a constant frame rate, but it was sub 30 fps, very like like Panzer Dragoon onthe Saturn . It had a conistant framerate and so was smooth, but it wasn't running at 30fps and more like 25fps.
Team Andromeda
Banned
Yep, Pilotwings N64 only run at something like 22 fps, there were quite a few N64 games that came nowhere near 30 fps, never mind 60 fps. The N64 chipset wasn't that great imo and to make matter worse the N64 had a terrible display output with blurry washed out colours and low res graphics and the lack of sound hardware was shocking .
The N64 was still fab, thanks to the talents of the likes of NCL and RARE
Spladam
Member
Not to keep going off topic, but My Life in Gaming had a great video about the image quality limitations on the N64 and one particular mod to help with it.
Even though it was capable of 640 x 480 video output, it seems very few titles used it.
Despite all these things, none of them diminish my fondness for the system.
That's.... interesting. I apparently had a much higher tolerance threshold for these things back then. Would never have guessed the entire thing was in the low 20's. I cherish my memories with that game.
Team Andromeda
Banned
Gameplay wins out in the end , like it did with Daytona USA on the Saturn . Truth be told there were far more Saturn games that run at 30fps or 60 fps than they was on the N64 .
I love my N64 and did back inthe day, but the SGI chipset wasn't that great imo and in many ways the N64 was a step back from the Saturn and PS for sound, textures and High or medium Res display. That said when it came to open world games it really outclassed the PS and Saturn .
jon_irenicus
Member
Why the LOL? I think that statement that the Voodoo 2 rivals Model 3 in performance is pretty accurate. On PC, developers will always aim for the lowest common denominator because not everyone has the highest end hardware (the era we're discussing here would be two Voodoo 2s in SLI) so games on PC generally don't end up looking as good as games on Model 3 that are targeted specifically for that spec. That's why tech demos were the only way to gauge the capabilities of high end PC hardware at the time. XL-R8R for example (link below) ran at 1024-768 60FPS on my Voodoo 2 SLI, which pushed 4 times the amount of pixels onscreen versus any Model 3 game and produced visuals that exceeded any Model 3 game by a fair margin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9me-8DG5dtQ
The Gorby Congressmanz
Banned
nkarafo
Member
It's pretty good. Almost as good as Model 2 emulator is for Model 2 games at this point.
Sub 30fps wasn't as bad back then (as long as it was stable). CRT TVs were smaller and also handled motion much better than LCDs. I can hardly accept 30fps on a big LCD TV nowadays but i don't have a problem with 30fps games when i play older consoles on my CRT. They feel smoother there.
Also, it wasn't just the N64 that suffered. Saturn was also pretty bad with this or worse, most of my favorite Saturn games run at sub-30 fps. Duke Nukem and Quake aren't exactly smooth. The original Daytona was also 20fps but they improved this with the Championship Edition. My point is that it's not the console's fault, frame rate is game dependent. There are a bunch of games that run at 60fps but most N64 developers wanted to push the system, plus it's multiple filters and z-buffering were very resource heavy and most developers used those features by default.
Demos and benchmarks are a bad way to do this kind of comparison. They are on-rails, calculated and most of the times, scripted. A proper game has many more variables to take into account. Remember 3D Mark 2006? I could run it pretty well with my x1950pro but when games did actually started looking as good (3-4 years later) i needed a 8800GT to handle those with decent performance. The same goes for older 3D Marks or VGA demos.
Right... I had friends over last night, and wasn't about to spend my time typing out a wall of text on GAF, so this response is delayed. But with that said...
Are you for real!?
This entire thread is about Virtua Fighter 3. The first Model 3 game in existence, released July of 1996. In response to someone stating that it was "a huge step up to everything AT THAT TIME", you waltzed into the thread claiming:
So firstly... don't try to play this shit off, like that was aimed at PC hardware from 1998. It wasn't, and that timeframe didn't come into the picture until your follow-up response talking about how PCs instead "caught up fast", and then offered up a game from 1998. So yes, you walked that shit back hard.
Secondly, you explicitly mentioned consoles as being "always weaker than arcades", so you screwed your point over double by pushing the timeline back to the year the Dreamcast was released. It nullifies the only other point your quote could have been making, as that was the year the consoles became more powerful than Model 3 also.
It doesn't matter if they know what hardware they had in their PC. I know what hardware I had in mine running the game also. You're just appealing to authority on the subject, because you yourself actually have no clue. It takes like no time at all to pull up a comparison between the VF2 port on PC and others. This link here uses the XBLA release in place of the Model 2 version, but barring a higher output resolution, the XBLA version is graphically identical. Remember that Tekken 3 comparison between PlayStation and arcade? Pretty much the same deal here, in both the Saturn and PC versions, the background is a static 2d image, compared to the 3d rendered background in the arcades. There is nothing you can do to change this in the PC port.. and let me be clear once again, the game WOULD NOT RUN PLAYABLY with those Model 2 characters turned on, regardless of what PC you had. I've tried it on an Athlon 1ghz machine with a Riva TNT2, and it's still a disaster.
Besides... I said that GameSpot would not know what they were talking about, if they claimed the PC VF2 port could run with the same graphics as the arcade, because you said that it contradicted my claim that VF2 couldn't. Well, they were talking about Virtual On, not Virtua Fighter 2... so it doesn't contradict my claim at all. So GameSpot's rep can remain intact, and this is just you not even being able to differentiate the games we're discussing.
In terms of PC hardware, you won't get an argument from me that the PC could have done Model 2 quality graphics in 1997. That's in line with what I've been saying that whole time, about how I'd place the time around GLQuake (1997) as when the PC caught Model 2.
Nobody's claiming the PC wasn't up to Model 3 standards from 1998 onwards... even the consoles were Model 3 standard from 1998 onwards. This is a non-point. The only issue anyone took with 1998, was the game you picked to showcase (GP Legends). I myself offered up Unreal (a 1998 game) as the point where I believe we got a Model 3 level game at home.
Are you for real!?
This entire thread is about Virtua Fighter 3. The first Model 3 game in existence, released July of 1996. In response to someone stating that it was "a huge step up to everything AT THAT TIME", you waltzed into the thread claiming:
So firstly... don't try to play this shit off, like that was aimed at PC hardware from 1998. It wasn't, and that timeframe didn't come into the picture until your follow-up response talking about how PCs instead "caught up fast", and then offered up a game from 1998. So yes, you walked that shit back hard.
Secondly, you explicitly mentioned consoles as being "always weaker than arcades", so you screwed your point over double by pushing the timeline back to the year the Dreamcast was released. It nullifies the only other point your quote could have been making, as that was the year the consoles became more powerful than Model 3 also.
It doesn't matter if they know what hardware they had in their PC. I know what hardware I had in mine running the game also. You're just appealing to authority on the subject, because you yourself actually have no clue. It takes like no time at all to pull up a comparison between the VF2 port on PC and others. This link here uses the XBLA release in place of the Model 2 version, but barring a higher output resolution, the XBLA version is graphically identical. Remember that Tekken 3 comparison between PlayStation and arcade? Pretty much the same deal here, in both the Saturn and PC versions, the background is a static 2d image, compared to the 3d rendered background in the arcades. There is nothing you can do to change this in the PC port.. and let me be clear once again, the game WOULD NOT RUN PLAYABLY with those Model 2 characters turned on, regardless of what PC you had. I've tried it on an Athlon 1ghz machine with a Riva TNT2, and it's still a disaster.
Besides... I said that GameSpot would not know what they were talking about, if they claimed the PC VF2 port could run with the same graphics as the arcade, because you said that it contradicted my claim that VF2 couldn't. Well, they were talking about Virtual On, not Virtua Fighter 2... so it doesn't contradict my claim at all. So GameSpot's rep can remain intact, and this is just you not even being able to differentiate the games we're discussing.
In terms of PC hardware, you won't get an argument from me that the PC could have done Model 2 quality graphics in 1997. That's in line with what I've been saying that whole time, about how I'd place the time around GLQuake (1997) as when the PC caught Model 2.
Nobody's claiming the PC wasn't up to Model 3 standards from 1998 onwards... even the consoles were Model 3 standard from 1998 onwards. This is a non-point. The only issue anyone took with 1998, was the game you picked to showcase (GP Legends). I myself offered up Unreal (a 1998 game) as the point where I believe we got a Model 3 level game at home.
PdotMichael
Banned
It wasn't until the Geforce 256 when consumer 3D graphics cards even reached feature parity with the Model 3.
Even the NAOMI arcade board was a step ahead of everything at the time of its release.
Even the NAOMI arcade board was a step ahead of everything at the time of its release.
nkarafo
Member
That's interesting. Could you give some examples of those features?
In late 1999/early 2000 i had an early Pentium 3 450mhz paired with a VooDoo 3 card (which is inferior to Geforce) and i could play Quake 3 at max settings @ 800x600 - 60fps. I thought this experience was above Model 3 levels. And judging by the Dreamcast port of the game (lower resolution, 30fps) i would assume that this graphics card was superior. The only downside was the 16bit color limitation but could Model3/Naomi/DC do better color depth? I'm not sure tbh.
With that in mind, a Geforce 256 would pretty much crush everything we discussed in this topic so far.
This is a very old version with lots of glitches. New versions run the game flawesly.
Why you need to use that footage?
Microsofts Hunert Smoke
Banned
I don't understand. As I've viewed the thread I find it fascinating he has not realised the whole point of arcades.
Pc was nowhere near advanced hardware that was EXCLUSIVELY created for games. Daytona looked good because the hardware was made for everything you saw on the screen. On Pc, gaming was secondary.
Pc was nowhere near advanced hardware that was EXCLUSIVELY created for games. Daytona looked good because the hardware was made for everything you saw on the screen. On Pc, gaming was secondary.
deadscreensky
Member
Could this be one the earliest examples of the eyeballs can't see high frame rates myth?
(Some great comments in this thread -- and also a bit of insanity -- it's been a fun read.)
True.
I've never seen anything on an Nvidia TNT2 or 3Dfx Voodoo 3 (both released in early 1999) that surpassed the Model 3 Step 2.0 games released in 1998.
GeForce 256 (NV10) with its on-chip geometry engine / T&L finally gave PCs more graphics performance, in practice, not just paper specs, than the later Model 3 boards.
Also have to remember that 2nd generation consumer PC graphics cards never lived up to their huge paper specs in practice. Model 3's 1,000,000+ polygons a second was sustained real-world performance, did not rely on a fast CPU, and never dropped frames (60Hz / 60fps was actually some sort of built-in feature of the R3D Pro 1000 GPUs.
The one thing that threatened to take Model 3's performance crown around 1997 (but ultimately turned into a paper tiger) was Konami's Cobra System. he specs were said to be 1 to 5 million polygons per second. Later, it turned out it was only 1 million polygons, and needed additional boards to reach 5mpps.
Honestly though, Fighting Bujutsu looks about halfway between Tekken 3 and Virtua Fighter 3
Here it is running in MAME https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drqct7BIgKA
Of course emulation is just a work in progress, but at least you can see what kind of graphics it produced.
Konami Cobra System specs: http://system16.com/hardware.php?id=580
Racing Jam (and Racing Jam Chapter 2) actually ran on a slightly different board, the Konami NWK-TR.
The specs seem pretty much the same but officially use 3DFX chips, where as Cobra System graphics chips are "Custom IBM OpenGL board based on graphics options for the RS/6000 series workstations".
Konami NWK-TR specs: http://system16.com/hardware.php?id=581
petran79
Banned
Problem with PCs at that time were not the hardware but the software.
Windows 9x lacked the capabilities and performance of Windows NT to bring video games close to arcade quality. Windows NT on the other hand were not meant for games but rather game development.
Even so I remember how bad the PC port of Virtua Tennis 1 was. Except lacking 1 player, it also had performance issues. Even when I tried the game later on a much better computer, it could never reach the smoothness of the Dreamcast or Arcade version.
They may have been equal in theoritical hardware capabilities, but software wise those games were worlds apart even when they reached parity.
Windows 9x lacked the capabilities and performance of Windows NT to bring video games close to arcade quality. Windows NT on the other hand were not meant for games but rather game development.
Even so I remember how bad the PC port of Virtua Tennis 1 was. Except lacking 1 player, it also had performance issues. Even when I tried the game later on a much better computer, it could never reach the smoothness of the Dreamcast or Arcade version.
They may have been equal in theoritical hardware capabilities, but software wise those games were worlds apart even when they reached parity.
Ninja Scooter
Member
I remember playing Racing Jam back in the day. It was super impressive, in part because it had this huge panoramic monitor, but visually it was no match for Scud Racer. I remember all of the hype of the Cobra being a Model 3-killer in mags at the time too.
Same here, exactly.
Not at all a problem, you're welcome.