• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

3do rendered some very good graphics especially for its day

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
[I apologize in advance for another retarded thread.]
Despite the Saturn having way more RAM it couldn't render Myst quite as smoothly and well-blended water-color like the 3DO could (the FZ-10 was the best model by far i still have mine from mcvans video games); Saturn version still looked a little bit better than the unstable-contrasted Jag CD version as well as the PS1 version. The 3DO also rendered Alone in the Dark 2 the best in my opinion (the waterfalls in particular); we had it they didn't. 3DO liked to joke around too. OTOH, Doom 32X's errors were scary (the absolute worst version at least what i think)

The Saturn rendered very gritty graphics at times

Doom for the 3DO looked damn good (best looking version at least as far i think) and i hope to see it without slow access times one day. the folks at art data did a fine job. it's frame rate issues may have been from Cd caching and trying to make it work for both goldstar models and the panasonic rather than clock speeds
 

mmntech

Lifer
Sep 20, 2007
17,504
12
0
The 3DO wasn't bad for it's time. It was just too expensive for the average gamer to buy.

Normally console makers sell the hardware at cost (or even a loss) and recoup it on software licensing. The 3DO Company didn't actually make their own systems. They licensed them out. Since those companies didn't sell games, they sold the hardware at a profit. Which is why the damned things cost $700.

Hardware development was moving rapidly at the time. When the PlayStation launched two years later, it was quite a bit more powerful. Cheaper too. That's what ultimately sunk the 3DO and the Saturn.
 

Rakehellion

Lifer
Jan 15, 2013
12,179
35
91
The 3DO and the Saturn both failed so graphics are beside the point.

The PS2 had worse graphics than the Gamecube and Xbox but it sold more.
The Wii had worse graphics than the Xbox 360 and PS3 but it sold more.
The Game Boy and Nintendo DS had worse graphics than their competitors but sold way more.

Graphics aren't that important to many people.
 

SlitheryDee

Lifer
Feb 2, 2005
17,252
18
81
I do miss the days when console hardware was significantly different enough that each console had a distinct feel. The "gritty" quality of the Saturn's graphics was kind of unique to that console. The N64 and playstation both had their own look and feel as well. It was all due to the sometimes wildly different hardware choices console makers made during that time. Being a fanboy of a particular console was more fun back then because you had more stuff to argue about
 
Last edited:

mmntech

Lifer
Sep 20, 2007
17,504
12
0
The 3DO and the Saturn both failed so graphics are beside the point.

The PS2 had worse graphics than the Gamecube and Xbox but it sold more.
The Wii had worse graphics than the Xbox 360 and PS3 but it sold more.
The Game Boy and Nintendo DS had worse graphics than their competitors but sold way more.

Graphics aren't that important to many people.
Graphics do matter to a degree. That's how you get the early adopters, the hardcore gamers, in the door. The games are what sells the hardware though. That's why those systems did as well as they did.

The Wii was a bit of a fluke though. It was very gimmick driven. I think that roped a lot of people in.
 

Justinbaileyman

Golden Member
Aug 17, 2013
1,905
227
106
Yep I had a 3DO back in the day and a few good games. I was very excited to see 3DO-2 which was going to be call M2.It was supposed to go head to head with Ps2 but was for what ever reason canned.. Actually The games D2 And alone in the Dark 4 were supposed to debut on that new system.They were also supposed to bring a new DVD style compression to CD's where they could fit DVD content onto CD's by some means..
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,793
826
126
I do miss the days when console hardware was significantly different enough that each console had a distinct feel. The "gritty" quality of the Saturn's graphics was kind of unique to that console. The N64 and playstation both had their own look and feel as well. It was all due to the sometimes wildly different hardware choices console makers made during that time. Being a fanboy of a particular console was more fun back then because you had more stuff to argue about
I agree. I miss those days too. Distinctly different choices. Not this 'everyone needs the same exact thing' mentality that prevails today.
 

zerocool84

Lifer
Nov 11, 2004
36,041
469
126
I do miss the days when console hardware was significantly different enough that each console had a distinct feel. The "gritty" quality of the Saturn's graphics was kind of unique to that console. The N64 and playstation both had their own look and feel as well. It was all due to the sometimes wildly different hardware choices console makers made during that time. Being a fanboy of a particular console was more fun back then because you had more stuff to argue about
I loved games back then but I'm glad we have the consoles we have today.
 

futurefields

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2012
6,471
29
91
I do miss the days when console hardware was significantly different enough that each console had a distinct feel. The "gritty" quality of the Saturn's graphics was kind of unique to that console. The N64 and playstation both had their own look and feel as well. It was all due to the sometimes wildly different hardware choices console makers made during that time. Being a fanboy of a particular console was more fun back then because you had more stuff to argue about
agreed, it sucks that new consoles just use weak off the shelf PC components, and not only that, but nearly identical ones and in nearly identical architectures. its so boring and goes against what i loved about consoles. also you have to install the games now, they need day 1 patches to run right. theres just so much wrong with the whole situation now, why I ran back to the PC...
 

zerocool84

Lifer
Nov 11, 2004
36,041
469
126
agreed, it sucks that new consoles just use weak off the shelf PC components, and not only that, but nearly identical ones and in nearly identical architectures. its so boring and goes against what i loved about consoles. also you have to install the games now, they need day 1 patches to run right. theres just so much wrong with the whole situation now, why I ran back to the PC...
But you have those exact same things on PC.
 

iluvdeal

Golden Member
Nov 22, 1999
1,975
0
76
I know 3do was the expensive console but I really didn't lust after it back then as I wasn't dying to play any of its games. Neo Geo on the other hand...
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,050
12,822
126
most of those failed consoles had decent if not advanced hardware. People still use the Dreamcast with Linux.

They failed because they were either WAY too expensive or they had a piss poor library.
Case in point: PS getting the final fantasy franchise managed kill nintendos lead. Nabbing Castlevania helped too.
 
Last edited:

mizzou

Diamond Member
Jan 2, 2008
9,734
53
91
I will forever remember gaming on an ancient atari LYNX and then dumbfounding fellow gameboy players with how primitive their handheld was......then I had to change the batteries 12 times.
 

Wingznut

Elite Member
Dec 28, 1999
16,968
1
0
agreed, it sucks that new consoles just use weak off the shelf PC components, and not only that, but nearly identical ones and in nearly identical architectures. its so boring and goes against what i loved about consoles. also you have to install the games now, they need day 1 patches to run right. theres just so much wrong with the whole situation now, why I ran back to the PC...
But you have those exact same things on PC.
Exactly, that's what makes the consoles pointless. All the advantages they had are gone now.
Unless you want to play Sunset Overdrive, most any sports games, Uncharted, Halo, Forza, etc.

It's all about the games.™
 

Blitzvogel

Platinum Member
Oct 17, 2010
2,012
23
81
The follow up to the 3DO, the M2 was a beast for it's time (1996 I think).

Saturn's graphical forte was 2D games, especially 2D fighters. Some of the 2D fighters required a RAM expansion card for higher res graphics.

The PS2's Emotion Engine main processor was a beast of an IC for it's time. Unfortunately, it was burdened with vertex, geometry, and lighting unlike the GC and Xbox which had full 3D T&L GPUs. Also, most devs only used one of the two Vector Units. Games like Ratchet & Clank, MGS3, GT, Shadow of the Colossus really allowed the system to shine. I really wonder how well even the Xbox's CPU could handle some of those. I also like to ponder how much better the PS2 would've been with more memory, multi-pass texture mapping, higher clocks, and another vector unit. I feel it would've been as good as the Xbox. PS2 is probably my favorite console architecture even if it wasn't the best.

So now, imagine a straight up Emotion Engine @ 500 MHz + 3D T&L multipass texture GPU + 128 MB memory. *Drool*
 
Last edited:

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
51,910
6,882
126
Man, I miss my 3DO. There was some free-roaming aerial shooter, "Star Flight" or something. I was really great, because you had all these missions, but if you upgraded your lasers, you could blast the mountains down to flatland, with enough passes. Early game with deformable geometry. It was so much fun, and flying around was so peaceful.
 
Mar 11, 2004
21,533
3,690
126
most of those failed consoles had decent if not advanced hardware. People still use the Dreamcast with Linux.

They failed because they were either WAY too expensive or they had a piss poor library.
Case in point: PS getting the final fantasy franchise managed kill nintendos lead. Nabbing Castlevania helped too.
There are basically no consoles that failed for no good reason.

Castlevania was on N64 as well. And even with the success of Symphony of the Night it's not like that was a major tipping point for Sony.

Xbox couldn't handle a lazy port of an early PS2 game. They had to use that fancy GPU to get it playable.
Saying it couldn't handle it is senseless since the architectures are very different and the GPU in the Xbox was much better suited for certain aspects. Plus I guess you missed the part where they doubled the framerate while increasing art assets?
 

mmntech

Lifer
Sep 20, 2007
17,504
12
0
I do miss the days when console hardware was significantly different enough that each console had a distinct feel. The "gritty" quality of the Saturn's graphics was kind of unique to that console. The N64 and playstation both had their own look and feel as well. It was all due to the sometimes wildly different hardware choices console makers made during that time. Being a fanboy of a particular console was more fun back then because you had more stuff to argue about
There's a reason why consoles are all similar today. Back in the day, games were cheaper to make. Today, they can cost as much as a big budget film. The big studios don't want to do exclusives anymore. They want to sell as many copies as possible. Yet they don't want to be bothered spending time and money recompiling code to work on exotic hardware.

It's a big part of why the Wii U has so few third party games. It still uses a slow 32-bit PowerPC processor, while everything else has moved on to x86-64. Plus the GamePad adds some extra mechanics to the system as well. Just not worth the time and effort for such a small install base.

most of those failed consoles had decent if not advanced hardware. People still use the Dreamcast with Linux.

They failed because they were either WAY too expensive or they had a piss poor library.
Case in point: PS getting the final fantasy franchise managed kill nintendos lead. Nabbing Castlevania helped too.
Nintendo shot themselves in the foot by keeping such a tight leash on third parties. Both Sony and Sega quickly learned how to use that to their advantage. You lure more flies with honey than vinegar.

The N64 struggled because Sony won over third parties, and due to the cartridges. While the system was responsible for some of the best games of all time, none of those were third party.

The Dreamcast actually did have a decent library. It failed partly due to piracy. However, Sega angered fans by botching the Saturn and discontinuing it so quickly. They also plain ran out of money. Years of living it up will do that to you.
 

Blanky

Platinum Member
Oct 18, 2014
2,457
12
46
I loved games back then but I'm glad we have the consoles we have today.
But without such easy cross compatibility game manufacturers wouldn't have such large audiences, which means less sales, which means less money put into a given game. Something so huge as GTA V can only exist when there is a ridiculously huge audience for it!
Exactly, that's what makes the consoles pointless. All the advantages they had are gone now.
They may be for you, but it's still impossible (not just hard, impossible) to spend $350-400 on any PC now like you can on a console and five years from now it's still playing the best new games, and doing it well.

Then there are many games not available to PC, just as there are many games not available to consoles.
 

Sonikku

Lifer
Jun 23, 2005
15,678
4,344
136
Only reason why 3DO seemed superior to Saturn is because nobody wanted to take advantage of the Saturn. "Multiple cores? What the hell is the point of that? That'll never catch on!" Check out Panzer Dragoon Saga and the canceled Shenmue footage and ask yourself if Mr.3DO could pull that off.
 

greybaby

Member
Sep 17, 2012
39
1
0
Man, I miss my 3DO. There was some free-roaming aerial shooter, "Star Flight" or something. I was really great, because you had all these missions, but if you upgraded your lasers, you could blast the mountains down to flatland, with enough passes. Early game with deformable geometry. It was so much fun, and flying around was so peaceful.
I remember playing this game on the SEGA Saturn! What great game.

I am also sad about the ubiquity. I think a couple factors caused the consoles to go to PC-like hardware. A lot of it probably has to do with the cheapness of ubuiquitous hardware AND it likely makes it much easier for developers to port their games to PC, which necessarily attracts certain developers that are interested in cross platform selling. Think about how many games there are on PC which may be a whole lot easier to port. There are just so many games!

While its true that many of the most awesome titles are on the consoles, I think a lot of the revolutionizing of gaming is taking place on the PC partly because any group of people with talent can do it and get their game out there. Can't do that on consoles.

But I do miss the different feeling experiences you could get on different consoles. Its all bleeding together now.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: shortylickens

ASK THE COMMUNITY