How did Nintendo manage to normalize big budget, first and second party releases that ran at sub 15 fps? Did people really have worse standards back in the day?
As always, it's okay when Nintendo does it.
>>12633658>Did people really have worse standards back in the day?Does the pope shit in the woods?
>>12633694Pic related is the NTSC-U version of Perfect Dark.
>>12633694>murr PALshitmericans have been a plague on retro discourse forever. Slit your throat, now.
>>12633658>sub 15 fpsMM runs at the same NTSC framerate as OoT (20 FPS)
>>12633658If the fps ever determines your enjoyment of a game, you never really liked games in the first place. >t. Super Ghouls n Ghosts enjoyer
>>12633753>title screen runs at 60>pause menu at 30>gameplay at 20The way OoT/MM handles framerate is weird as fuck
>>12633774 (me)also, all controller inputs are read at 60 fps. shit is bizarre
>>12633658It was either that or nothing at all. Really 3D should have waited just a bit longer so that games could be properly played at more appropriate framerates. The 5th gen is regarded as rough for good reason.
>>12633694No. Just no.
people actually played and enjoyed videogames back then instead of circle jerking and console warring about them on the internet like a bunch of pathetic losers.
>>12633821Absolutely not lol, the flamewars were insane back in the day. By comparison there's basically no consolewarring anymore
>>12633658Back then people didn't care about FPS unless it was a multiplayer PC shooter game like Quake 3 where having more framerate made it easier to kill your opponents who had less framerate.I think it's mostly the advent of multiplatform releases that made people obsess on FPS instead of just focusing on the game library.
>>12633805>Really 3D should have waited just a bit longerThat's absurd you could say that for every generation>NES came too early we got flickering everywhere >SNES came too early we can't have an arcade accurate port of final fight >PS2 came too early we got shitty texture and resolution>PS3 came too early we got awfull framerate ...5th gen came just at the right time with the big explosion of 3D in arcade and after the crack of 1993
>>126338375th gen had no reason to exist. It didn't improve 2D gaming and it was shit at 3D gaming.
>>12633841>It didn't improve 2DYes it does tremendously>shit at 3D gamingThere is tons of amazing 3D gamesYou're a moron
>>12633841>5th gen had no reason to exist. It didn't improve 2D gaming and it was shit at 3D gaming.The accumulated experience and knowledge of developing 3D games alone made 5th gen worth it.Or, imagine if game developers attempted the 3D jump with SNES' FX chip or equivalents lolAnyways, 6th gen benefited from 5th gen having existed.
>>12633853people who shun the experimental era of 3D (the 5th gen) do so only out of ignorance.there's a chasmic difference between 1994 psx games and 2000 psx games, and that's because all the experimentation happened during the psx's reign. you can't just skip it, you owe the polished and modern feel of 6th gen games to the 5th gen. that's where it was all worked out.
>>12633658They were trying to copy their competitors like FF7 and Panzer Dragoon. It's okay when the other systems do it.
If the games were designed with those framerates in mind, then the devs accomodated gameplay and design around it.It's not like modern games with homogenized engines which results in you playing a non-intended.Arcade games back then also had slowdowns, it was part of the limitations, and develoers had those into account when crafting their work.You can dislike an old game, but you can't come in and say "actually, you guys should cancel the enjoyment you had of tbese gsmes back in the 90s because I wated a Youtube video showing the framerate line"
>>12633658People didn’t really know any better back then. The first time I ever became aware of the concept was when I first played snake eater and wondered why it ran like shit compared to sons of liberty.In 5th gen, graphical fidelity was what really wowed people, and our standards were pretty low
>>12633837They did in fact rush 3D. They were already doing it during the 16-bti generation with the add-on systems. You had Sega CD, Nintendo developing their own and even working with Sony, you had PC Engine CD, etc. They were seemingly desperate to get 3D out there. Only N64 had truly impressive visuals at that time but it was hindered by being on cartridges. Dreamcast was the first truly impressive 3D console across the board. 5th gen should have been another 2D gen with optional 3D disc based console attachments just like the last gen. Once they get that right only then move on to 3D gaming. So 3D gaming wasn't truly becoming ready until the very late 90's (98 and 99) and became good in the 2000's. You are wrong on all of your greentext points. This only applies to the 5th gen. Every time guys say a game is dated its almost entirely thanks to this console generation.
>>12634194>Only N64 had truly impressive visuals at that timeYeah sure tendie Crash bandicoot, vagrant story, Wipeout 3,omega boost not impressive at all>You are wrong on all of your greentext pointsI'm right about everyone one of them,SNES beat em up can't handle more than 3 enemies on screen while Final fight arcade can have 10 enemies on screen With your logic SNES should have waited a few more years to get a decent port of final fight
>>12634214Crash isn't impressive and vagrant story is a fucking mess you have to be kidding
>>12633753It targets 20fps and achieves that at the best of times. You need to learn the difference between target framerate and actual framerate.
>>12633658The N64 had laggy ram just to save 5 bucks on the PCB, if they used quad channel SDRam at 150MHz (600MBs) (on top of having a proper sound chip and dedicated video ram) most of the issues the N64 had will be fixed.
>>12634214SNES and Genesis weren't meant to be a replacement for arcades. They were complimentary. Very different from the concept of early 3D games here.
A crude reality most people will probably never admit, is that playing on PC back then was, for most kids, a very choppy and precarious experience.Far from the idea of masterrace Gamer™ that always have the best specs for the most advanced games, reality is that most kids who played on PC back then had to deal with having PCs that, while able to run games, usually had an underperforming experience. And, unlike on a console, where developers had things like framedrops into consideration while developing the game, on PC, games were designed for the optimal specs, so you were not just playing at low framerates, you were also dealing with an unintended way to play, so it never really felt quite right, stability was rare.I know some richfags or people who were already adults with jobs back in the 90s, and who could afford rig updates every 6~12 months, were probably enjoying a prime experience but for 99% of the population, PC gaming was trying to run Pentium games on a 486
>>12633658I'm more curious as to why you can never shut the fuck up about it?
>>12634374> Correlation doesn't equal le causation Kill yourself today
People actually did care about framerate in the 90s. Videogame websites and magazines did mention framerate. However, most people didn't have high end PCs, so the N64 games weren't so bad relative to what people could play elsewhere. Goldeneye was actually relatively smooth to what a typical PC could do with quake with software rendering. So, it's not as if people were oblivious, it's just that the games were usually acceptable for the standard of the time. Certain N64 games did get called out for it, like Turok 2 with the ram expansion high resolution turned on. Other games like wave race 64 were praised for locking the framerate at 15fps so that it remained consistent. Fzero x was 60fps and this was a major selling point.
>>12634578No relation
>>12634740>People actually did care about framerate in the 90s. Videogame websites and magazines did mention framerate.This. Only stupid kids were ignorant of all these things, and those stupid kids now grew up to pretend they are some sort of authority on the time, despite being grossly uninformed and naive.
>>12634740Makes me wonder how a game like Turok 2 could have ran with less impressive graphics. Like how much would they have had to scale back on graphics and detail to make the framerate more acceptable I guess. One of the things I often remember as a kid was being very impressed with Turok's graphics at the time. It may have been slow with poor framerate but I didn't understand this stuff back then and barely ever played anything on a PC.
>>12634457i'm not so sure it's that simple, the n64's rambus memory is way faster than psx's edo dram, it has higher latency, but it's more suited considering the n64 shared it's single ram bank with its' gpu.it's a tradeoff, the psx has less memory pressure issues because the gpu and sound chip each have their own dedicated memory, so the cpu never has to wait to use it's own work memory, but because the memory isn't shared, developers can't use more memory for textures or audio. like on the psx you have 1MB of memory for the framebuffer(s) and textures, while on the n64 a dev could use more if they wanted to, since it's all in a single pool of 4MB (or 8MB with the expansion pak).biggest issue with the n64 is that the shared, high-latency memory is hard to develop for and still get good performance. i think Kaze Emanuar (youtube) has more than proven that it's possible to have detailed, high framerate games on the n64... but it requires really knowing what you're doing and working around the limitations of the memory subsystemhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs8lOI_Twkg
>>12633658They didn't have to normalize it because it was already the norm.
>>12635510most games before 5th gen ran at 60fps (many had lag frames and slow down, but generally targeted 60fps most of the time). 5th gen is when games started to target 30fps (also with possible slow downs). 60fps was the exception
>>12635515>most games before 5th gen ran at 60fpsMost 2D games, sure.
>>12633731>>12633748>>12633817PALnogs just love to gloat about how much they suck, it's fucking unbelievable
>>12635516obviously, <5th gen consoles were made for 2D. it's not fair nor does it make sense to compare <5th gen 3D with 5th gen 3D.i suppose if you're specifically talking about 3D normally being low framerate, then sure, there were few high framerate 3D options at the time
>>12634884Developers sometimes prioritise visuals over framerate. This happened for every console gen up to todayJust look at stuff like Shadow of the Colossus, Skyrim, GTA5, Cyberpunk, etc
>>12635564there's a lot of things to balance even just considering the technical side.do you scale back details to hit a higher framerate?do you take a hit in framerate to reach a desired detail level?how do you balance both with optimisation?in most if not all cases games are developed with limited timeframes. any game can be better given unlimited time, but they don't have unlimited time.there's also a "political"[is this the right word?] aspect where devs are often constrained by their publishers, i've read about many stories where devs are forced against their own recommendations by their publishers, which leads to undercooked games.sometimes the best games are made by passionate developers with no time or income limitations, but this is a pretty rare situation.
>>12635518Which part of the NTSC-U version's framerate is PALnoggery?
Literally what the fuck were Nintendo of America thinking? Do yanks seriously have zero fucking taste?
>>126338413D gaming had to start somewhere, anon. Things usually have growing pains when they start something new
>>126355103D PS1 titles mostly run at 30fps, some are even 60 fps.N64's 15-20 fps wasn't the norm.
uhhhh psx chuds did we get too cocky!?
>>12635625N64 selling point was texture filtering. It looked convincing on still screenshots in gaming magazines. In retrospect the hardware had some really embarrasing bottlenecks for the kind of graphical fidelity that Nintendo promised. But hey, they managed to build the consoles on cheap and launched with a $200 price tag.
>>12635613yes
>>12635613this got me confused for a second, because i live in a PAL country and have never seen the rightmost picture before.sure enough, i look at my actual perfect dark n64 cartridge and it has the leftmost artwork on it. this was purchased in New Zealand.idk why you got diffferent box art, but i can tell you the one on the left is not exclusive to NA
>>12636017i wish games gave you the option to toggle things like hardware AA, because i found out much later on that all of those features could actually be turned off in software, and personally, i think many games would benefit from some of them being turned off.the psx went full "crunchy" no filtering of any kind.but the n64 went the exact opposite way, texture filtering, hardware AA, VI blur...i do get why each went different ways, the psx went for the fast and dirty method, speed over anything else. the n64 on the other hand tried to look more professional, like it was trying to pass itself off as a "home SGI workstation" or something.as largely a psx enjoyer, i think it's a missed opportunity that some of the blurriness of n64 could be disabled in software had games offered that as an option, but i do get why they did what they did.
>>12635635
PC played quake at 20fps in 1997, it was "good enough" unless you had a top tier video card, which majority of people did not have.
>>12636370at 640x480
>>12636381Yea standard VGA is 640x480. Playing quake in SVGA was more difficult.Regular quake without hardware acceleration was 15fps on a K6 266 or a pentium II. For that yoy. Had to downgrade to 320x240, same for some of the reall low end 3d accelerator cards.
>>12636450And a lot of the 2mb videos cards couldnt even launch quake, those were dark days.
>>12634798Only turbo geek snobs like jeff gerstmann and brad shoemaker did. And why should I give shit? Some neo maxie zoom dweebies say I should care but I don't.
>>12634740The n64 back then Never got criticism. It's hard to think about it now but that system was so acclaimed. These two faggot niggers and the fielders at Gamespot were one half of the criticism it got.
>>12636370Yes but at the time N64 was a new system so it was expected to be better than current pcs. It was good at the start with Mario 64 and PilotWings having pretty solid performance. I think any slower than 20 fps in Quake affects the actual speed of movement, some games you had to be around 60 fps or else the movement would be affected too.>>12636450N64 framerate problem is understated, its not uncommon for N64 games to reach around 5 fps. Just pick a random N64 game like extreme G which has random spots of pausing for a quarter of a second. The ps1 game Driver in reality is what a game slowing down to 20 fps looks like. I still like N64, I just accept it has slowdown in areas.>>12634457I think sdram was way past current tech at n64 launch. A socket 7 p200 with 32mb edo ram was super expensive at the time. Gamecube feels like they did everything right with performance but not that many people cared.>>12634740An actual solid 20 fps can decent as long as slowdown dosen't make the game slow. I think a lot of reviewers didn't notice or deliberately ignored it to not make the console look bad. Thats except for Sega Saturn, every single flaw was always pointed out in each review.
>>12633658people were just happy to have 3D games
>>12633805IMO Nintendo should have fixed the memory bandwidth issue before shipping the product.
>>12633837PS3 didn't come too early, it used a boutique architecture designed by fuckwits
>>12636370Anon, looks like you didn't get the point. Quake (and any other PC game for that matter) wasn't a first party game made to sell the hardware. PC games were made future proof and moved the industry forward.Perfect Dark and Majora's Mask are 2000 titles. This is a post Quake 3 era. They were made by Rare and Nintendo with years of N64 hardware experience and millions of $. By 2000 people already saw how fast 3D can be. Dreamcast was on the market. Major PS1 releases were optimized to run at 30 FPS. Mario 64 was 30 FPS 4 years ago. And yet PD and MM run like absolute dogshit
>>12634517It was like this in the 2000s too, at least for me and most of my friends. It wasn't until I was in my mid teens in 2009 that I had a PC that could somewhat handle current games. Other than a couple richfag friends who had even better PCs, it took a couple years for most of my friends' rigs to catch up.
>>12634517>reality is that most kidsNot all of us were kids, buddy. In fact, that's exactly one of the parts of the pc master race superiority. We weren't console kiddies.
>>12635613>>12633658I made my coomer horny schoolfriend buy both Perfect Dark and the Prima guide.
>>12637803Based boomer
>>12638116i miss when games were simple enough that everything was placed for a purpose. if something stood out, you could do something with it. not full of set dressings which are only there to make it seem more realistic or whatever
>>126336585th gen wasn't exactly known for good framerate in 3D games, anon. And it wasn't exclusively a Nintendo thing, either.
>>12638116Makes me wish that game had light/shadow based stealth.
>>12638116>>12638768Wait, the lighting doesn't affect detection in that game?
>>12638761It was mostly a Nintendo thing
>>1263880330 fps isnt good anon
>>12633658How laggy was Perfect Dark's multiplayer? Anyone get to experience a 4 player match?
>>12638775I'm still not sure up to this day, but dark areas messed with the AI, and if you stood still crouched. When spotted the guards would say something different. "I SEE HER"
