Tomb Raider was over rated

[Psy]

I've been playing Tomb Raider again but while the early levels are fun the clunky controls and bad camera angles just become more of an issue in the later levels. When fighting in close quarters most of the time the camera is not pointing where the enemy is, and later the fact the later levels are less forgiving with jumps, means you have to compensate for the delay in jumping, which I find simply frustrating and makes me wonder why reviews back in 1996 didn't take off marks for the camera and control issues.

[VinnyT]

For it's time, it was pretty groundbreaking.

And boobs. Pixelated boobs.

[GeckoYamori]

Tomb Raider 1 & 2 were superb games for their time, especially the second one which did exactly what a great sequel is supposed to do. The controls worked the way they did because the entire game used a hidden cell-based system for positioning.

[Psy]

For it's time, it was pretty groundbreaking.

And boobs. Pixelated boobs.
Mario 64 came out the same year, actually earlier (September 1996 in North America for Mario 64 vs November 1996 for Tomb Raider).

[Mr Smith]

Utter tosh.

That atmosphere of Tomb Raider was awesome. Prior to that gaming had been generally 2D, however, Tomb Raider broke the mould and made an immerseable world that oozed of history, discovery and isolation. Of course the bloody game is blocky now, but the challenge is still awesome. Tomb Raider Anniversary is really cool too and it's fantastic to get those old levels beefed up to modern awesomeness.

Mario 64 is tosh. The only people who like that are Nintendo fanboys and people who like pretty colours. It was a tedious and pointless game that took off because it had the name Mario in the title.

[Scooter]

And Tomb Raider was superior to Mario 64 in many ways, in my opinion. I'm not sure I understand your comments about clunky controls. One of the absolute best aspects of first Tomb Raider engine is the great controls. The Angel of Darkness controls were horrible but Legend got us back to much better controls. I never really thought the camera controls were bad since I never HAD camera control in 3D prior to playing Tomb Raider. I wish more subsequent games had as good of camera control as found in the original Tome Raider.

If you want FRUSTRATING camera control try playing Shadow of the Colossus! An utterly fantastic game but the fact that the game continually shifts camera angles to the absolute worst angle possible during boss fights unless you press and hold a specific button which is hard to do while trying to execute the other moves necessary to vanquish your foe. TR's rock steady always-behind-the-character camera sure works for me. Many, many programmers could create much, much better games by emulating the original Tomb Raider's camera and tight controls.

[Psy]

Problems with controls, push jump and 1 second later Lara jumps, if you only tap jump sometimes Lara won't jump at all.

Problem with camera, enemy sneaks behind you, you flip around but the camera is still facing the same direction.

I mention Mario 64 because the camera works better and Mario is far more responsive, many times I die in Tomb Raider because I forget to compensate for the delay in controls causing Laura to simply run of the ledge instead of do a running jump off the ledge.

[Mr Smith]

I agree that the responsiveness was not the greatest and the camera can be annoying, but these are just minor faults in an awesome adventure that feels fantastic from start to finish, that will have you gasping as you leap over a huge abyss, jumping with fright as a boulder crashes down and staring in amazement at the epic 3D worlds (well at least 10 years ago they were very impressive).

[j_factor]

The delay in controls make sense. When a person jumps, s/he is not immediately in the air. It takes a second to move one's legs appropriately. Lara isn't meant to be a cartoon character, she's meant to be a person. Not that the game is 100% realistic or anything, but still.

I disagree that Mario 64's camera works better. Tomb Raider's camera is far from perfect, but at least you don't have to mess with it. And I can't tell you how many times Mario 64's camera flung me off edges/cliffs. I don't think I was able to walk in a straight line a single time while playing Mario 64.

What made Tomb Raider great was the terrific level design, atmosphere/narrative, and the blend of action with puzzle-solving. What makes Tomb Raider infinitely better than Mario 64 is that it doesn't have a system of every level being unlocked by earning stars, and when you a finish a level, you don't go back to it with a different nonsense objective.

[spiggysparks]

Utter tosh.



Mario 64 is tosh. The only people who like that are Nintendo fanboys and people who like pretty colours. It was a tedious and pointless game that took off because it had the name Mario in the title.

Or people who liked excellent platformers...

[Mr Smith]

Or people who liked excellent platformers...
People who liked excellent platformers would not like Mario 64. People who like banjos, incest and staring at static on a TV screen like Mario 64.

[Psy]

The delay in controls make sense. When a person jumps, s/he is not immediately in the air. It takes a second to move one's legs appropriately. Lara isn't meant to be a cartoon character, she's meant to be a person. Not that the game is 100% realistic or anything, but still.

Yet when doing a running jump and don't hold jump way before the edge, you'll run off the edge without jumping.

The delay in shooting made combat odd, you draw your weapon but then when you fire there is a delay as Lura aims, it would have made much more sense for Lura to always be targeted at the closest target when her weapons are drawn so the instant you hit fire she will shoot at that target.



I disagree that Mario 64's camera works better. Tomb Raider's camera is far from perfect, but at least you don't have to mess with it. And I can't tell you how many times Mario 64's camera flung me off edges/cliffs. I don't think I was able to walk in a straight line a single time while playing Mario 64.

The problem I have with Tomb Raider's camera is it not showing me where the enemy I'm shooting at is.



What made Tomb Raider great was the terrific level design, atmosphere/narrative, and the blend of action with puzzle-solving. What makes Tomb Raider infinitely better than Mario 64 is that it doesn't have a system of every level being unlocked by earning stars, and when you a finish a level, you don't go back to it with a different nonsense objective.
placement that take full advantage of crap camera so you lose tons of heath simply because you are fighting the camera during battle.

[MN12BIRD]

Mario64 has way better controls and way better cameras! Mario64 was more groundbreaking than TR. I remember TR when it came out and yes it was a big deal but don't be knocking Mario64 it's more fun if you ask me.

The cameras in Mario64 was considered the BEST camera angles in a 3D game for like a full decade to come! I also think it was the first console game to use full analog control as it came out before nights in Japan.

[Joe Redifer]

I enjoyed Tomb Raider 1 for the first few hours I was playing it, but then I became really bored with it and stopped playing. I don't think I even made it halfway through the first game. I avoided all other Tomb Raider games like the plague and have absolutely no interest in them any more.

I liked Core better when they made Soul Star.

[Iron Lizard]

It was ahead of its time but I don't think the importance of big boobies to its success can be overstated.

[tomaitheous]

I remember how gorgeous Tomb Raider was for the 3DFX version. I guess that owes more to the 3DFX than Tomb Raider itself.

[Mr Smith]

Lara's tits were triangualr in the original Tomb Raider. It was not until number two that they achieved roundness.

[Iron Lizard]

Well tits or ass, either way it didn't take long for video game magazines to start featuring Lara Croft Spreads.

[acdc]

bought end sended it right back
trade it against suikoden best thing i ever did with a playstation game

[Elusive]

Haha. I bet, deep in GameFAQs' 1996 archive, there are thousands of poorly-formatted lists detailing exactly how to unlock Nude Raider mode in fifty simple steps.

[GeckoYamori]

Oh yeah, didn't factor in that people complaining about controls might be refering to the PS1 versions. I found them borderline unplayable while trying on a friend's console, while I indulged in the PC versions at home. The PS1 games also had those weird warping textures I found prettty distracting.

[spiggysparks]

People who liked excellent platformers would not like Mario 64. People who like banjos, incest and staring at static on a TV screen like Mario 64.

Well I liked Banjo Kazooie, so the first is certainly correct.

I have a feeling you are one of those anti-Nintendo types, so arguing with you is like trying to convince a Southern Baptist about the existence of evolution.

It's just a shame that such a large portion of the video game playing universe are rednecks who hunt squirrels all day.

[Mr Smith]

I am not anti-Nintendo, Goldeneye and Zelda:OoT are two of the most awesome games ever. I just recognise Mario 64 as being the hateful pile of overrated tosh it is.

[DigitalSpace]

When I was in high school in the late 90's, I had a friend whose mother wouldn't let him play Tomb Raider because she had heard about the fake nude code.

I've got a strategy guide that covers the first two games, so it's only a matter of time until I play them.

Obligatory PS1 era image of Lara in a bikini:

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/8669/laracroftbikinixs9.th.jpg (http://img187.imageshack.us/my.php?image=laracroftbikinixs9.jpg)

[Zebbe]

It looks like MJ has dyed his hair, injected silicon into his lips and put his head on a body no woman couldn't possibly have.

[Genesis Knight]

Tomb Raider is only tolerable on a PC these days. I can't stand the sloooow console versions.

[Psy]

Oh yeah, didn't factor in that people complaining about controls might be refering to the PS1 versions. I found them borderline unplayable while trying on a friend's console, while I indulged in the PC versions at home. The PS1 games also had those weird warping textures I found prettty distracting.
The Saturn is similar to the PS1 version and shares that same flaws.

As for warping textures that is common on the Saturn and PS1.

[MN12BIRD]

yeah so many PS1 games esp early games had massively warped textures when looking across them. I used to joke that the PSX couldn't draw a straight line lol.

[j_factor]

The cameras in Mario64 was considered the BEST camera angles in a 3D game for like a full decade to come! I also think it was the first console game to use full analog control as it came out before nights in Japan.

Mario 64's camera was not very good at all. It's no better than GunGriffon, or Fade to Black, or anything else really. And the first console game to use analog control was whatever launched with the Atari 5200.

[MN12BIRD]

forgive me if I'm wrong but Fade to Black the camera is ALWAYS behind the caracter and left and right spin him?? Mario64 the camera doesn't always stay behind your man and you point the 360 stick in the direction you want Mario to go... not always up = forward. This was quite revolutionary at the time and the camera system and control system kinda tied that in.

[Iron Lizard]

GunGriffon is first person. Im confused.

[MN12BIRD]

yeah same with TR the camera is always behind you and you rotate your character. I mean none of this can be compared to Mario64 and the full 360 platform camera. The controls in Mario64 were so precise at the time partly because of the carmer and 3D engine style of the game. right or left don't rotate Mario! you press left he starts walking forward.... but to the left!

Hop into TR and Hold left on TR and you will just sit on a spot and rotate! Hop into Mario64 and hold left and you end up somewhere far away... he never just rotates on a spot.

[Rusty Venture]

TR and Mario 64 both suck.

TR had crap controls on both PSX and Saturn and Mario 64 is a 3D jumping/fighting game painted to look like Mario. I don't buy a Mario game to punch, kick, and friggin' buttstomp critters. Being first and Mario doesn't automatically make it the best.

I think characters created after things went 3D have done 3D platforming better than Mario ever could.

[j_factor]

I'm not sure why I mentioned GunGriffon. I must've been on crack.

I think it's a lot better for the camera to always be behind the character and left/right rotate. Compared to Mario 64 anyway. Some later games did the auto camera better, but Mario 64 did it poorly. It moves around way too much, I suppose for the purpose of being flashy, and it interferes with the gameplay. Sonic Adventure had a similar problem.

Tomb Raider's camera worked fine for the most part. The only issue was with enemies sneaking up behind you (or being off to the side). That could've been remedied with a radar and a target lock. Syphon Filter had those things, and it had basically the same camera as Tomb Raider, and I don't recall many complaints about the camera in that game.

[MN12BIRD]

did Mario not buttstomp in Mario3 or Mario World? Did Mario not kick (turtle shells) since like the first Mario bros. game ever?? Mario64 was still a Mario game... but they added many things. It's like saying you don't like Mario3 because Mario can fly or turn into a frog and swim.... thats BS man!

[Mr Smith]

I have disliked the Mario series ever since World. The original and 3 were bloody awesome, however, then it all fell apart. Sonic didn't handle the move to 3D well either. Sonic 3D was tosh and Adventure was average at best. The Tomb Raider series also hit a similar decline after 2.

[Rusty Venture]

did Mario not buttstomp in Mario3 or Mario World?

No. That fucking move where he jumps up, spins around, then comes back down fat ass first was an Mario 64 original.

And I must say that "World" was where the series plateaued. Mario 3 was the peak.


And I find it ironic that both TR and Mario 64 are discussed in here as both are games that have had their copies/descendants do what they did, only better.

[TmEE]

Mario 64 is a pretty fine game IMO... I enjoyed every part of it as much as I was able to play it.

[Rusty Venture]

I'm sure it was wonderful when it first arrived, but unlike the previous games, someone else was able to make the gameplay work much better.

[ShadowAngel]

Recently i got Tomb Raider for the Saturn and played it. I guess this version is even bader than the PSX or PC Version. The framrate is so low and there are still slow downs, the controls are way off and there are even more camera problems.

I remember playing Tomb Raider 2 quite a lot, it was a way better game.

As for Mario 64: I never understand what the buzz is all about. Whats so great about this game? The level design isn't the best, the camera sucks and the gamepad for the n64 rivals that from the jaguar for the price of greatest piece of shit controller ever. The analog stick is so bad it's unbelievable.
And the whole game doesn't make a lot of fun. It's not bad but nothing more than mediocre.

I agree that Super Mario Bros. 3 and World were awesome, nearly perfect jump n' runs. After that the series declined and only got back with Galaxy

[MN12BIRD]

the analog stick is so bad?? Please remember it came out before Saturn had one, before PSX had two... it was amazing for the time as it was the first time many of us had used any analog controls over a d pad.

[genocide-superstar]

I understand that this is a completely Sega-oriented board, but all this disgust directed towards Super Mario 64 is pretty uncalled for. This is one of the crowning achievements in the platforming realm, and the fact that it was a launch title for the Nintendo 64 makes the feat all the more impressive. Tomb Raider may deserve some cold feelings, but certainly not the masterpiece Super Mario 64. /rant(that was called for)

[j_factor]

the analog stick is so bad?? Please remember it came out before Saturn had one

No, the Saturn had one first. I was playing NiGHTS shortly before the N64 launched. It might be the other way around in Japan... I don't know. But the two came out near the same time, and the Saturn analog pad, while a bit 'weird' compared to the ones that followed, was better and more responsive than the N64 stick IMO. Not to mention more durable.


I understand that this is a completely Sega-oriented board, but all this disgust directed towards Super Mario 64 is pretty uncalled for. This is one of the crowning achievements in the platforming realm, and the fact that it was a launch title for the Nintendo 64 makes the feat all the more impressive. Tomb Raider may deserve some cold feelings, but certainly not the masterpiece Super Mario 64. /rant(that was called for)

*shrug* I have always disliked Mario 64, and I always will. My feeling is that due to the level design, camera, and bosses, it's simply not a fun game. I gave it another chance when it came out for DS and I still hated it. It is a landmark game in terms of 3D-ness and control, but that doesn't necessarily mean the core gameplay is actually good. All the fanboy frothing, perfect scores, undue credit, etc. that it got and still gets probably makes me express myself more strongly against the game than I actually feel.

[Rusty Venture]

the analog stick is so bad?? Please remember it came out before Saturn had one, before PSX had two... it was amazing for the time as it was the first time many of us had used any analog controls over a d pad.

I think the design of the controller is worse than the inclusion of an analog stick. The placement of it in the middle of the controller is probably one of the worse possible places to put it.




I understand that this is a completely Sega-oriented board, but all this disgust directed towards Super Mario 64 is pretty uncalled for. This is one of the crowning achievements in the platforming realm, and the fact that it was a launch title for the Nintendo 64 makes the feat all the more impressive. Tomb Raider may deserve some cold feelings, but certainly not the masterpiece Super Mario 64. /rant(that was called for)

I'm going to get something out of the way first: I hate the N64. I find the system unfit and unable to fill the shoes the SNES left behind.

Mario 64 was the first Mario game I ever played that made me say "meh" when I played it. This has nothing to do with SEGA or some lingering 16-bit resentment, this has nothing to do with Saturn or Playstation. What it does have everything to do with is that, upon the transition to 3D, Mario lost what made Mario games "Mario games".

[MN12BIRD]

I actually liked the N64 controller. I thought it worked well with the platform games, FPS games like Goldeneye and flying games like Star Fox 64. I found nothing wrong with the stick in the middle and the Z button below. I also really like the N64 and feel it was under rated and never got the 3rd party attention it deserved. Much like the Dreamcast I saw much more potential in the system esp with the extra 4MB of RAM and high resolution modes. Games like Star Wars Rouge Squadron, Indiana Jones and the Infernal Machine and Perfect Dark in high resolution modes really proved what the system was capable of. Goldeneye even tho it didn't take advantage of the RAM upgrade or high res mode still looked far and above anything on the PSX with full 3D characters and guns and better textures for the time.

the Public as well as some developers looked down on the N64 for using cartridges in a CD-ROM based world. But you know what? I loved the fact Nintendo had the balls to try and push the better format at the time. No load times, no read errors or scratched CD's and still having the ability to save your game in the cart. Resident Evil 2 was the biggest N64 cart made and had all the FMV sequences of the PSX version. Resident Evil 2 also boasted a high res mode with the optional RAM pack. I thought that was great but the fact is Nintendo made much less profit off their cartridge games. They had to keep prices competitive yet it costs them 3 or 4 times more to make a game on a cartridge. Really even if they only cost $10 on average that's still a HUGE amount more than a CD would have cost to make at the time. Bigger games like RE2 I'm sure also cost WAY more to make as the cartridge at the time was quite large.

I didn't like the N64 at the time. I admit I had a PSX and I was biased. I loved Mario64 and played it when it came out but overall I was always ripping on the N64 and supporting Sony. Its in looking back that I realize how wrong I was. There was many great games for the N64 but it had even more potential. You have to be honest here. I hated Sega when I was young. In grade school all my friends and most of my classmates had the NES and then the SNES. No one had a SMS and few had the Genesis. We all hated Sega but this was just the way it was in GS for us! I laughed at the 32x at the time but once again in looking back and thinking of the potential it had... things are different!!

I loved the Dreamcast for so many reasons and it also never got the attention it deserved but that was just the way it went. Actually the only thing I don't like about DC is the controller. This might just be me but I don't find them comfortable. Playing RE:CV for a few hours leaves my hands in pain! But I can overlook that because everything else is perfect!

[KenshiroX]

I found Dreamcast controllers uncomfortable too.

[Psy]

I actually liked the N64 controller. I thought it worked well with the platform games, FPS games like Goldeneye and flying games like Star Fox 64. I found nothing wrong with the stick in the middle and the Z button below. I also really like the N64 and feel it was under rated and never got the 3rd party attention it deserved. Much like the Dreamcast I saw much more potential in the system esp with the extra 4MB of RAM and high resolution modes. Games like Star Wars Rouge Squadron, Indiana Jones and the Infernal Machine and Perfect Dark in high resolution modes really proved what the system was capable of. Goldeneye even tho it didn't take advantage of the RAM upgrade or high res mode still looked far and above anything on the PSX with full 3D characters and guns and better textures for the time.

The N64 has a steep learning curve for developers like the Sega Saturn. While the Saturn is hard to program because it requires complex code to tell each component of the Saturn what to do, the N64 is hard to program because it requires highly efficient code to get around bottle necks in the system like the CPU having slow access to the RAM.



the Public as well as some developers looked down on the N64 for using cartridges in a CD-ROM based world. But you know what? I loved the fact Nintendo had the balls to try and push the better format at the time. No load times, no read errors or scratched CD's and still having the ability to save your game in the cart. Resident Evil 2 was the biggest N64 cart made and had all the FMV sequences of the PSX version. Resident Evil 2 also boasted a high res mode with the optional RAM pack. I thought that was great but the fact is Nintendo made much less profit off their cartridge games. They had to keep prices competitive yet it costs them 3 or 4 times more to make a game on a cartridge. Really even if they only cost $10 on average that's still a HUGE amount more than a CD would have cost to make at the time. Bigger games like RE2 I'm sure also cost WAY more to make as the cartridge at the time was quite large.

The Neo-Geo AVS kinda showed capacity problem with carts way before the N64.



I didn't like the N64 at the time. I admit I had a PSX and I was biased. I loved Mario64 and played it when it came out but overall I was always ripping on the N64 and supporting Sony. Its in looking back that I realize how wrong I was. There was many great games for the N64 but it had even more potential. You have to be honest here. I hated Sega when I was young. In grade school all my friends and most of my classmates had the NES and then the SNES. No one had a SMS and few had the Genesis. We all hated Sega but this was just the way it was in GS for us! I laughed at the 32x at the time but once again in looking back and thinking of the potential it had... things are different!!

I didn't have that problem, the Genesis kiosks were everywhere when I growing up so most kids wanted both the SNES and Genesis and running into someone that said "Genesis sucked" could easily be solved by taking them to one of the Genesis kiosks and telling them to give it a chance.

[evildragon]

holy fucking shit!

someone get his ip address!

[Benjamin]

People need to remember that true 3-D gameplay was still pretty new to consoles back then, and many developers were experimenting with a number of control schemes. Core just found it practical to control Lara like a Battlezone tank at the time.

Tomb Raider still has a great atmosphere about it, though the pixelated textures made spotting some things difficult for me. It's more a 3-D Metroid than a 3-D Mario or Sonic and should be considered as such, which the gameplay built around exploration as opposed to actual platforming challenges.

[108 Stars]

Damn, how could I miss the disgusting porn?

[Mr Smith]

Damn, how could I miss the disgusting porn?
Agreed. Can somebody post it again? :D

[Dirt Ball Gamer]

Yeah, what gives?

[TmEE]

personal satisfaction to some people ?

[dragonboy]

You guys don't want to see it.

It has pictures of poop comming out of big hairy butts.

I can't believe you'd want to see that crap.

[Dirt Ball Gamer]

Hahahah

[j_factor]

People need to remember that true 3-D gameplay was still pretty new to consoles back then, and many developers were experimenting with a number of control schemes. Core just found it practical to control Lara like a Battlezone tank at the time.

I really don't think the control scheme is a problem at all. What is a bit problematic control-wise is that the "tiles" are too big. But the basic controls are practically the same as RE4, which few complained about.


Tomb Raider still has a great atmosphere about it, though the pixelated textures made spotting some things difficult for me. It's more a 3-D Metroid than a 3-D Mario or Sonic and should be considered as such, which the gameplay built around exploration as opposed to actual platforming challenges.

I always thought of Tomb Raider as the successor to games like Flashback. And I found it to be much better than Fade to Black.

[108 Stars]

You guys don't want to see it.

It has pictures of poop comming out of big hairy butts.

I can't believe you'd want to see that crap.

What? I only made these pics of me for private use!

[dragonboy]

Now I know more about 108Stars than I ever wanted to know.:(

[Mr Smith]

:o Lies! You can never know too much about 108 Stars. Each post is an insight to his great wisdom and you should consider yourself honoured/both.

[dragonboy]

Maybe I don't want his wisdom?

[108 Stars]

Mr. dragonboy, you are getting near a ban or, even worse, the penality of having to spend 12 hours straight with the dress-up-minigame of Fun´n Games!

Oh, and Herr Schmitt, I wholeheartedly support your effort to get that tasteless mod of terror, who dares to call himself a knight although he comes from the Colony called America, banned!

[Genesis Knight]

Back on topic...does anyone even play the original Tomb Raider anymore? Esp. since Tomb Raider Anniversary was released?

[Phantar]

meh, I didn´t really care for Tomb Raider even when it was first released (I played the Saturn port, of course). Up until this very day, I never understood what all the fuss was about... I have always hated it when I flipped a lever and then HAD TO RUN THROUGH THE ENTIRE FRIGGIN LEVEL AGAIN, to reach a door... and when I failed to manage that task in time, to have to backtrack and do the entire stick all over again... aaaaargh!!!

[Genesis Knight]

I find the console versions of the game unplayable due to their sluggish execution. I'm not sure if it's framerate troubles or what, but I feel like I'm running in molasses and the gunfights are almost impossible as well.

I only ever played the originals on PC, and it's been a while. To be honest, it was only after the franchise reboot that TR became a fun game series for me. And even then I'm not sure it's as fun as the Prince of Persia redux.

[108 Stars]

I bought Tomb Raider for the PlayStation because of all the great ratings but....never was I so disappointed by a game I was looking forward do. Running through huge, empty levels, with music only appearing once in a while when you discover something or meet an enemy....I always got lost and there was just nothing happening. Since then I truly hate TR.

[mick_aka]

I've never been keen on the series myself, I remember dropping 40 quid on the Saturn version and being rather dissapointed.

Perhaps I'm just too impatient for it?!

Despite this it's been given very good reviews by my forum members:

http://www.segasaturn.co.uk/games/pal/T/tombraider/

Even now I just can't warm to it at all and get tired of it extremely quickly.

[thefletch13]

Back on topic...does anyone even play the original Tomb Raider anymore? Esp. since Tomb Raider Anniversary was released?

yeah. I still play it on my Saturn, its good for a rainy day.

I enjoy TR because I had the patience to play it and it I enjoyed it.

[Christuserloeser]

I bought Tomb Raider for the PlayStation because of all the great ratings but....never was I so disappointed by a game I was looking forward do. Running through huge, empty levels, with music only appearing once in a while when you discover something or meet an enemy....I always got lost and there was just nothing happening. Since then I truly hate TR.

QFT.

Mario 64 however, which came out that very year, only a few weeks later, did surprise me. I never thought for one second that this could replace a 2D Mario, but I was extremely impressed with it and actually played it for a while. It was certainly good enough to keep me interested in the N64.

Tomb Raider,on the other hand, got to be the most boring game ever. It's the Dark Castle of the PSX era. It looked awful back then and it still looks as awful today. There was just nothing that made me want to play it. And when I held the controller just for a second to try it, I was so frustrated by the controls and the camera... I had to give the controller back. I just couldn't take it any longer.


EDIT: Above post is a spambot attack. Do not click on any links.

[Melf]

I ISP banned the douchebag.

[Metal_Sonic]

oooooooooooooohhhhhhh Melf said Douchebag, you must now commit Hara-Kiri(Seppuku)

[Mr Smith]

You people who don't like Tomb Raider are souless drones. Certainly now the original seems blocky, unresponsive and generally tosh, but back in the late 90's it was a great experience and I will never forget the feeling of awe when discovering a huge monument or that first time you stand in the hall of the gods in St. Francis Folly. Even anniversary didn't conjour up those breath-taking sensations of scale and majesty that, at the time, were pretty unique.

[108 Stars]

No, Herr Schmitt, you must be confusing the first Tomb Raider with something else; the game we are talking about is tosh, was tosh back then and will always be tosh.

[Genesis Knight]

If only nostalgia made games great, Mr. Smith. If only.

[Mr Smith]

No, Herr Schmitt, you must be confusing the first Tomb Raider with something else; the game we are talking about is tosh, was tosh back then and will always be tosh.
:o Lies! Power of being Kaiser of Germany has clearly gone to your head and altered your judgement. Tomb Raider oozed atmosphere in every way shape and form (but mainly square blocks) and although sluggish now, was packed with a real sense of isolation. Perhaps it was more leaping around and pulling levers than subsequent incarnations and I would probably argue that number 2 was much better in terms of button bashing action and general awesomeness, but a classic is still a classic.

[Zebbe]

Tomb Raider introduced big titties into video games, had movies based on the game, was released on several formats, had a porn controversy and several sequels, so it must be good. But I don't know, I've never played it.

[j_factor]

Tomb Raider isn't so pretty to look at (and never was), but its greatness lies in the level design. Awesome puzzle-solving combined with action. It's an engrossing quest.

Actually, I still think the entire series is quite good, except Chronicles (which sucks), number 3 (not horrible but a let-down), and maybe Angel of Darkness (never played, but everyone hated it). Hmm, that's a lot of exceptions. Let's just say that Tomb Raider 1, 2, The Last Revelation, and Legend are great (to varying degress). Although it is true that the original is rendered unnecessary by Anniversary, any remake that improves on the original in every way is going to do that. And Anniversary is damn good, especially on Wii.

[Phantar]

Tomb Raider oozed atmosphere in every way shape and form (but mainly square blocks) and although sluggish now, was packed with a real sense of isolation.

Yeah, isolation does describe it nicely, isolation in the sense of "Okay, that grey block of rock looks exactly like that block of rock, do I have to turn left or right, I´ve already killed all the wolves around here, I´ve been looking for that d&·$·$%$E·"$ door about ahalf an hour, ah, there it is, dang, it´s closed again, i have to return to the lever, WHERE THE HECK DO I HAVE TO GO??? *sobsob*

yeah... I got issues...

[Melf]

I really enjoyed the first two games, as well as Legend. The sense of exploration was awesome, and the series really shines when it focuses more on the tomb raiding that the shooting.

I still need to pick up Anniversary. I thought I had snagged an Xbox 360 copy for $22 until I got home and my 5 year-old daughter pointed out that I had bought Legend... again. :p

Serves me right for not really looking at the box.

[Genesis Knight]

At least she's got your back. :D

[108 Stars]

Yeah, isolation does describe it nicely, isolation in the sense of "Okay, that grey block of rock looks exactly like that block of rock, do I have to turn left or right, I´ve already killed all the wolves around here, I´ve been looking for that d&·$·$%$E·"$ door about ahalf an hour, ah, there it is, dang, it´s closed again, i have to return to the lever, WHERE THE HECK DO I HAVE TO GO??? *sobsob*

yeah... I got issues...

That is the perfect description of Tomb Raider. I still cry for the 100,-DM I paid for it back in the day....

[108 Stars]

Double-post! Ban me!:D

Here, I found an interesting pic; looks like the best Tomb Raider ever...on NES.

http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/9849/traiderdv7.jpg

[Phantar]

Now THAT´s a hot-looking Lara Croft! For an 8-bit-sprite, that is...

[Smii]

Argh, but she looks broken - crawling at you like a ghost from a Japanese horror film.

Don't think I've posted in here before btw, so I will state that I don't like Tomb Raider. Never played it back in t'day, found it very boring when I finally got round to it.

I'd give the 8-bit version a try though :p

[sheath]

This thread seemed like the best place to post my first 720p comparison video. I had a hell of a time with the second half crashing as I tried to output it. I ended up outputting only 1500-2000 frames at a time and then opening them up in a new project just to put them back together again. That process took about a week thanks to all of the failed outputs. I don't think I'll be making too many videos like this as a result.

3ev6HmOvvVQ

[Black_Tiger]

Tomb Raider was a neat 3D Prince of Persia game. It's not as legendary as some make it out to be, but also not nearly as bad as others say.

[The Jackal]

Everyone whinges about the controls on the classic Resident Evil games, yet no one seems to make mention of the original TR games' shit control scheme. Took me years to progress past the first level in 'Raider II and I still haven't beat it. RE1,2,3+ no prob.

[NeoVamp]

yet no one seems to make mention of the original TR games' shit control scheme.

Check the first couple pages of this thread, lotsa complaints about the 1 second pause before jumps.

[sheath]

I agree with Black_Tiger, Tomb Raider was 3D Prince of Persia, but with T&A. I enjoyed the first one, didn't really play the rest of them. Given the reputation of some version of Tomb Raider though, I was really surprised at how similar the non-3D accelerated versions are.

[Crackdown]

I have NEVER liked Tomb Raider, seriously over rated

[Black_Tiger]

I agree with Black_Tiger, Tomb Raider was 3D Prince of Persia, but with T&A. I enjoyed the first one, didn't really play the rest of them. Given the reputation of some version of Tomb Raider though, I was really surprised at how similar the non-3D accelerated versions are.

I actually could never get into the sequels either. :p I think that they would have been better off working on refining the core gameplay and keeping things simple with better stage design.

I had a lot of fun with the original on Saturn and it was neat playing through the Playstation version a couple times after that. The novelty of a fully 3D environment was a big part of the draw at the time though.

It's overrated in the sense that it isn't 'teh greatest game evAR', not in the sense that it is a crappy game that fooled a bunch of people at the time like Toshinden.

[sheath]

Definitely, Tomb Raider realized my expectations for a 3D platformer in every conceivable way at the time. I liked it better than Mario 64, actually I still do but not my much. The gameplay being block based really wasn't an issue for me as I loved Flashback and Out of This World to no end.

Once the sequels started farming out though, I felt like I was playing a level edited mod of the original and lost interest. I was fooling around with making Doom levels for the PC at that point and really did not appreciate the lack of gameplay and graphical advancements in the later Tomb Raider games.

[Thenewguy]

Here's a very good, and extremely accurate comparison of the console versions

q6oh_y9Tdao

[sheath]

They must have cropped the PS1 version at the least, as it had the most vertical screen space of all of the versions I recorded. They also must have increased the default gamma of the Saturn game (adjustable in game from the menu) which I did not do.

Also, their lack of effort in displaying the same scene on both screens makes this video very difficult to use for a 1:1 comparison.

[Black_Tiger]

They must have cropped the PS1 version at the least, as it had the most vertical screen space of all of the versions I recorded. They also must have increased the default gamma of the Saturn game (adjustable in game from the menu) which I did not do.

Also, their lack of effort in displaying the same scene on both screens makes this video very difficult to use for a 1:1 comparison.

Ever since I played through the Playstation version after mastering the Saturn version, this was clearly the biggest difference and seemed to be the basis of all the ridiculous reviews like Gamefan's coverage saying that the difference in graphics between the two games were like day and night. I adjusted the gamma so that it was balanced with the contrast of the Playstation version and found the them to be very similar with subtle pros and cons for each. I hooked both consoles up and loaded up saves at the same spots and switched the video between them to compare. I remember that the Playstation version was choppier when viewing a large area and seemed to have more pop-up. The most noticeable difference to me besides the wavy water effect in the Saturn version, was the mirrored save spot icon in the Playstation version. I thought that it was very cool. But neither version had anything that ruined the experience.

Even if that comparison video isn't perfect, the two versions still look more or less identical compared to shared ports from the previous generation. They have different ways of 'filtering' the textures as they get closer, but the Playstation's appear slightly more consistent (might just be a result of the Playstation's dithered haze blurring from the video compression though). The Playstation version does have noticeable seams all over the place and glitching not found in the Saturn version. I wonder if the Saturn version has extra texture art since it takes longer to load and the system has more ram than the Playstation?

It's too bad that this game was used as early propaganda by Gamefan to unfairly trash the Saturn early on. Dave Halverson's comments were ridiculous in both directions. The Playstation version was supposed to be the greatest game of all time, but the Saturn version got knocked down by 10% for visuals alone. Even if the graphics were as far off as he claimed, why such a huge drop in score for a game that's supposed to be perfect? Of course, around the same time they did the same thing to Saturn SFA, even though in their own words it had better gameplay and faster loading. :p

[sheath]

The Saturn does technically have more RAM, but it is only in the two VDP's having their own 256KB Frame Buffers. So it has been argued that the Saturn doesn't actually have more usable memory on these very forums. I did notice that the Saturn version seems to use a software method for displaying lower and higher resolution textures depending on the distance from the camera. I did not notice this effect in any other version. The Saturn version definitely has the longest draw distance, but some of the darker scenes make some textures so close to black that it basically negates that small advantage.

The bottom line for me is that the Saturn and Playstation games are using the same textures, with different brightness levels applied, they are running at virtually the same resolution (356x224 vs 320x240), they have similar framerates, and identical gameplay. I can see nothing in the technical comparison to seriously discount either version with.

With that said, it isn't obvious, but I noticed that the guard rails in the Gym/home had two layers in the Saturn version only, which would be more polygons on screen for that segment.

[Olls]

Lol you guys. Digging up old threads to wage another Saturn vs. PSX war.
Anyway, if it featured a guy instead of a boobed chick, nobody would've given a shit about Tomb Raider. Slow POS game.

[sheath]

... So did anybody notice that the comparison video I just made had the PC version and the 3dfx version in it too?

[kool kitty89]

They must have cropped the PS1 version at the least, as it had the most vertical screen space of all of the versions I recorded. They also must have increased the default gamma of the Saturn game (adjustable in game from the menu) which I did not do.

Also, their lack of effort in displaying the same scene on both screens makes this video very difficult to use for a 1:1 comparison.
Capture cards can skew things. If you want to compare aspect ratio and overscan, you'd need to do that on a real CRT SDTV with normal calibration. (capture cards and some LCD sets can give false boarders relative to what a real analog set would show)

Having a larger vertical boarder wouldn't make sense if the PSX really is running in 320x240 and Saturn in 352x224. (the Saturn would have more vertical boarder than the PSX by that definition) Not that it matters since most TVs show no more than 224 lines (NTSC) anyway. (for PAL it would be more significant)

Horizontal resolution is another story though and without knowing the pixel dot clocks used, the context of 320 vs 352 would be pointless. (you could have the identical resolution with the "extra" screen going into overscan on the Saturn version depending on the case)





The Saturn does technically have more RAM, but it is only in the two VDP's having their own 256KB Frame Buffers. So it has been argued that the Saturn doesn't actually have more usable memory on these very forums. I did notice that the Saturn version seems to use a software method for displaying lower and higher resolution textures depending on the distance from the camera. I did not notice this effect in any other version. The Saturn version definitely has the longest draw distance, but some of the darker scenes make some textures so close to black that it basically negates that small advantage.
No, no, no!

Both framebuffers are for VDP1, just like the 128k buffers in the 32x. You need a framebuffer to display plus a back buffer to render to. ;)

The added RAM comes from the SH1 work RAM and VDP2 tile RAM. (512k each)

For Tomb Raider, the PSX has MORE nominal video RAM to work with as the VDP1 framebuffers are only using a small chunk of their RAM and VDP2 is barely used at all. (just for occasional water effects and maybe some BGs in the few open areas)
Then there's the sound compression. (and some SFX are noticeably crunchy on the Saturn -even 8-bit PCM would have to drop to ~56% the sample rate on the Saturn to fit into sound RAM -without software compression)
You could probably use VDP2 RAM (possibly SH1 RAM) for added data, but you'd have to move that around as needed in other subsystems. (and I'm not sure if that's as straightforward as doing the same thing with CPU RAM on the PSX or Saturn)

And if they're not doing anything special with the "extra" RAM, the Saturn would effectively have been roughly 3.35 MB while the PSX would have effectively been 4.9 MB. (or, dropping the audio comparison, it would be ~2.85 MB vs 3 MB, though it would be closer in cases where VDP2 was being used)



The bottom line for me is that the Saturn and Playstation games are using the same textures, with different brightness levels applied, they are running at virtually the same resolution (356x224 vs 320x240), they have similar framerates, and identical gameplay. I can see nothing in the technical comparison to seriously discount either version with.
From what I've seen, the PSX version has some significant cases of higher res textures. (one of the most obvious being the stained glass windows in the training area)


With that said, it isn't obvious, but I noticed that the guard rails in the Gym/home had two layers in the Saturn version only, which would be more polygons on screen for that segment.
2 layers? And how would that definitively mean more polygons on-screen for the entire scene? (rather than just 1 specific object)




The most definitive difference is the much better looking PSX FMV though, but that's hardly surprising. (Saturn is probably using 256 color cinepak -and you can easily see low-color posterization and more artifacting -the aspect ratio is wrong too, but that could be the capture card)
Granted, the Saturn was capable of much better software video decoding if pushed, Cinepak was just the early standard to use.




Edit:
Also, it's really hard to compare the videos with the default lighting/gamut settings enabled, the Saturn version is SO much darker and higher contrast that it totally throws things off. (it makes the PSX's lighting look a lot better, but I know the Saturn version is pretty even other than the trade-offs of smoother dithered interpolated shading used on the PSX)

[Nuxius]

The bottom line for me is that the Saturn and Playstation games are using the same textures, with different brightness levels applied, they are running at virtually the same resolution (356x224 vs 320x240), they have similar framerates, and identical gameplay. I can see nothing in the technical comparison to seriously discount either version with.

Actually, the PSX version runs at 384*240. TRII runs at 384*240 as well. TR3, TR:TLR and TR:C all run at 512*240. This is the reason why Lara is always thinner in the PSX versions than she is in the PC versions (this is especially true for the last 3).

http://img863.imageshack.us/img863/3259/tombraider.png
http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/3360/tombraider2n.png
http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/8512/tombraider3.png
http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/4662/tombraider4.png


Definitely, Tomb Raider realized my expectations for a 3D platformer in every conceivable way at the time. I liked it better than Mario 64...


its greatness lies in the level design. Awesome puzzle-solving combined with action. It's an engrossing quest.

This pretty much sums up my opinions on Tomb Raider.

[j_factor]

What weird resolutions.

[kool kitty89]

Actually, the PSX version runs at 384*240. TRII runs at 384*240 as well. TR3, TR:TLR and TR:C all run at 512*240. This is the reason why Lara is always thinner in the PSX versions than she is in the PC versions (this is especially true for the last 3).
Resolution has nothing to do with being "thin" or "fat", it's all up to pixel aspect ratio and how the renderer expects the screen to be displayed. (then there's the PAL and NTSC aspect ratio differences too -if the rederer doesn't expect it, all PAl stuff will look short/wide compared to NTSC)

For 320x200 in DOS (stretched to 4:3 as VGA intends it to), Lara looks normally skinny, but in 640x480 looks too wide.
For TRII on PC, it seems to correct things, but assume 4:3 screen size for all resolutions. (ie 1440x900 looks fine as long as it's displayed on a VGA monitor filling a 4:3 screen, so it assumes non-square pixels)


As for 384x240, again, you'd need to have the dot clock to show that real-world. (ie depending on the clock, it could be the same resolution as the Saturn or lower for practical on-screen viewing -assuming they used a 7.16 MHz dot clock, you'd have a max of about 340 pixels on most TVs, or a bit less)




On another note:
Sheath, it's cool that you included the PC versions for comparison, and the accelerated example looks great, but it doesn't look like your machine can handle the software renderer in DOSbox. All that low framerate and tearing skews things. (I also assume you're running it at the max 640x480 high detail mode -ie maximum perspective correction)

If you're not going to use a real 9x/DOS compatible machine, at least use a configuration that emulates it properly.
There should be a high framerate and no tearing at all. (you should also disable scaling -DOSBox does it by default, so you need to go into the conf file and change that)

Odd that the PC SFX are so low quality, maybe catering to the lowest common denominator with 8-bit soundblaster cards. (still wouldn't make sense) Of course, with most/all SB compatibles, you'd have heavy filtering anyway, so you'd get more muffled sound with the aliasing hidden compared to your video. (for that matter, they should at least have been using ADPCM too; all SBs supported it iirc, but that was limited to the hardware channels rather than software mixing -PCs gave room for a lot more RAM for uncompressed PCM though, or CPU grunt for software decompression)

I doubt CORE did a very good job optimizing any of the uncompressed PCM given how crunchy sounding much of it is. (ie lack of good dynamic range compression)
And given SFX are the only realtime sounds (ie non CD streamed), using the Saturn's 68k for software decompression should have been very straightforward. (decoding 4 or so ADPCM streams for the PCM channels to play should have been simple to arrange unless the tools were really poor for the sound system)

The PSX's set-up was certainly more foolproof, but for a game with sound as simple as TR, there shouldn't have been that sort of difference. (the PC sound actually seems to be worse, and that's even stranger -unless it's a problem with DOSBox . . . then again, the Saturn has interpolated sound at least, so low sample rate stuff will sound less aliased)



I was wrong about the "stained glass" windows, they're not stained glass, but they are lower res in the Saturn.

The framerate is noticeably lower on the Saturn too, I hadn't realized how big that gap was before. (still looks quite playable, but enough to be annoying when compared back to back)

[Nuxius]

512*240 is actually the second most common resolution for the PSX, after 320*240. 384*240 is a odd one though. The only other games I have been able to find that run at that resolution are Abe's Oddysee and Abe's Exoddus.



Resolution has nothing to do with being "thin" or "fat",
For the PSX it does, as most games are stretched to 640*480 on it.

[kool kitty89]

512*240 is actually the second most common resolution for the PSX, after 320*240. 384*240 is a odd one though. The only other games I have been able to find that run at that resolution are Abe's Oddysee and Abe's Exoddus.
Interesting, I wonder why they went for higher horizontal res and not vertical given how vertical res isn't degraded by composite.
Maybe they wanted to allow for 60 FPS games or something.

Still, for average people, I'd bet most would have seen a more noticeable improvement for games running at 320x480i. (especially for games that would be running close to 30 FPS anyway)


For the PSX it does, as most games are stretched to 640*480 on it.
Now you're talking emulators, a totally different context.
In that case, if the emulator is dumb (or the user has specifically disabled scaling to allow square pixels), the image displayed will be at the wrong aspect ratio compared to what the game expects.

Of course, any emu using proper aspect will show the same "wrong" aspect ratio as a TV would for a game not optimized for real-world pixels. (pretty much no game console uses square pixels on an SDTV)

512x240 stretched to 640x480 4:3 should look fine as long as 512x240 was 4:3 on an SDTV and the game complies with the real-world pixel aspect ratio of the TV. (albeit if that 512 wide is the same 10.74 MHz res as the PCE/SNES, then 640x480 stretching would be slightly off; you'd want to stretch it taller than that, 640x512 would be about right -otherwise it's pretty close though)


Again, except the DOS game, the PC versions look "right" too as long as you're using a 4:3 aspect ratio. (and if in windowed mode on a desktop with square pixels, you'd have to pick a square pixel resolution like 320x240, 400x300, 640x480, 800x600, and not 640x400 or such)



Also, I was just playing around in DOS Tomb Raider again and remembered just how good they managed to make it look in 256 colors. In some areas, even the shading on lara isn't especially posterized (looks more like highcolor than 256 color shading), though it's uglier at other times. (it's much harder to tell on most textures though)

And running in 640x480 really does make a big difference (320x200 is pretty jaggie and low-detail).

It also has seaming issues rather like the PSX version, though maybe not quite as prominent.


I attached a 640x480 screen capture from DOSBox below. (pretty nice looking for only 181 colors) I had to convert it to JPEG for the site to allow it, so the comparison isn't as good. (I don't have an image hosting account as of yet)

[Nuxius]

Interesting, I wonder why they went for higher horizontal res and not vertical given how vertical res isn't degraded by composite.
Maybe they wanted to allow for 60 FPS games or something.
No, because they wanted progressive scan. The max vertical res the PSX can use in progressive is 256. When you bump that up to 480, it's interlaced only.


Still, for average people, I'd bet most would have seen a more noticeable improvement for games running at 320x480i. (especially for games that would be running close to 30 FPS anyway)

I've had a hard time finding games that run at 320x480i during gameplay. I've found plenty that use it for menus though; Rage Racer, Dino Crisis and Silent Hill just to name a few. They all switch to 320*240p for gameplay though.

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/6246/rageracercar.png

Tekken 3 runs at 384*480i [bordered] (arcade version ran at 512*480); it's the highest gameplay resolution I can find.

Next highest gameplay resolution I can find is 640*240p, Toshinden and Intelligent Qube are a few that used that res.

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/7863/toshinden.png

I've also found a few PlayStation games that used 640*480i for menus and the like, Air Combat and the Jet Moto games are two that come to mind. I've found nothing for actual gameplay though.

http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/4941/aircombatle.png
http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/6514/jetmotoselect.png

Now you're talking emulators, a totally different context.Uh, no, emulators will run at whatever resolution your computer will allow. I'm talking about the actual PlayStation here.

[Chilly Willy]

The resolution for games on the PSX was limited by the vram. You need to at least double-buffer the frames, and the lowest color mode is thousands, which uses two bytes per pixel. So 640x480 can't be used as a game screen as it takes more than half the vram. The highest resolution you could use and still be double-buffered is 512x480. That would leave very little vram free for textures, meaning you'd have to use more system ram for textures, which then means less room for level data and whatnot. So I can see a game using 512x240 or 384x480, but not higher.

[The Coop]

Lol you guys. Digging up old threads to wage another Saturn vs. PSX war.

They - say - two - thousand zero one one no one argues 'bout - system specs.

That's - why - to - night we're gonna argue like it's nineteen ninety-six.

[Nuxius]

You need to at least double-buffer the frames
Tekken 3 didn't and looked fine.

Here's a link to a VRAM dump from Tekken 3 (the image is too big for an image host).
http://www.speedyshare.com/files/28204135/Tekken3.zip


Only game I can find that triple buffers is Jumping Flash. Not so surprisingly enough, it's also the lowest res PSX game I have found so far (256*224 with borders).

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/484/jumpingflash.png
(I had to compress this a bit colorwise to host it)

Most other games just stick with double buffering.

[sheath]

Capture cards can skew things. If you want to compare aspect ratio and overscan, you'd need to do that on a real CRT SDTV with normal calibration. (capture cards and some LCD sets can give false boarders relative to what a real analog set would show)

Having a larger vertical boarder wouldn't make sense if the PSX really is running in 320x240 and Saturn in 352x224. (the Saturn would have more vertical boarder than the PSX by that definition) Not that it matters since most TVs show no more than 224 lines (NTSC) anyway. (for PAL it would be more significant)

I wasn't talking about a border or cropping, the PS1 game displays more gameplay screen vertically. I didn't crop it out because the other versions occasionally display a screen that "tall" as well.



No, no, no!

Both framebuffers are for VDP1, just like the 128k buffers in the 32x. You need a framebuffer to display plus a back buffer to render to. ;)

The added RAM comes from the SH1 work RAM and VDP2 tile RAM. (512k each)

Uh, yeah, thanks for that clarification. When you combine the VDP1 and VDP2 memory and the frame buffers the Video "bus" has 1.5MB to the PS1's 1MB. This can be over-emphasized of course, but it shouldn't be de-emphasized.


For Tomb Raider, the PSX has MORE nominal video RAM to work with as the VDP1 framebuffers are only using a small chunk of their RAM and VDP2 is barely used at all. (just for occasional water effects and maybe some BGs in the few open areas)

Do we know that the water effect was done with the VDP2 on the Saturn game? You know, you talk too much about stuff you read on a forum somewhere as though it is common (accepted) knowledge. I've seen homebrew types postulate that the VDP2 could be used to overlay effects over VDP1 3D graphics, but I haven't seen any sort of definitive examples of what that looked like. Tomb Raider is early enough, practically a first gen Saturn game for Core, that I doubt they did anything super special to achieve their effects.


Then there's the sound compression. ... You could probably use VDP2 RAM (possibly SH1 RAM) for added data, but you'd have to move that around as needed in other subsystems. (and I'm not sure if that's as straightforward as doing the same thing with CPU RAM on the PSX or Saturn)

And if they're not doing anything special with the "extra" RAM, the Saturn would effectively have been roughly 3.35 MB while the PSX would have effectively been 4.9 MB. (or, dropping the audio comparison, it would be ~2.85 MB vs 3 MB, though it would be closer in cases where VDP2 was being used)

Wait, now the SH1 is useful? I thought it was a complete waste and not programmable? I'm not being sarcastic, this is what I've seen discussed about it in these forums. The SH1 has RAM that can be accessed by other systems, but the SH1 itself can't be touched? I suppose you could be storing extra data in the CD-ROM sub system's 512KB while the Main RAM is full of game data and "shadowing" some VRAM data for the VDP1. That would be better than not having the extra RAM at all, but it still sounds like extended CD-ROM cache to me.


2 layers? And how would that definitively mean more polygons on-screen for the entire scene? (rather than just 1 specific object)

I thought I worded that carefully enough. All of the guard rails in the box scene have two rows of textured polygons instead of one. I doubt it is a big deal, but it is extra detail that only the Saturn version has in that scene.


Actually, the PSX version runs at 384*240. TRII runs at 384*240 as well. TR3, TR:TLR and TR:C all run at 512*240. This is the reason why Lara is always thinner in the PSX versions than she is in the PC versions (this is especially true for the last 3).


Great! Thanks for the update. Which emulator are those shots from?



On another note:
Sheath, it's cool that you included the PC versions for comparison, and the accelerated example looks great, but it doesn't look like your machine can handle the software renderer in DOSbox. All that low framerate and tearing skews things. (I also assume you're running it at the max 640x480 high detail mode -ie maximum perspective correction)

Dosbox was set to "original" resolution, which turned out to be 320x200, and then normal2x. The internal detail setting was set to high because that matches the detail levels I saw in the PS1 and Saturn games. The tearing is because Tomb Raider is a CPU hog and running it with Fraps dropped the framerate from 30fps to 22-27, with the very occasional dip into the high teens. I searched for over a week for ways to optimize this, way longer than I should have for a simple comparison. The 3dfx Tomb Raider Dosbox patch is vastly preferred on tombraiderforums, but I wanted to show the original texture maps without filtering too.


If you're not going to use a real 9x/DOS compatible machine, at least use a configuration that emulates it properly.
There should be a high framerate and no tearing at all. (you should also disable scaling -DOSBox does it by default, so you need to go into the conf file and change that)

Thanks for that. Actually, I had to get Tomb Raider working on my in law's single core laptop more times than I'd like to remember. This video is not misrepresenting how Tomb Raider was played on PC, especially not in 1996.



The framerate is noticeably lower on the Saturn too, I hadn't realized how big that gap was before. (still looks quite playable, but enough to be annoying when compared back to back)

No. Both versions are an inconsistent 30fps with occasional dips into the teens. The PS1 version doesn't dip as often in the gym/house scene though. The Saturn dips to 20FPS frequently in the box scene in particular.

[kool kitty89]

No, because they wanted progressive scan. The max vertical res the PSX can use in progressive is 256. When you bump that up to 480, it's interlaced only.
Exactly. Why would they even care about using progressive though? I like it more for some things, but most people seem to prefer interlacing in general (lack of scanline gaps among other things).
It's also only 224 lines due to normal TV overscan limits. (for NTSC; PAL is another story)

The only reason to do that is is you wanted 60 FPS rendering.

And again, increasing horizontal resolution is limited with composite video (which most people would have been using -if not RF), but bumping to interlaced will be far more dramatic by comparison.

320x480i would noticeably reduce jaggies and make dithering look better (blending vertically as well as horizontally -except PAL blends vertically in 240p as well). Or more realistically, you'd want 320x448 so as to not waste framebuffer space in overscan.

Most PSX models have pretty soft/blurry composite video, so that makes increasing horizontal resolution even less attractive.



I've had a hard time finding games that run at 320x480i during gameplay. I've found plenty that use it for menus though; Rage Racer, Dino Crisis and Silent Hill just to name a few. They all switch to 320*240p for gameplay though.
Yes, 320x240 (or 320x224) makes perfect sense, but going up to 512x240 doesn't make too much sense by comparison. (unless you can manage close to 60 FPS rendering)

Tekken 3 runs at 384*480i [bordered] (arcade version ran at 512*480); it's the highest gameplay resolution I can find.


Uh, no, emulators will run at whatever resolution your computer will allow. I'm talking about the actual PlayStation here.
I said:
Resolution has nothing to do with being "thin" or "fat",
and you:
For the PSX it does, as most games are stretched to 640*480 on it.

So if you're saying the PSX scales to that resolution, you make no sense. PSX games don't "stretch" anything, the 3DO and some N64 games interpolate to 640x480i (I think some PS2 games too), but the PSX doesn't support that at all AFIK.

Most games run in 240p native (ie you can see the scanline gaps and lack of interlacing on a TV), and I have no idea why you'd think it would be scaled to 640 width. (analog monitors and TVs can display ANY horizontal dot resolution -there's a limit to how small those pixels can get and still be discernable, but that's a separate issue)

Without interpolation/antialising, there's absolutely no reason to upscale anything. 640x240 will appear as 4:3 on an SDTV with 2:1 pixels (assuming the dot clock is 12.5 MHz and the TV has normal NTSC calibration -otherwise it won't be exactly 2:1).
Likewise, 320x480 will be 4:3 and fill the screen as well, but with 1:2 pixels instead. (assuming a 6.25 MHz dot clock)



And to my original point, it's up to the programmer/software to render properly for the resolution and aspect ratio used. (many, many NES/SNES/MD/SMS games didn't do this and ended up with stretched/squished looking graphics, and if they WERE corrected for NTSC, they pretty much never were for PAL and would thus look much too wide in PAL -sort of like setting a TV to anamorphic widescreen for fullscreen content)




The resolution for games on the PSX was limited by the vram. You need to at least double-buffer the frames, and the lowest color mode is thousands, which uses two bytes per pixel.
Isn't 16bpp the ONLY framebuffer depth the GPU supports? (the 24-bit mode being software managed)





Tekken 3 didn't and looked fine.

Here's a link to a VRAM dump from Tekken 3 (the image is too big for an image host).
http://www.speedyshare.com/files/28204135/Tekken3.zip
Interesting, I guess it has a consistently high enough framerate to avoid significant tearing.



Only game I can find that triple buffers is Jumping Flash. Not so surprisingly enough, it's also the lowest res PSX game I have found so far (256*224 with borders).
A bit odd that they'd even bother with triple buffering given the relatively limited advantages and significant disadvantages of eating up VRAM.






I wasn't talking about a border or cropping, the PS1 game displays more gameplay screen vertically. I didn't crop it out because the other versions occasionally display a screen that "tall" as well.
Ah, OK, I misread your previous post. (though, practically speaking, the PSX's resolution is totally wasted outside of PAL TVs or extremely tightly calibrated -or user adjusted- NTSC sets -the vast majority show no more than 224 lines)



Uh, yeah, thanks for that clarification. When you combine the VDP1 and VDP2 memory and the frame buffers the Video "bus" has 1.5MB to the PS1's 1MB. This can be over-emphasized of course, but it shouldn't be de-emphasized.
I wasn't de-emphasizing it, I was putting it in real-world context. ;)

The 1.5 MB configuration in the Saturn is wasteful for the most part due to its inflexibility. (and it's not cheap commodity DRAM either, so that's far more significant)

VDP2 is basically unused in TR and many 3D games, so that 512k would be mainly useful for auxiliary storage if used at all. (not sure how convenient it is for added storage)
If it WAS practical for general storage as such, that WOULD give a realistic advantage over the PSX, but it would depend on how practical it is to use VDP2 RAM as such. (albeit not as much of an advantage as if VDP1 had a full MB of texture RAM, and more costly due to using 2 256k SDRAM chips and being on a separate bus with VDP2)

The framebuffers are rarely pushed close to capacity and thus also heavily inflate the Saturn's useful RAM. (they're generally not useful for any extra data either as they need to be used for other things)

That's not one bus either, it's 2 or 3 separate buses (another cost inefficiency of the Saturn). You have the VDP1 bus for texture or "sprite" RAM and the framebuffer being rendered to (I don't think that framebuffer is on a separate bus) and then you have the VDP2 bus with the 2D tile RAM plus the framebuffer being scanned out to the screen by VDP2. (not sure if that's a separate bus or the same as that used for tile RAM)
The framebuffers are definitely separate banks in both cases, but separate buses is another matter. (there shouldn't be any advantage of having a 3rd bus, so it's probably just the 2 buses with the framebuffers being flipped between)

If they WERE on the same bus, you'd have contention between VDP1 and VDP2 due to there being no buffering or caching. (unlike the PSX with heavy caching and buffering to allow efficient rendering in a single BANK of RAM on a single bus)



Do we know that the water effect was done with the VDP2 on the Saturn game?
I seem to remember CORE mentioning such, but I'm not positive.
I don't think it's a transparency effect though since it's warping, (maybe a linescroll/scaling effect being performed on the framebuffer layer)



You know, you talk too much about stuff you read on a forum somewhere as though it is common (accepted) knowledge. I've seen homebrew types postulate that the VDP2 could be used to overlay effects over VDP1 3D graphics, but I haven't seen any sort of definitive examples of what that looked like.
I thought we sorted this out. (whatever thread that was) VDP2 can overlay onto anything with transparency, as can VDP1 for 2D objects with its basic 50/50 blending.
It's only warped quads that break things (ie 3D objects or warped 2D objects can't be translucent).

Some were claiming that warped quads could eb translucent over anything but other quads, but I'm pretty such you actually get garbage pixels or messed up textures if half transparency is enabled on a warped primitive. (I need to look into the specifics again, but that's the impression I got)

It's a VDP1 bug, VDP2 doesn't have any such problems, and that bug is also one of the supporting points for the late redesign of the Saturn in 1993 adding the 3D drawing modes to VDP1. (thus not having time to fix the bugs)
That's pure speculation, of course, but logical nonetheless.



Tomb Raider is early enough, practically a first gen Saturn game for Core, that I doubt they did anything super special to achieve their effects.
I wasn't claiming they did anything super special, I was saying that unless they put special effort into using 2ndary storage in the Saturn, the PSX would nominally have more memory at its disposal. (doing software decompression on the 68k wouldn't be "special" though, and neither would preprocessing the samples to sound better when converted to 8-bit PCM -namely dynamic range compression)



Wait, now the SH1 is useful? I thought it was a complete waste and not programmable? I'm not being sarcastic, this is what I've seen discussed about it in these forums. The SH1 has RAM that can be accessed by other systems, but the SH1 itself can't be touched? I suppose you could be storing extra data in the CD-ROM sub system's 512KB while the Main RAM is full of game data and "shadowing" some VRAM data for the VDP1. That would be better than not having the extra RAM at all, but it still sounds like extended CD-ROM cache to me.
I was just speculating and it has nothing to do with the Sh1 being useful, just its RAM. If the main CPUs have access to the SH1's work RAM/buffer and you weren't doing any on the fly loading from CD (SH1 is idle), it could be feasible to use that RAM as 2ndary storage.
Same for VDP2 tile RAM, though that also might not be especially practical to use depending how it can be accessed. (you'd need to be able to access it fairly easily to make it useful as such)

I wasn't talking about loading more data from CD, but "hacking" the SH1/CD RAM as added general purpose storage. (again, that assumes other processors can access that RAM -they'd have to to some extent to load CD data, but the question is whether it's fast/easy enough to use for general purpose storage)

Normally, the SH1's work RAM is for buffering CD-ROM data and for SH1 program data and possibly code (I think it might be purely configured as an MCU though with all code on-chip or in external ROM).
And, yes, the SH1 isn't programmable, or at least Sega never released documentation or tools to support it.


Dosbox was set to "original" resolution, which turned out to be 320x200, and then normal2x. The internal detail setting was set to high because that matches the detail levels I saw in the PS1 and Saturn games.
There's no "original" resolution. The original DOS game (and demo) has 2 res options with 320x200 (the lowest common denominator for VGA) and 640x480 (selected in the options menu or by pressing F1).

The closest detail level is the lowest. Increasing detail adds perspective correction that makes the game look better than the Saturn or PSX versions. ;)


The tearing is because Tomb Raider is a CPU hog and running it with Fraps dropped the framerate from 30fps to 22-27, with the very occasional dip into the high teens.
If it's that big of a problem, you should disable 2x scaling in DOSBox and enable double buffering. (DOS Box doesn't double buffer by default even if a game would be double buffering on real hardware -ie games tear that would never tear on a real DOS/9x machine)
Though double buffering in DOSBox can get screwy at times and seem to slow things down. (odd since double buffering should have basically no impact on performance)

Also odd that Voodoo emulation works so fast. I assume it takes advantage of modern hardware acceleration. (but that would also mean modifying performance compared to original hardware since such early accelerators always needed a fair chunk of CPU grunt for the 3D math/transform computations)


I searched for over a week for ways to optimize this, way longer than I should have for a simple comparison. The 3dfx Tomb Raider Dosbox patch is vastly preferred on tombraiderforums, but I wanted to show the original texture maps without filtering too.
It's not just filtering, it's a totally different color depth. Rendering in 256 colors makes the textures (and shading on untextured polys) get posterized (especially under certain lighting), and that's the main disadvantage to the PSX and Saturn versions.

Using 3Dfx should also allow effects to be disabled, so you could drop detail down to the level of PSX/Saturn. (I'll bet it also offers dithering as a detail option ;))



Thanks for that. Actually, I had to get Tomb Raider working on my in law's single core laptop more times than I'd like to remember. This video is not misrepresenting how Tomb Raider was played on PC, especially not in 1996.
The tearing is the exception to that though, it should be double buffered. (pretty much all DOS games from the early 90s onward were double buffered)

Of course, for a PC at the time, it really depended on the machine. (laptops of the late 90s would obviously be crap for such)

And if your PC DID run it that slow, it would run much worse with the 3DFX example as well. (CPU is a limiting factor with such old graphics cards)


No. Both versions are an inconsistent 30fps with occasional dips into the teens. The PS1 version doesn't dip as often in the gym/house scene though. The Saturn dips to 20FPS frequently in the box scene in particular.
It's the dips I was mainly commenting on. (that's the usual area of complain for framerate anyway, slowdown/stutter)



There's certainly nothing night and day about the Saturn and PSX versions, but I've never really felt otherwise.
The PSX has a slight advantage overall IMO, but not anything that would be a deal breaker for buying one system over the other with all else being equal. (the PSX controller WOULD be a deal breaker for me though ;) -and that's including the model 1 Saturn controller, which really isn't too bad at all)
I've gotten rather used to playing TR with a keyboard though. (there are actually a few things that are easier that way, including the roll -hit up and down together or zero on the num pad)

[sheath]

Interesting, I guess it has a consistently high enough framerate to avoid significant tearing.

Tekken 3's claim to fame back in the day was its technical feat of running at 60fps. That's one of those facts that doesn't really show up in gameplay, as the only thing that visibly updates that fast is the floor and background if the camera moves.



VDP2 is basically unused in TR and many 3D games, so that 512k would be mainly useful for auxiliary storage if used at all. (not sure how convenient it is for added storage)
If it WAS practical for general storage as such, that WOULD give a realistic advantage over the PSX, but it would depend on how practical it is to use VDP2 RAM as such. (albeit not as much of an advantage as if VDP1 had a full MB of texture RAM, and more costly due to using 2 256k SDRAM chips and being on a separate bus with VDP2)

The framebuffers are rarely pushed close to capacity and thus also heavily inflate the Saturn's useful RAM. (they're generally not useful for any extra data either as they need to be used for other things)

One of the development docs says that the VDP2 renders from, or combines its backgrounds with, one of the framebuffers while the other one is being used by the VDP1. The description made it sound like both were being used at all times, regardless of whether they were "full". Wouldn't an engine that consistently maxed out CPU or RAM resources be inefficient anyway?



That's not one bus either, it's 2 or 3 separate buses (another cost inefficiency of the Saturn). You have the VDP1 bus for texture or "sprite" RAM and the framebuffer being rendered to (I don't think that framebuffer is on a separate bus) and then you have the VDP2 bus with the 2D tile RAM plus the framebuffer being scanned out to the screen by VDP2. (not sure if that's a separate bus or the same as that used for tile RAM)
The framebuffers are definitely separate banks in both cases, but separate buses is another matter. (there shouldn't be any advantage of having a 3rd bus, so it's probably just the 2 buses with the framebuffers being flipped between)

Yeah, I understand how that complicates programming for the Saturn. What I don't get is the Jaguar to PS1 texture mapping comparison fell to the PS1 because it had sub systems for game related thing. Yet the Saturn having more dedicated buses is inefficient. I suspect this is in the eye of the beholder.



If they WERE on the same bus, you'd have contention between VDP1 and VDP2 due to there being no buffering or caching. (unlike the PSX with heavy caching and buffering to allow efficient rendering in a single BANK of RAM on a single bus)

Okay, so the VDP1 having the frame buffers and its own RAM and the VDP2 having its own RAM and access to one of the frame buffers before outputting works because the system lacks buffers or cache for a unified structure. That's the why of the structure.



There's no "original" resolution. The original DOS game (and demo) has 2 res options with 320x200 (the lowest common denominator for VGA) and 640x480 (selected in the options menu or by pressing F1).

The closest detail level is the lowest. Increasing detail adds perspective correction that makes the game look better than the Saturn or PSX versions. ;)


Well, my experience is different. Dosbox defaults to the setting of "original" resolution, that happened to be 320x200. Similarly, setting the internal graphic details to Highest made the textures and warping indistinguishable to the Saturn and PS1 games, as I tried to demonstrate in the video.



If it's that big of a problem, you should disable 2x scaling in DOSBox and enable double buffering. (DOS Box doesn't double buffer by default even if a game would be double buffering on real hardware -ie games tear that would never tear on a real DOS/9x machine)
Though double buffering in DOSBox can get screwy at times and seem to slow things down. (odd since double buffering should have basically no impact on performance)

Also odd that Voodoo emulation works so fast. I assume it takes advantage of modern hardware acceleration. (but that would also mean modifying performance compared to original hardware since such early accelerators always needed a fair chunk of CPU grunt for the 3D math/transform computations)

I even copied most of the 3dfx patch's dosbox.conf settings to level out where I did with vanilla Tomb Raider. I also tried recording without the normal2X setting but the performance differences were not noticeable. Double buffering only works in full screen, which totally sucked with Fraps running and didn't stop the occasional tearing anyway, which is why I disabled it.



It's not just filtering, it's a totally different color depth. Rendering in 256 colors makes the textures (and shading on untextured polys) get posterized (especially under certain lighting), and that's the main disadvantage to the PSX and Saturn versions.

Using 3Dfx should also allow effects to be disabled, so you could drop detail down to the level of PSX/Saturn. (I'll bet it also offers dithering as a detail option ;))


The in game detail options were locked. I did see that hitting the F3/F4 keys resulted in polygon tearing, and some of the textures moved but didn't seem to increase or decrease in detail like they did in the software rendered mode.


The tearing is the exception to that though, it should be double buffered. (pretty much all DOS games from the early 90s onward were double buffered)

Of course, for a PC at the time, it really depended on the machine. (laptops of the late 90s would obviously be crap for such)

And if your PC DID run it that slow, it would run much worse with the 3DFX example as well. (CPU is a limiting factor with such old graphics cards)


My 133Mhz Cyrix system with the Matrox Mystic 4MB either didn't run Tomb Raider well, or didn't run it as well as the Saturn did. I can't remember why I decided to stick to the Saturn version back in the day. I see occasional tearing in every PC game I have ever played to this day, with or without buffering enabled.

[Chilly Willy]

Isn't 16bpp the ONLY framebuffer depth the GPU supports? (the 24-bit mode being software managed)

Yes, 16bit is the only depth for hardware drawing, but you might have had a game that was slow (like an RPG) where they wanted the image to be as good as possible and so used software 24bit to avoid any dithering. I don't think any did, but they COULD have.



A bit odd that they'd even bother with triple buffering given the relatively limited advantages and significant disadvantages of eating up VRAM.

If you look at the vram dump, it's clear that vram space was not a problem... it's mostly empty even with three buffers! A lot of Jumping Flash is Goraud shaded polys, so they didn't need much vram for textures. Having three buffers meant they could run the game at rates between 30 and 60 Hz (although the video would naturally max out at 60 Hz). Using double buffer means that you either run at 60 Hz, or 30 Hz if you can't reach 60. There's no 59 Hz with double buffer video.

[The Coop]

http://user.xthost.info/thecoop/biden_asleep.jpg

[Team Andromeda]

Why does every thread have to do into a slagging match with Tech Spec's ?


I thought both the 1st and 2nd TR games to be utterly brilliant and my only faults were that I would have liked a save system to save exactly where you were in the level (at any point). I also thought the 3D of TR held up really well against Mario incredible given it was on 32bit systems and made by a tiny British company

[Chilly Willy]

I really loved the first Tomb Raider. I like the first three well enough, then lost interest in the series at number four. The third was perhaps the best of the three, but the first still has that "awesome new game" specialness that is hard to beat.

[Black_Tiger]

As I mentioned earlier, Tomb Raider was definitely overrated by Gamefan. My summed up quotes were actually nothing compared to the real deal. :p It helped that the game was on Playstation at the time. Here are scans of the game's coverage from a single issue-


Playstation Review (http://superpcenginegrafx.net/misc/trpr.png)

Saturn Review (http://superpcenginegrafx.net/misc/trsr.png)

Playstation Article Page1 (http://superpcenginegrafx.net/misc/trpa1.png)

Playstation Article Page2 (http://superpcenginegrafx.net/misc/trpa2.png)

Playstation Article Page3 (http://superpcenginegrafx.net/misc/trpa3.png)

Playstation Article Page4 (http://superpcenginegrafx.net/misc/trpa4.png)

Playstation Article Page5 (http://superpcenginegrafx.net/misc/trpa5.png)



Some classic quotes from Dave Halverson-


All one need do is read my TR review to know how awestruck I am with Core's soon-to-be-legendary new game. Lara's character of the century, and this game is beyond any adventure you've ever experienced. The ambient music, vast levels, intelligent enemies, brill CD cinemas an movie-quality story only begin to tell the tale. Buy a Playstation now if you haven't already. Tomb Raider will make your Christmas Merry!


Three years ago when I was talking to Jeremy Smith about Core's vision for the ultimate 32-bit adventure game, who'd have thought that it would end up one of the best games ever made?


After playing completely through the "perfect" Mario 64 and Crash Bandicoot, he's goes on to say that


...of the three, in my opinion, Tomb Raider is the best.


Newly-named Lara Croft is on a quest parallel to just about every Indianna Jones adventure in the book.


Lara's an astounding babe, and this is an astounding story that unfolds as you play a game, not watch a movie.


We begin with Lara herself, the most graceful and fun to control video game character of all time.


Lara does many things -so much so that you'll often feel you are controlling a living, breathing woman.


Lara has perfect control.


Vast does not begin to describe it.


Sadly, the Saturn version is but a shell of the godly PS version, which is so good, I would urge you to rent or buy a PS just to enjoy this version.


One thing for sure, Tomb Raider gets my vote for game of the year - and perhaps of all time.


Caption of screen shots depicting the handstand/cartwheel-


It doesn't get any better.


Also check out Takuhi's Playstation review.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, even if time has shown how overrated Tomb Raider was, the fact that they trashed the "perfect" game on Saturn because the graphics weren't as good already makes them hypocritical. By Dave Halverson's own words, the Saturn had a better game than Mario 64 and Crash Bandicoot, but he scored it much lower.

[kool kitty89]

Yes, 16bit is the only depth for hardware drawing, but you might have had a game that was slow (like an RPG) where they wanted the image to be as good as possible and so used software 24bit to avoid any dithering. I don't think any did, but they COULD have.
24-bit was probably used most for splash screens with high detail images and similar situations.









One of the development docs says that the VDP2 renders from, or combines its backgrounds with, one of the framebuffers while the other one is being used by the VDP1. The description made it sound like both were being used at all times, regardless of whether they were "full".
Yes, sort of, it's rather like the 32x or somewhat like VGA cards on PCs (except I don't think many -if any- VGA cards used hardware page flipped buffers like that, most used single banks of DRAM or VRAM AFIK).
It's also somewhat comparable to how the ASIC works in the MCD. (except you aren't page flipping dual buffers there either, but DMAing to MD VRAM)

VDP1 is a blitter of sorts that renders into a framebuffer. That buffer is then flipped to active display and the other buffer is flipped to VDP1 to render into.
This is very much like how the 32x uses its 2 128k buffers with one being rendered to while the other is monopolized by the Super VDP scanning it out to the screen. (and also handles analog genlock with MD video)

In the Saturn, VDP2 handles all the video DAC duties. It scans the active display framebuffer out to the screen. (and combines the other VDP2 layers along with that)

I believe the frambuffer that VDP2 scans out is treated somewhat like the ASIC rendering to a MD BG layer such that most/all of the effects VDP2 can apply to its tile layers can be applied to the framebuffer layer. (screen scrolling, line scroll, rotation, etc -I think it can do 3D warping effects and translucency as well, but I'm not positive -maybe even per cell translucency if the framebuffer is actually treated as a VDP2 tilemap)

So in that sense it's "VDP2's" framebuffer, but that's oversimplifying it big time. You need both framebuffers for VDP1 to display anything, just like the 32x. It's hardware double buffering. (OK, technically you COULD get by with 1 buffer if you only rendered in vblank, but that's pretty unrealistic and would mean single buffering for most resolutions)


Wouldn't an engine that consistently maxed out CPU or RAM resources be inefficient anyway?
How do you mean? An efficient game would squeeze out as much CPU resource as possible with almost no idle time (less optimized games would have a lot of idle CPU time where it's waiting for another operation to complete rather than multitasking as best as possible).

Likewise, a good game would pack as much into RAM as possible and get as close as possible to 100% utilization. The only reason you'd want added "open" space would be for additional buffering. (either to stream more date from CD on the fly, decompress on the fly, or as a buffer to move data between different subsystems -like if you wanted to use sound RAM for added game data or textures in the PSX you'd want to leave a small buffer available in main RAM to copy into and another buffer region in VRAM if you were doing on the fly texture updates -just like you wouldn't fill all of MD/SNES/SMS/PCE VRAM if doing on the fly animation updates)

That's definitely NOT the case with the Saturn's framebuffers, or the 32x framebuffers for that matter. (except in that case, the added buffer space makes scrolling easier as you can have the 256 color buffer extend into overscan)

It's not like ROM where you'd want to cut back as much as possible on memory usage. ;) (though in that case, maxing out RAM would also be a good thing, compressing as much as possible and loading into RAM ahead of time)


Yeah, I understand how that complicates programming for the Saturn. What I don't get is the Jaguar to PS1 texture mapping comparison fell to the PS1 because it had sub systems for game related thing. Yet the Saturn having more dedicated buses is inefficient. I suspect this is in the eye of the beholder.
The jaguar and N64 opted for single bus designs to save on cost. There are other trade-offs for low cost on multi-bus designs, and other trade-offs with using wider buses. But, in general, a highly optimized design using a single high-bandwidth bus would be the most cost effective. (though it also requires some of the most intensive R&D to pull off)

The PSX opted for a multi-bus design and was thus more expensive, but the GPU was heavily buffered for high bandwidth and efficient operation on a single bus. (still it was only 32-bits wide and thus required faster, more expensive RAM to achieve that bandwidth than the likes of the Jaguar -of course, having 32 data lines would save cost on the PCB and chip packages over 64-bits, so it's a design trade-off too -hence the N64 using extremely fast high-end RDRAM with a 8/9-bit bus -also facilitated by their partnership with SGI)
I think it also may have used dual-port VRAM for video rather tan cheaper normal DRAM, but I'm not positive. (using dual port VRAM would increase performance by cutting out overhead to read the framebuffer)

Sony could afford to support a higher-end design for the added performance, but if you had a company with fewer advantages, the based PSX chipset (or a very similar one) could have been configured at far lower cost by merging it into a single bus design. (it would have been lower performing, but with better cost to performance ratio as well)
Rather like how the jaguar could have had much higher performance if it was a multi-bus design, let alone if it used expensive/higher-end CPUs, RAM or number of buses on the level of the PSX or Saturn. (even a dual bus configuration closer to the 3DO would have been extremely significant though, or keeping the single bus design and adding a better CPU with a cache, adding RAM to the 2nd bank to improve bus sharing a bit more and improve texture mapping; let alone bumping to 26.6 MHz EDO DRAM rather than the 13.3 MHz FPM DRAM -or adding a 32k SRAM chip as a high-speed external texture buffer -of course, even more options for an even more cost effective design if you developed the custom chips further, and that's exactly what the jaguar 2 design was doing)

The Saturn OTOH was not a very aggressive design and was also riddled with feature creep that kept it from a practical mass market cost/price point as well. (the 3DO was a very conservative design too, but it was at least relatively simple and designed in a way that further consolidation would be substantial -given the large 1 micron chips initially used- it also cut back cost by using a 2 bus design, cheap DRAM for main memory, and a low-cost CPU -even with the large/old process chips and use of dual-port VRAM, it should have been nominally cheaper to manufacture than the PSX and definitely Saturn if pushed at similar margins and volumes -of course, Sony's vertical integration would deflate the manufacturing cost of the PSX and skew that comparison)

The most aggressive design element of the Saturn was also probably its least useful one for the 5th gen market: VDP2. Albeit, even then it wasn't that impressive given the jaguar had an even more powerful 2D engine with the object processor and the blitter to assist that and all on-chip with the RISC GPU, MMU, blitter, and 4kB SRAM scratchpad. (granted, it couldn't push rotated/warped objects as fast as VDP1 due to the slow texture mapping, same for the VDP2's mode-7 like scaling/rotation effects -it could scale objects extremely fast, just not distort or rotate, more like the PSX's sprite mode but managing a lot more with less bandwidth as it wasn't a blitter but a specialized list processor)
And, on top of that, the Jaguar did that while using slow/cheap commodity DRAM on a single shared external bus.

The Saturn has at least 6 external buses (SH1/CD-ROM subsystem memory, main CPU memory, VDP1, VDP2, and audio), and more banks of RAM on top of that (the framebuffers are configured as separate banks to allow separate source and destination banks for VDP1 rendering -I'm assuming texture and framebuffer RAM banks are not actually on separate buses since that would be unnecessary).

It uses a ton of (for the time) expensive SDRAM, but uses it at such speeds that it's totally unnecessary. (cheaper EDO DRAM would be as fast; the only explanation I've heard was Chilly Willy mentioning that SDRAM's synchronous interfacing would allow cutting corners on R&D costs and time -sort of like using PSRAM and/or SRAM instead of similarly fast DRAM on some older consoles- . . . except the Saturn and 32x both also use asynchronous DRAM, so that makes things more confusing -maybe they already had FPM DRAM interfacing configured but didn't want to invest for EDO DRAM)
Of course, they could have use ALL cheap FPM DRAM and buffered for wider bus widths for high bandwidth. (exactly what the jaguar did . . . except for texture mapping unfortunately -had flare though texture mapping was really high priority for 3D back in 1990/91, they could have put more focus on that than other features and had close to PSX speed texture mapping while still using the same RAM as the current Jag -one discussion on Atariage brought up that such texture mapping would take less chips space than the Z-buffer logic, but flare apparently felt Z-buffering was a more important feature at the time -something the 3DO, Saturn, and PSX all lack in hardware)
The 32x is also pretty inefficent, but that's more excusable due to it being developed in about 6 months. (if the Saturn had been a fully backwards compatible, evolutionary design, some inefficiency would also make more sense . . . except compared to the current Saturn, a well-optimized MD+CD based machine could have been significantly more cost effective still)

Then there's the generally wasteful use of the SH1, overbuilt custom sound system, but that's a common problem of the time. (though in the Saturn's case it ironically still lacked a common feature -decompression, or a DSP/CPU capable enough to do it in software -DSP in the SCSU doesn't have the right features, 68k isn't fast enough to do ADPCM for more than a few of the channels at once -OK for a SFX engine, but not for a complex realtime music engine . . . albeit it doesn't seem like developers pushed it for SFX even).
Then there's the 512k of SDRAM for that SH1. (128k or even 512k of cheap DRAM would have been much more cost effective and even 128k would have meant more buffer space than the PSX or 3DO -128k DRAM would probably have been cheaper than the 32k SRAM in the others)

Anyway, having more dedicated hardware isn't inefficient, it's generally MORE efficient (hence dedicated blitters, sound processors, GPUs, etc rather than having a CPU do everything or a bunch of off the shelf stuff -like arcade games and workstations often do or did).
The problem is that it's often unclear exactly WHAT features will be definitively important in hardware.
If advanced 2D BGs with proportionally limited sprite/object (and 3D) rendering had dominated the mass market in the mid 90s, then the Saturn's VDP2 (and PC-FX) would have made a lot more sense, but there was no indication of that whatsoever.

For the time (ie 1992-94), the most sensible option would have been to put emphasis on a aggressively engineered flexible blitter capable of high bandwidth and possibly working on a shared bus with the CPU and audio (or at least one single bus/bank for rendering/framebuffer/texture data). Optimizing for efficient and consistent use of memory with caching and buffering to maximize bandwidth (keep it close to peak bandwidth) would be key.
They could even have focused solely on the 2D drawing operations and required CPU or coprocessor assistance for full 3D rasterization or warped objects. (you'd have optimization for high bandwdith 2D objects/BGs and scaled/rotated objects, but like the Jag blitter and MCD, would need added resource for warped primitives and planes; that way you also avoid favoring quads or triangles or wasting logic to cater to quads specifically -one thing that could help for coprocessor based rasterization would be a drawing command cache/buffer that the coprocessor could periodically update rather than having to constantly manage the blitter, making multitasting much easier for the coprocessor GPU/CPU/DSP -whatever is used; that's one problem with the Jag GPU+blitter configuration as it is: you need careful coding to efficiently multitask while rasterizing 3D, otherwise the GPU ends up waiting to send the next drawing command while the blitter is drawing -thus, without very careful coding, you'd need to halt the blitter for the GPU to do other tasks like calculating 3D math, trasform, lighting, object lists, gale logic or physics, etc)


On that note the N64's design is inherently flexible, but used in a very fixed-function manner for the vast majority of cases. More dedicated logic could have been cheaper (ie less silicon for similar performance) than having the RSP do it in software (via microcode).
The N64 chipset was an extremely tight design in terms of consolidated and aggressive chip design and cost effectiveness, and the flexibility seen with it was the most foolproof option for the time, but in hindsight the flexibility was largely unnecessary. (though, actually, given SGI's emphasis on polygonal 3D from the start -and similar in their workstations- it doesn't seem like that flexibility was aimed at being able to program microcode tuned for 2D or "pseudo 3D" rendering, so that may actually be more of a coincidence)

That flexibility DOES apply to fully polygonal 3D as well, of course, so that's a plus too. (especially given the poorly balanced performance of SGI's standard microcode) and if that standard microcode's feature set had been been implemented in hardwired logic, developers would have been totally stuck. (granted, given the poor microcoding support for the RSP, that was the case for most developers anyway)


Having more buses or expensive RAM where cheaper RAM could be as good (or better) is the inefficient thing. Same for using more silicon where a more aggressive design with less silicon could do better. (a huge part of that is an aggressive R&D effort targeting cutting edge chip fabrication processes -like how Atari used .5 micron when 3DO was using old 1 micron process chips and when new high-end CPUs were just reaching .6 micron and more often closer to .8 micron -the first .5 micron CPUs arrived in 1994 with the likes of the Power PC 603)

The fixed-function GTE was almost certainly a cost saving option over a flexible coprocessor (unless they dialed back performance considerably), and probably savings for R&D as well. (investing in R&D to bring up the R3000 to a reliable 66 MHz would have been one other direct trade-off for R&D -that would have used less silicon too, but yields may have been more of an issue, if not heat dissipation)



Now, putting that all in perspective to the Saturn: if you ignore the feature clash with market demands at the time (the Jaguar and N64 weren't ideal in that regard either -the PSX wasn't for that matter, but closer), the issue of it being inefficient is a matter of cost effective design.
If the Saturn effectively did everything it does now at the speed it does now (more or less), but did so with fewer, more consolidated chips, fewer buses, and cheaper RAM, it would be a much better system.
Specifically, if it could mean things like cut to a 1 bus design with 4 MB 64-bit EDO DRAM and enough buffering for similar overall bandwidth as the Saturn, or perhaps 32-bit SDRAM clocked at 2x the speed (albeit, the SH2s wouldn't be able to take advantage of added bandwidth in either of those cases), or perhaps a 2 bus design using 32-bit EDO DRAM in 2 2MB banks (1 for video, 1 for audio and CPU).
In the long run a single faster CPU would be more cost effective (more expensive initially, but cheaper in the long run due to board space and traces, plus more performance), but there aren't many options for that unless they delayed the release or got hitachi to produce special high-speed SH2 variants. (putting one CPU on the video bus and one in main could be another option to improve cost effectiveness -not cheaper, but potentially better performance and the ability for both CPUs to work in cache simultaneously -perhaps the one could be treated as a GPU-like coprocessor -cutting out the audio DSP and the little-used SCU DSP would save on cost too, more so if the sound system was cut back to more basic DMA audio with buffering for bus sharing with the CPU, or maybe switch to an off the shelf option like Yamaha's OPL4 and add some embedded interface logic to allow it to efficiently share main RAM rather than requiring dedicated SRAM)

The CD-ROM system should have been cut back to an embedded MCU managing data transfers and the cache/buffer. (perhaps use a cheap 128k DRAM chip for the buffer -cheaper than SRAM and more space to work with)

Actually, for the time, the Jaguar 2 concept (and working prototype) was probable the most well balanced and cost effective in the industry. (not the best performing in all categories, but that was due to a low-cost configuration)
Something 1/2 way between the Jag and the Jag 2 would have been perfect for what Sega wanted (powerful and flexible 2D performance and capable 3D performance), but extremely consolidated and cost effective. (more so since the RISC core used for the GPU and DSP also made for a decent CPU at the time, so they could cut out the overhead of buying an off the shelf CPU and also never worry about having to license a CPU for custom consolidation into the chipset)
Of course, the market at the time really didn't demand 2D power on the level of the object processor (putting all emphasis on the blitter for 2D and 3D would make more sense), but it certainly would have been in line with SoJ's desires at the time. ;) (and would have been awesome for 2D in the arcade)


For that matter, if the Saturn DID retain such an expensive configuration, but actually did something useful with it, it could be an arguably good design. Like if the SDRAM was actually clocked close to 60 MHz and most/all processors could take advantage of that. (except that even at 2x the clock speed, VDP1 would have less peak bandwidth than the PSX GPU's VRAM -16 bit at 57.3 MHz is 114.6 MB/s vs the 133 MB/s of the PSX)
So to really push that, it would involve one of the above sort of circumstances of buffering, but with more buses on top of that. (like 32-bit SDRAM close to 60 MHz dedicated to VDP1 . . . except that's impossible with the current configuration of RAM chips Sega used)



Things like quads, difficult to work with architecture and weak tools (exacerbated by the architecture, but more due to Sega's organization.management problems) are separate issue from the cost ineffectiveness of the hardware.
In Sega's position (being a 3rd party hardware maker with outsourced manufacturing), they needed a MORE aggressive and MORE cost effective design than Sony to pull it off on a cost/price competitive basis.
That, or just a cheaper and less powerful design. (especially with the benefit of backwards compatibility or even more friendly architecture and tools, more so if the performance was even more optimized for the market than the PSX)

Sega had that with the Dreamcast over the PS2, and if Sega had had that sort of advantage in the previous generation, they'd have been far, far better off. (given the hardware/cost issues exacerbated management issues, that would have been even more significant -especially if it was low cost enough to displace the 32x/mars project)

Best case for Sega by late 1993 would have been an aggressive approach to stripping down the Saturn and improving cost efficiency where possible. (it COULD have been made cheaper than the PSX, and more cost effective than the existing Saturn for sure, but there wasn't enough time to make it similarly or more cost effective than the PSX unless they delayed the release until '95)

And, of course, developers don't care about cost effective manufacturing, they just care about the capabilities and ease of accessing that. (and market share of the console, of course, and that's tied to a lot of different factors -including price point and marketing; cheaper hardware allows more favorable margins at lower price points and thus more funds for marketing ;))

Edit:
Heh, that was a long rant . . . at least I've got something fairly coherent (could be a lot better, granted) to link to rather than constantly rehashing things piecemeal fashion.





Okay, so the VDP1 having the frame buffers and its own RAM and the VDP2 having its own RAM and access to one of the frame buffers before outputting works because the system lacks buffers or cache for a unified structure. That's the why of the structure.
VDP1 has the separate framebuffers for 2 reasons: 1 to flip the buffers to a separate bus to be scanned out to the screen (like the 32x Super VDP), and 2 to allow consistent use of SDRAM in page/burst mode rather than suffering slow random accesses. (the PSX has buffering and caching to address that; the 3DO steals the main bus to do that by comparison -for the 3DO, main RAM is more like VDP1 texture RAM and VRAM is more like VDP1 framebuffer RAM)

Then there's VDP2's own tile RAM used independently for the VDP2 tile layers. (VDP1 RAM and the framebuffers are totally unused for the 5 VDP2 BGs)




Well, my experience is different. Dosbox defaults to the setting of "original" resolution, that happened to be 320x200. Similarly, setting the internal graphic details to Highest made the textures and warping indistinguishable to the Saturn and PS1 games, as I tried to demonstrate in the video.
Hmm, must be some odd settings in DOSbox . . .
320x200 is the default when you fist boot the game, as is low detail. (you have to use the function keys or options menu to change that)

DOSBox should display in the native resolution of the program unless scaling is enabled. (or aspect correct to stretch 320x200 to 4:3)
I also switched to open GL for rendering DOSbox since direcdraw is buggy and problematic on my computer. (and 320x200 doesn't display at all, though 320x240 works)



I even copied most of the 3dfx patch's dosbox.conf settings to level out where I did with vanilla Tomb Raider. I also tried recording without the normal2X setting but the performance differences were not noticeable. Double buffering only works in full screen, which totally sucked with Fraps running and didn't stop the occasional tearing anyway, which is why I disabled it.
Odd, full-screen should be no more intensive than window mode. (with both set to the same scaling/aspect correct options)



The in game detail options were locked. I did see that hitting the F3/F4 keys resulted in polygon tearing, and some of the textures moved but didn't seem to increase or decrease in detail like they did in the software rendered mode.
Yes, that's normal. The screen will tear or flicker when adjusting detail options. F3 expands the game window while F2 shrinks it (if already full-screen, F3 will do nothing but make the screen blip).
F4 toggles detail (perspective correction) and you should see an immediate change in texture warping when doing that. (there's 3 levels; low with no correction, medium with correction on near objects only, and high detail with correction on most/all visible areas of the scene)

F1 toggles between 640x480 and 320x200.


My 133Mhz Cyrix system with the Matrox Mystic 4MB either didn't run Tomb Raider well, or didn't run it as well as the Saturn did. I can't remember why I decided to stick to the Saturn version back in the day. I see occasional tearing in every PC game I have ever played to this day, with or without buffering enabled.
Accelerated or unaccelerated? If you ran accelerated with the matrox (one of the cards to use the crappy S3 ViRGE chipset iirc) and pushed the settings too high, it would have been substantially slower than plain software rendering. (with filtering, perspective correction, dithering, fog, etc all disabled, it should have been faster than 256 color rendering at the same resolution, but in higher color with less posterization)

Running at 640x480 in high detail probably would have been pushing it for a 133 MHz pentium class CPU, but dropping to 320x200 and low detail should have had it faster than the Saturn. Albeit, if you weren't using perspective correction or 640x480 mode, it would lose all advantages over the Saturn version -slightly lower resolution and 256 color vs highcolor. (if you could run at 640x480 low detail or 320x200 high detail, there would be advantages over the Saturn version though)

[Silanda]

Accelerated or unaccelerated? If you ran accelerated with the matrox (one of the cards to use the crappy S3 ViRGE chipset iirc) and pushed the settings too high, it would have been substantially slower than plain software rendering. (with filtering, perspective correction, dithering, fog, etc all disabled, it should have been faster than 256 color rendering at the same resolution, but in higher color with less posterization)

The Mystique used its own chipset that was supposedly faster than the shit heap known as the Virge, but had a somewhat weak feature set IIRC. It was also significantly slower than the Voodoo 1.

[sheath]

The Mystique had no hardware 3D acceleration. It's claim to fame was the 4MB RAM for better texture mapping, which only affected those few games that were made specifically for Matrox cards.

Black_Tiger, thank you for the scans. Having played all three versions of Tomb Raider recently I can not see any reason to call only one version "godly" to be sure.

[Silanda]

The Mystique had no hardware 3D acceleration. It's claim to fame was the 4MB RAM for better texture mapping, which only affected those few games that were made specifically for Matrox cards.

AFAIK this isn't quite right. From what I remember, and from everything I can find, it did support 3D acceleration, and had a Direct3D driver, but was missing a hell of a lot of features that it was really taken for granted that a 3D accelerator would have. Bilinear filtering, mip mapping, alpha blending? Not on the Mystique.

[sheath]

That could be true, and certainly might have confused me early on about Direct 3D versus Direct Draw capabilities.

I ended up picking up the Matrox M3D PCI expansion to get full 3D accelerated effects. About the only thing that worked on was the 'X' demo that I used to benchmark my system before 3DMark.

[Olls]

-snip-
Some classic quotes from Dave Halverson-
-snip-


Wow, we should take lessons from this guy on how to be a proper fanboy.
Amazing quotes!

[Black_Tiger]

Wow, we should take lessons from this guy on how to be a proper fanboy.
Amazing quotes!

He's got nothing on Nick Rox. :p

[kool kitty89]

The Mystique used its own chipset that was supposedly faster than the shit heap known as the Virge, but had a somewhat weak feature set IIRC. It was also significantly slower than the Voodoo 1.
Ah OK, a quick search would have answered that (should have done that rather than making the assumption . . . ).

I wonder how it compared to ATi's original RAGE chipset, which itself was supposedly a fair bit better (or at least well balanced) than ViRGE -and had MPEG-1 acceleration. (wiki references the Mistique being from 1997, but that seems a little late, 2 years later than the introduction of ViRGE -namely in the Diamond 3D cards, RAGE, or NV-1 -namely in Diamond's EDGE card)


AFAIK this isn't quite right. From what I remember, and from everything I can find, it did support 3D acceleration, and had a Direct3D driver, but was missing a hell of a lot of features that it was really taken for granted that a 3D accelerator would have. Bilinear filtering, mip mapping, alpha blending? Not on the Mystique.
That was my impression too. Powerful 2D GUI-oriented acceleration along with basic 3D support. (like a number of other early total graphics solutions at the time -ie rather than piggyback cards like the VooDoo)

If you wanted PSX level 3D (or better -higher framerate and/or resolution), it could still be a good option. (even ViRGE could push highcolor unfiltered 3D faster than a 256 color software renderer at the time)

Except the PSX DID do alpha blending for translucency effects, so 3D cards forcing simple dithered transparency effects would be behind the PSX in that respect. (not sure how the original RAGE card compared for feature set -it was one of the very first 3D cards too, but apparently the best of that first wave of consumer multimedia 3D cards in 1995 -and also the only one of the 3 chipsets introduced in '95 to be extended in a long line of successful products)





Black_Tiger, thank you for the scans. Having played all three versions of Tomb Raider recently I can not see any reason to call only one version "godly" to be sure.
Certainly, regardless of the Saturn version having shortcomings, it's certainly not night and day compared to the PSX. (it would be night and day compared to the PC game with acceleration on a high-end PC with a VooDoo card -or maybe a RAGE II, which I think was out in '96)

Actually, I'd probably take the Saturn version due to the controller. (even the model 1 controller is a lot more comfortable -at least for me- than the PSX pad -the D-pad on the model 1 controller is actually far more comfortable than it looks)

[Mr Nuts]

I have been gaming since 1983 and i would say of all the games i have ever played Tomb Raider possibly had the biggest impact on me as it was trully ground breaking for the day,adventure games would never be the same again thanks to TR.The world in which you explored actually looked natural no more 10x10 square corridors like Dungeon Master you had free roam and the puzzle element was just right,the music is unforgettable and still quite moving today.
Sure some Tomb Raiders had some issues with camera angles and save points but it just added to the challenge for me,despite being a big fan the only TR i have not played i think is Angel Of Darkness on Ps2 .

[Black_Tiger]

I love Mario 64, but the camera control and the crappy N64 pads almost ruin it. Every 3D game should have had full camera control like Tomb Raider or the modern current twin stick standard. I'm also not a fan of analog control in general. Thankfully, the DS has a version if Mario 64 that fixed those issues.

[Chilly Willy]

I love Mario 64, but the camera control and the crappy N64 pads almost ruin it. Every 3D game should have had full camera control like Tomb Raider or the modern current twin stick standard.

This part I agree with... not so much the part about not liking analog sticks. :D