Is 900p okay? Is Xbox One a worthy 8th gen console now?

[captain carot]

bdbdbd said:

captain carot said:

So you are comparing inferior versions intentionally?

 

The NES was totally outdated when Kings Quest 5 came out. But feel free to compare some mid to late 80's PC-games with 2D graphics.

Same for Wolfenstein. SNES was basically 100% 2D by design. It was weak with raycaster engines and even weaker with polygons. But it could do 2D stuff that was hard to handle for PC's until years later.

About Descent, Doom etc., i played on a 486DX50 back then. Not what you'd call slow 93/94. Doom and Doom 2 already had some framerate issues sometimes and Descent ran like shit on high details when there was more than one enemy at a time, even with 8MB of RAM.

That was when the Playstation came out in Japan and had great looking games that ran perfectly fluid (for that time) like Ridge Racer, Tohshinden and so on.

 

PC pros were storage (floppy, hdd) especially for stuff like adventures and RAM for textured 3D titles as well as some 2D games.

On the other hand PC's for a very long time had weak spots.

Most of that disappeared over time.

He is right, you know. I already argued these over back then. SNES could output rather impressive 2D with it's multiple processors, but the thing is, that the resolution was so much lower than what PC (I assume it's the IBM-clones we're talking about) could output. Yoshi's Island wasn't possible on SNES without Super FX because sprites were too big for SNES to handle. It was as late as mid to late 90's consoles were able output resolutions PC's did since the 80's. The first HD games on consoles were seen in 2000's, whereas PC's have been HD capable since 1989.

If you mean emulators weren't capable to emulate SNES until years later, you're right. But that doesn't have anything to do with the system being powerful, but the multiple processor tech being bitch to emulate.

it is true, that RISC architecture is more efficient than CISC, and therefore is prefferred for applications that doesn't need complete instruction sets, but it's not suddenly going to make consoles rival head to head in graphics with PC.

Yes and no.

 

That's about the time when you achieve what. VGA came out 1987 with games starting to support VGA very slowly until 1990. Standardized SVGA was around 1989/1990.

Not to talk about the practical capabilities of video cards back then. I remember my first two monitors having 1024x768 max resolution when 2D games usually still were 320x200-320x240 and most 3D games 'high res modes' 320x400. ^^

That slowly changed around 1994/95. There was a huge difference between theoretical capability like SXGA having 1280x1024 with 8Bit color depth and what actually could be used for games.

If they had DisplayPort 1.3 current graphics cards could be 8K on paper. But not have the power for newer games in 8K.

People should remember that at the time the Voodoo 1 came out 320x200/240 still was usual for 3D games and that fluid 640x480 with 16bit colors was a breakthrough. With Voodoo 2 it was 800x600.

And at the time Voodoo 2, the Riva TNT and so on came out the Dreamcast was released in Japan.

That was a totally different thing from today.

 

@Pemalite:
386 came out in 1986 (productionwise). And VGA cards a bit later. So you wont find 1985 PC's that can run Kings Quest while the NES released 1983, though Japan only. :-p