Questions about Sega Saturn

[Akumajou]

No one is saying that Saturn was hard to develop for because a magazine said so, that is entirely your straw man. You haven't made any arguments to support your assertion that it's as easy to develop for as PS1 (particularly for 3D games). I gave several reasons for why I'd expect it to be more difficult to develop for, but your only rebuttal seems to be that a biased gaming press asserted it and therefore it can't be true.

You're the one directly comparing Sony PlayStation hardware and Sega Saturn as if they HAD to have console parity features while ignorant my mentioned "PSX has GTE"

You keep insisting that "Saturn renders distorted sprites" when even PlayStation with GTE does the SAME damn thing.

Neither console system, were truly designed to render real polygons and both are different designs.

You're arguments on Saturn games simply diminish any effort made on Saturn in general...ambient lighting, sounds and complex layers by use of VDP1 and VDP2 are a lost cause to talk with you because you keep pointing to PSX.

What was the first confirmed source that stated Saturn as being hard to program for?

What was the first source that mentioned the Sega Graphics Libraries initial release?

What was the purpose of the Sega Graphics Libraries?

Did successive revisions to Sega Graphics Libraries still not make a difference in making Saturn development more comprehensive or are you still going to say PlayStation hardware is better because it's easier and use endless redundant tech jargon to diminish or dismiss all the work that real 3d engine Saturn developers did?

I never read a print magazine comparison between these two games. This is purely my own opinion.

What do you mean a bit more playable? Soul Edge was one of the best weapons based fighting games if not the best at the time. Please stop with the hyperbole fanboyism.

Tekken 1 was a great game. If you prefered VF1 over Tekken1 or if someone prefers Tekken1 over VF1 is all personal preference. Personally I liked Tekken 1 over VF 1 for reasons beyond the number of characters and endings.

Toshinden was more impressive than Tekken and VF when it was released.

No they werent different games.
No there was nothing more playable on the Saturn
I dont even know where you get these arguments about "detracting from the gameplay just like Soul Blade". What on earth....is that a serious argument?

Imply? I imply nothing. Its very clear what I said. Its games that I wish I could own. Its a compliment for these games

Not the magazine argument again. I dont argue platform superiority based on magazines. I argue platdorm superiority based on games and personal experience

Sorry but I must have missed that issue. I remember experiencing and loving SF 2 before the release of the Saturn and the Playstation. I also remember the SF EX franchise getting less praise than the SF Alpha series or SF3 despite being released exclusively on the more popular Playstation

Yet the N64 had a very low market share. And come on. It had some pretty good games too. Super Mario was a smooth experience for its time.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

You are the one coming up with ridiculous statements. You insist that the Saturn failed because of media bias and Bernie Stolar and you ignore the real reasons why Saturn wasnt getting the praise you demanded.

I actually remember multiplatform magazines giving good praise to Saturn games WHEN they deserved it. But such opportunities where obviously few
Sega wasnt the only ones making "new arcade machines" werent they?

I cant remember someone explaining me how to play arcade games. Sega games or not.
I remember many Sega arcade games being very popular at the arcades regardless. If you are talking about VF not being as popular as Tekken, as I said earlier it's all because of Sega's failure with the Saturn

Whatever Die Hard Arcade was in the Arcades is irrelevant for the home release when the console is doing badly in the market for so many reasons. Marketed or not the Saturn was going down and DHA was an ok game that wouldnt have saved the Saturn. There was nothing to write about compared to the other aces that were being released at the arcades and consoles at the time

Throwing the blame to Stolar is an amusing argument to this day.

1: thanks for revealing what you missed and your stance...also you are in a different region...the U.S. available print magazines have wording which makes mention of other games.

2: you statement on how pretty Soul Edge may have been to you and glowing reviews does not validate the serious gameplay flaws that were dropped and removed for Soul Calibur. Pretty games back then were much highly forgiven when there was some one sided hyperbole fanboyism writing the perception.

Seems your perception lacks a lot of information being how late you got into that console generation...in your situation.

You have dismissed and diminished the home port of Die Hard Arcade and made claims like as if I indicated "it was supposed to save SEGA" as if the game has no technical aspects worthy of praise beyond "ok"

Exactly

I mean here is one of my most memorable examples. This particular issue was my first gaming magazine when I joined the 32 bit generation.

Regardless it had an interesting interview with one of most favorite third party devs from Sega Saturn fans. And here is some of the things Capcom said:

They were finding Resident Evil difficult to port on the Saturn. We all know how that version looks and it repeats what was said here.
View attachment 1545

Here they find making Star Gladiator for the Saturn very difficult
View attachment 1546

Regardless they did make Cyberbots exclusive for the Saturn. And not because the PS1 was having difficulties with 2D. Because marketing and profitability
View attachment 1544

And here is their general opinion about each console's capabilities in 1996
View attachment 1547

In other words, no it wasnt Magazine bias. It was how things were

So since PlayStation was your first system back then and Capcom was your favorite developer why do you insist on using those rather ignorant questions to back up your claims?

Biohazard/RE was made with PSX as base hardware, since you're the Capcom expert when did Biohazard/RE Saturn start development and shipped?

Star Gladiator...was made as a System 11 Arcade hardware game...your implied reasoning of a technology analysis is laughable if not insulting.

Cyberbots was a CPSII Arcade game...again since you are the Capcom expert, please explain why Capcom chose Saturn for "profitability"?

Finally...Capcom lagged behind Namco when it came to "3d technical showpiece" even back then...they were definitely way behind Takara during the 1994-1996 timeframe.

 

[Exophase]

You're the one directly comparing Sony PlayStation hardware and Sega Saturn as if they HAD to have console parity features while ignorant my mentioned "PSX has GTE"

You said:

Many of the comparisons here are a bit flawed because both PlayStation and Saturn were easy to make games for and they required skilled devs to make games.

So when others in this thread have looked at Saturn hardware and said that no, it wouldn't be easy to develop games for it (particularly 3D games) you are saying that they are wrong and their reasoning is flawed. But you're not saying anything to argue this point, except bringing up the gaming press.

I don't say that the two systems need to have parity features, I've said that they have strengths and weaknesses. And even in 3D games a few Saturn titles like Sonic R managed to look fantastic, easily competitive with the best PS1 had to offer. I simply contend that a) getting those results was far more difficult on Saturn and b) Sega used a much more expensive design to accomplish this.

I've made several explicit arguments to support these things, which you seem to deny, but without addressing anything what I've said or giving your own opposing arguments.

You keep insisting that "Saturn renders distorted sprites" when even PlayStation with GTE does the SAME damn thing.

Neither console system, were truly designed to render real polygons and both are different designs.

I'm starting to understand why so much of your arguments rely on non-technical and political points and deference to authority. You just don't really understand how these consoles actually work if you think PS1 renders distorted sprites. It renders triangles, real triangles. Ones that are not depth-aware either in interpolation or hidden surface removal but triangles in every sense of the word, with a very by-the-books rendering methodology.

You're arguments on Saturn games simply diminish any effort made on Saturn in general...ambient lighting, sounds and complex layers by use of VDP1 and VDP2 are a lost cause to talk with you because you keep pointing to PSX.

I haven't diminished Saturn at all. I never said the games were worse, that impressive things weren't accomplished, nor that it couldn't produce games that were as visually appealing as PS1 games. I've made a few comments on very specific things that it couldn't do that PS1 could, and areas in which it was weaker. You seem to be taking this is as a much broader indictment against the system than it is. The reason it came up was because these questions and comments started being made in this thread, probably in response to ones people were making about Saturn being a beast that destroyed PS1 and N64.

What was the first confirmed source that stated Saturn as being hard to program for?

The technical users manuals in the eyes of someone who understands game programming and console hardware.

What was the first source that mentioned the Sega Graphics Libraries initial release?

What was the purpose of the Sega Graphics Libraries?

Did successive revisions to Sega Graphics Libraries still not make a difference in making Saturn development more comprehensive or are you still going to say PlayStation hardware is better because it's easier and use endless redundant tech jargon to diminish or dismiss all the work that real 3d engine Saturn developers did?

Just because you don't understand what I'm saying doesn't make it redundant or jargon. Nor does it mean I've dismissed anyone's work.

 

[milk]

somebody remind this guy that "endless tech jargon" thar HE can't even understand, is the very point of this thread and Beyond3D as a whole.
He should find more apropriate discussion pals at the BeyondVintageMags forums.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

This is the Console Tech thread. Anyone wanting to continue this conversation needs to start quoting technical jargon and making technical arguments. Akumajou's stance is recognised, but it's time to move on if you can't present clear documentation (or personal development experience) that supports your argument. Let's go back to asking questions about how Saturn worked without any #retrofanboywars.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Damnit, I just bought more popcorn.

 

[Nesh]

1: thanks for revealing what you missed and your stance...also you are in a different region...the U.S. available print magazines have wording which makes mention of other games.

I dont understand what you are trying to say there

2: you statement on how pretty Soul Edge may have been to you and glowing reviews does not validate the serious gameplay flaws that were dropped and removed for Soul Calibur. Pretty games back then were much highly forgiven when there was some one sided hyperbole fanboyism writing the perception.

Enough with the magazines already. Soul Edge was a great game in general. Get over with it.

Seems your perception lacks a lot of information being how late you got into that console generation...in your situation.

Lack like what? And what do you mean with late?

You have dismissed and diminished the home port of Die Hard Arcade and made claims like as if I indicated "it was supposed to save SEGA" as if the game has no technical aspects worthy of praise beyond "ok"

Yes. Otherwise please provide evidence about its technical aspects

So since PlayStation was your first system back then and Capcom was your favorite developer why do you insist on using those rather ignorant questions to back up your claims?

Where did I say it was MY favorite developer?
What does "was your first system back then" even imply? Should I have went with a Saturn, an N64, a Jaguar or a 3DO first during that generarion and buy the Playstation later? Would that make my understanding of Saturn's capabilities different than what it is believed now?

Also what is your problem with the questions? Do they make you feel uncomfortable? They asked Capcom pretty clear questions, Capcom answered about its capabilities. I trust Capcom.

Biohazard/RE was made with PSX as base hardware, since you're the Capcom expert when did Biohazard/RE Saturn start development and shipped?

Capcom said what they said. They are the experts. I listen what the experts have to say. The Saturn had technical issues with 3D

Star Gladiator...was made as a System 11 Arcade hardware game...your implied reasoning of a technology analysis is laughable if not insulting.

So what? It was not a special arcade board. It was a Playstation. In a cabin. Which shouldnt have been "too damn difficult" for the Saturn considering your statement that it was great at 3D and easy to make games on. According to Capcom it was neither.

Cyberbots was a CPSII Arcade game...again since you are the Capcom expert, please explain why Capcom chose Saturn for "profitability"?

Ahm....why should I explain it? Its Capcom that said it not me. Obviously, although Capcom clearly expressed how difficult Saturn was at 3D they were supporting it as much as they could. Which means, no bias. They have no reason to sabotage a platform on which they expected to profit from. Their opinions are objective: Saturn's hardware wasnt all that great at 3D. Cyberbots was a 2D game that never saw a release on the Playstation even though that it was doable

Finally...Capcom lagged behind Namco when it came to "3d technical showpiece" even back then...they were definitely way behind Takara during the 1994-1996 timeframe.

You are in no position to judge when Capcom was one of the best developers on the Playstation and the Saturn.

 

[function]

I simply contend that a) getting those results was far more difficult on Saturn and b) Sega used a much more expensive design to accomplish this.

And I think this is it in a nutshell.

Also, given how much of the Saturn's silicon (and memory) was tied up in VDP2, developers had to know that if they went polygon only in order to potentially gain flexibility, they were going to lose a good chunk of the detail the system could bring to a the screen. I suspect this could have caused early commitments to engine and asset design. Multiplatform games couldn't always be adapted to make optimal use of the Saturn's hardware.

The technical users manuals in the eyes of someone who understands game programming and console hardware.

Well you're in good company because Yu Suzuki thought the same. And he was used to working with exotic, multi-processor hardware.

The Saturn's strengths came at the cost of potentially greater weakness elsewhere and expense everywhere.

 

[Cyan]

This excellent Digital Foundry Retro video shows why the Saturn version of Castlevania Symphony of the Night fell short compared to the PS1 version even if the Saturn is a 2D powerhouse:

 

[Deleted member 11852]

This is not Beyond2D

 

[Nesh]

They were defined vertex by vertex.

The way the Saturn rendered quads is by interpolating endpoints along the horizontal edges, then drawing textured lines between those endpoints. It had to draw the lines with an extra pixel where the slope changed, so all of the pixels had a neighbor to the left, right, top, or bottom. They did this to prevent gaps between the lines. When you account for this in the fact that quads weren't always parallelograms (so the lines converged on top of each other towards the shorter side) you ended up with locations inside the quad getting drawn with multiple pixels. That's what made the blending all glitchy and hence why little used it.

This technique supported twisted quads. It also supported concave quads. However, those wouldn't always look quite right. What you'd end up having is the vertex with the obtuse inner angle would look curved because the lines would overlap a bit outside of the perimeter of the quad.

It is an old post but I didnt quite get what you are describing.

Can you provide a visual example? I am interested

 

[Exophase]

It is an old post but I didnt quite get what you are describing.

Can you provide a visual example? I am interested

I'm not too good at diagrams, but if you look at the VDP1 user's manual (was linked on page 1 of the thread) there's a diagram in figure 1.6, where SEGA rather bizarrely calls it "anti-aliasing." It shows how the lines drawn, that make up the quads, have extra pixels added. And the next diagram, 1.7, shows how concave polygons get rendered with kind of curvy sections.

 

[HTupolev]

It is an old post but I didnt quite get what you are describing.

Can you provide a visual example? I am interested

So, suppose these are your vertices, for a quad you want to fill black:

To fill this quad, let's say that we just start drawing 1-pixel-thick lines from spots on the left side to corresponding-ish spots on the right side:

Uh oh, looks like our lines missed some spots!

To solve this, the Saturn uses an approach which more or less amounts to drawing the lines wider. But the methodology for choosing extra fill-in pixels isn't perfect, and so some pixels get filled multiple times. This is inefficient, and if you're rendering transparencies, pixels that are blended multiple times end up looking incorrect.

 

[Exophase]

So, suppose these are your vertices, for a quad you want to fill black:

To fill this quad, let's say that we just start drawing 1-pixel-thick lines from spots on the left side to corresponding-ish spots on the right side:

Uh oh, looks like our lines missed some spots!

To solve this, the Saturn uses an approach which more or less amounts to drawing the lines wider. But the methodology for choosing extra fill-in pixels isn't perfect, and so some pixels get filled multiple times. This is inefficient, and if you're rendering transparencies, pixels that are blended multiple times end up looking incorrect.

Thanks, that was a good illustration.

If I may nitpick a little though, in cases like this Saturn will actually draw starting from every pixel on the longer edge. Moving down the shorter edge less than one pixel at a time.

Guess this is as good a time as any to try to actual do something in GIMP for once.. here's some extra illustrations:

http://imgur.com/a/9jxFh

This is what Saturn would look like without the "anti-aliasing." The red lines are drawn to show the edges it draws the connecting lines between. It creates a bunch of holes, even on this quad that is just rotated in 2D.

So here's what it does instead:

http://imgur.com/a/1NYE2

It draws extra pixels to "anti-alias" around the line's diagonal joints. I drew these pixels in a darker green.

But then when drawing is done with half-transparency it looks like this:

http://imgur.com/a/aRtAN

You can see the vertical lines where the overlap occurs.

Finally, here's what I meant earlier about concave quads:

http://imgur.com/a/x01u3

I actually had to be really careful to draw the "anti-aliasing" pixels correctly by the rules SEGA described to not have gaps. You can see how it doesn't fill the quad according to its shape exactly, because the internal lines are drawn in a way that makes them go over the concave vertex. Resulting in a sort of curved appearance. It's possible this could be exploited to make some interesting looking geometry, but I doubt any game did.

EDIT: Had a lot of problems trying to embed the animated gifs, will have to deal with links instead, sorry :/

 

[function]

Finally, here's what I meant earlier about concave quads:

http://imgur.com/a/x01u3

I actually had to be really careful to draw the "anti-aliasing" pixels correctly by the rules SEGA described to not have gaps. You can see how it doesn't fill the quad according to its shape exactly, because the internal lines are drawn in a way that makes them go over the concave vertex. Resulting in a sort of curved appearance. It's possible this could be exploited to make some interesting looking geometry, but I doubt any game did.

Brilliant!

 

[Grall]

there's a diagram in figure 1.6, where SEGA rather bizarrely calls it "anti-aliasing."

Interesting side-track: the edge antialiasing algorithm used in the N64 also double-drew pixels frequently, giving polygons these weird little bumps near the corners. Probably had some measureable performance impact as well...

 

[Exophase]

Interesting side-track: the edge antialiasing algorithm used in the N64 also double-drew pixels frequently, giving polygons these weird little bumps near the corners. Probably had some measureable performance impact as well...

Yeah, N64's edge AA was pretty simple, just coverage to alpha and I think a lot of consumer hardware could do it. But it wasn't order independent and like you say, it resulted in edges interacting in unintended ways.

DS got around this with a hack where a pixel ID was used to prevent pixels from the same model from being alpha blended twice. It also had top-two sorting to make the edge-AA order independent.

 

[milk]

DS got around this with a hack where a pixel ID was used to prevent pixels from the same model from being alpha blended twice. It also had top-two sorting to make the edge-AA order independent.

Wait, the ds had AA? Was it used?

 

[Exophase]

Wait, the ds had AA? Was it used?

Yeah it was used kind of a lot.

It also had edge marking, and when used in conjunction with the AA it'd result in half-transparent edges.

 

[milk]

I could never tell. DS looked very aliased.

 

[Exophase]

I could never tell. DS looked very aliased.

There's only so much you can do with a 256x192 display, and its edge AA doesn't always work that well.

There's also no texture filtering or mip-mapping, so the texturing itself can look pretty aliased.