Between SNES and Jaguar?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
depends on how you term 3D , in terms of raw polygon pushing its less than the 32X (although its close), however, the GBA can run mode 7 like effects which can help it.
The GBA doesn't have any 3D graphics processor thus it can only render mode 7 graphics which are sort of a ''fake'' 3D so to speak, it was also the same used in the SNES so that would be the closest call although the GBA can render 32 bit colors instead of the 16 of the SNES so it's tough to compare.
one has to remember though , the games were meant to run on a tiny screen at a low resolution , the videos probably make the game look a bit worse than it actually is. also , looking at that, its using alot of rotation effects.Kill.Switch used 3D graphics, but it was really blocky.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDL_OAyKAbs
travisstaggs
[QUOTE="travisstaggs"]one has to remember though , the games were meant to run on a tiny screen at a low resolution , the videos probably make the game look a bit worse than it actually is. also , looking at that, its using alot of rotation effects. But it is still a 3D game. Also I have played the actual game and it is realllly blocky.Kill.Switch used 3D graphics, but it was really blocky.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDL_OAyKAbs
Darkman2007
SNES.
That's it.
WiiCubeM1
Incorrect. It was a lot better at 3D than the SNES and didn't need any extra chips for it (i.e. Super FX).
The GBA couldn't make true 3D graphics. Sonic Battle was as far 3D as the GBA could go, and it didn't look 3D at all, just 2D with... eh, see for yourself: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e4/SonicBattleScreenshot.JPGSpinnerweb
Yet again, incorrect. Here are some 3D GBA games:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vwPqXSMN2w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXrhQkNOKqM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzJDitq6t0k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dq1LuEvWUFU
The tech demos are even more impressive.
The GBA doesn't have any 3D graphics processor thus it can only render mode 7 graphics which are sort of a ''fake'' 3D so to speak, it was also the same used in the SNES so that would be the closest call although the GBA can render 32 bit colors instead of the 16 of the SNES so it's tough to compare.
GunBladeHero
It cound do polygon 3D via software rendering (which is basically how the Sega Saturn and PS1 rendered 3D too).
You completely HAVE to be right, don't you? :P
Also, I'm not sure if this is real, but here is some gameplay of Resident Evil 2 for GBA, which was never released. It doesn't look all that bad and is certainly 3Dhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBHNtTNPzV0
honestly, from what Ive played on the 3DO , Id say it does better than the GBA in just about every way (at least compared to any GBA game Ive ever seen)32X/3DO level, visually.
nameless12345
[QUOTE="nameless12345"]honestly, from what Ive played on the 3DO , Id say it does better than the GBA in just about every way (at least compared to any GBA game Ive ever seen)32X/3DO level, visually.
Darkman2007
Like I said, visually. I know the 3DO is the more capable system but some efforts on the GBA come pretty dang close, visually.
[QUOTE="WiiCubeM1"]
SNES.
That's it.
nameless12345
Incorrect. It was a lot better at 3D than the SNES and didn't need any extra chips for it (i.e. Super FX).
Yep, I agree. 3D games like Doom or Wolfenstein, for example, look substantially better on the GBA than they do on the SNES.[QUOTE="nameless12345"][QUOTE="WiiCubeM1"]
SNES.
That's it.
J-Man2244
Incorrect. It was a lot better at 3D than the SNES and didn't need any extra chips for it (i.e. Super FX).
Yep, I agree. 3D games like Doom or Wolfenstein, for example, look substantially better on the GBA than they do on the SNES.As with any console made years down the line, processing power did get better, but it was a 16-bit handheld that could just handle more frames. The quality of the graphics was the same, but the framerate and amount of things it could do at a single time (like enemies on the screen) was better.
But when it comes to sheer graphics capabilities, it's ability to handle 3D effects were the same as the SNES. It had a slightly better color palette, but it couldn't handle a single thing past DOOM. (I personally think it looked worse on the GBA, but it's all personal opinion).
Yep, I agree. 3D games like Doom or Wolfenstein, for example, look substantially better on the GBA than they do on the SNES.[QUOTE="J-Man2244"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]
Incorrect. It was a lot better at 3D than the SNES and didn't need any extra chips for it (i.e. Super FX).
WiiCubeM1
As with any console made years down the line, processing power did get better, but it was a 16-bit handheld that could just handle more frames. The quality of the graphics was the same, but the framerate and amount of things it could do at a single time (like enemies on the screen) was better.
But when it comes to sheer graphics capabilities, it's ability to handle 3D effects were the same as the SNES. It had a slightly better color palette, but it couldn't handle a single thing past DOOM. (I personally think it looked worse on the GBA, but it's all personal opinion).
I think you should look up GBA specs. It was 32-bit and had considerably better capabilites than the SNES.
The only example of a SNES port which looked worse on the GBA was DKC but I believe it was a lazy port (Rare was already loosing it at the time).
Doom on the SNES used SuperFX GSU-2 to run on it btw.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment