Game Sack video

[tripled79]

Anyone catch the recent Game Sack video on YouTube about games on the Sega Saturn (and N64) that run at 60 frames per second?

In it, Joe states that the Sega Saturn version of Tempest 2000 runs at 60 fps and that the Jaguar version doesn't.

Is this true?

[+Sauron]

I don't remember if it hits the 60fps threshold, but in later levels it definitely drops frames. 

[+madman]

Does it matter? Is the game less fun if it doesn't? I really do not understand the fascination some people have with FPS. But I'm amazed by the people who can look at a YouTube video of an upcoming game and determine the exact FPS.

[Zerosquare]

43 minutes ago, madman said:

Does it matter? Is the game less fun if it doesn't?

The Jaguar version of Tempest 2000 on real hardware gets noticeably choppy in some of the later levels with lots of stuff on the screen at the same time. I wouldn't go as far as saying it makes the game less fun, but it does spoils the immersion somewhat. On emulators, it runs silky smooth.

[42bs]

54 minutes ago, Zerosquare said:

gets noticeably choppy in some of the later levels

Never reached them back then, sure will not reach them with my old thumbs now. So for me T2K runs fast enough 🙂

[Austin]

The Saturn version does hit 60 quite consistently, but it has a host of other issues that makes it un-fun later on in the game (which most don't experience because they have never made it particularly far).

 

The Jag version chops up a lot and you don't have to get far to see it (just get farther in on the blue tubes and it's pretty obvious).

 

Framerate issues can certainly be bothersome. It can have a major negative effect on gameplay responsiveness and can also make it more difficult to track what's happening on screen. That said, for some reason I never minded it much in Tempest 2000, I suppose because everything else (gameplay feel, visuals, sound package, mechanics and physics) hit so well in the Jaguar version.

Edited September 22 by Austin

[glazball]

Though I can't confirm or deny personally, Joe Redifer is pretty thorough and knowledgeable.  I would be very surprised if he didn't test it himself before making the claim.

[Austin]

Joe is fine with basic things like gameplay and surface level opinions. Just don't expect him to be able to tell you about other nuances in games like these, heh.

[+madman]

55 minutes ago, Austin said:

The Saturn version does hit 60 quite consistently, but it has a host of other issues that makes it un-fun later on in the game (which most don't experience because they have never made it particularly far).

 

The Jag version chops up a lot and you don't have to get far to see it (just get farther in on the blue tubes and it's pretty obvious).

 

Framerate issues can certainly be bothersome. It can have a major negative effect on gameplay responsiveness and can also make it more difficult to track what's happening on screen. That said, for some reason I never minded it much in Tempest 2000, I suppose because everything else (gameplay feel, visuals, sound package, mechanics and physics) hit so well in the Jaguar version.

Legitimate question, how are people eyeballing frame rates? How can one tell when a game is 57 FPS and when it hits 60? 

[+Sauron]

9 minutes ago, madman said:

Legitimate question, how are people eyeballing frame rates? How can one tell when a game is 57 FPS and when it hits 60? 

It's the power of the fumes. Inhaling them allows one to drastically slow down the perception of time.

 

 

[Austin]

31 minutes ago, madman said:

Legitimate question, how are people eyeballing frame rates? How can one tell when a game is 57 FPS and when it hits 60? 

57 vs 60 is difficult to eyeball.

 

15 vs 60 is extremely easy to eyeball. That's how low the Jag version can dip, and it dips all the time.

Edited September 22 by Austin

[42bs]

1 hour ago, madman said:

Legitimate question, how are people eyeballing frame rates? How can one tell when a game is 57 FPS and when it hits 60? 

Console games likely do not triple buffering. So if they miss the 60fps, it drops down to 30fps.

[PFG 9000]

2 hours ago, glazball said:

Though I can't confirm or deny personally, Joe Redifer is pretty thorough and knowledgeable.  I would be very surprised if he didn't test it himself before making the claim.

He's also strongly biased against anything Atari, and he's admittedly a big Sega fanboy.  I used to enjoy the channel when Dave (or whoever the other guy was) was part of it. But eventually Joe's corny sense of humor and his repeated trashing of Atari just killed the channel for me. 

[+madman]

53 minutes ago, 42bs said:

Console games likely do not triple buffering. So if they miss the 60fps, it drops down to 30fps.

Does Blast Processing change any of that?

 

52 minutes ago, PFG 9000 said:

He's also strongly biased against anything Atari, and he's admittedly a big Sega fanboy.  I used to enjoy the channel when Dave (or whoever the other guy was) was part of it. But eventually Joe's corny sense of humor and his repeated trashing of Atari just killed the channel for me. 

Game Sack was one of the few YT channels I could stomach and I have to agree here. 

[Mittens0407]

8 hours ago, PFG 9000 said:

He's also strongly biased against anything Atari, and he's admittedly a big Sega fanboy.  I used to enjoy the channel when Dave (or whoever the other guy was) was part of it. But eventually Joe's corny sense of humor and his repeated trashing of Atari just killed the channel for me. 

I don't know, he seemed to like the Lynx quite a lot. But who could hate the Lynx!?

[KidGameR186496]

8 hours ago, madman said:

Does Blast Processing change any of that?

 

Game Sack was one of the few YT channels I could stomach and I have to agree here. 

 

9 hours ago, PFG 9000 said:

He's also strongly biased against anything Atari, and he's admittedly a big Sega fanboy.  I used to enjoy the channel when Dave (or whoever the other guy was) was part of it. But eventually Joe's corny sense of humor and his repeated trashing of Atari just killed the channel for me. 

David White was the name of the second co-host. It seems (to me at least)that You come across with Sega fanboys more often on Twitter than here.

[KidGameR186496]

Huh, it seems that Joe liked some of the games on the Jaguar in this comparison video against 3DO and 32X

 

 

[tripled79]

On 9/22/2023 at 5:26 AM, madman said:

Does it matter? Is the game less fun if it doesn't? I really do not understand the fascination some people have with FPS. But I'm amazed by the people who can look at a YouTube video of an upcoming game and determine the exact FPS.

Put the gun down. I was just asking a question. Sheesh.

[WIZZARD77]

I remember back in the VooDoo graphics days that 30fps was the golden number. As long as it plays well who cares. I do like technical achievements though.

[+jeremiahjt]

After my limited experience with Game Sack way back, I came to the conclusion that David White (did not know his name) and Joe Redifier were both idiots. I actively avoided the channel since then, unless I wanted some extremely biased game commentary.  I remember the first time they ever covered the Jaguar, they pitted a dozen or so games against the SuperGrafx. They of course both agreed the SuperGrafx with a total library of SIX games was the much better console, and then came to the Jaguar forum to shill their video.

[Lost Monkey]

On 10/1/2023 at 10:15 AM, KidGameR186496 said:

Huh, it seems that Joe liked some of the games on the Jaguar in this comparison video against 3DO and 32X

 

 

Was a good video - I watched it the other day and chuckled a few times.  His digs at Atari/Sega/3DO/the 90's/Himself were not inaccurate.