32X vs. Jaguar: Which has better 3D polygonal graphics?

[Zadoc]

Please vote in the poll. Below are a number of screenshots from both Jaguar games and then from 32X games. You be the judge. Remember, we are talking about 3D polygons only.

Air Cars (Jaguar)


http://www.defunctgames.com/pic/reviewpics/reviewaircars-3.jpghttp://www.defunctgames.com/pic/reviewpics/reviewaircars-6.jpg

Club Drive (Jaguar)
http://badcoder.atari.org/eggs/cdtwegg.jpghttp://www.stcarchiv.de/stc1995/images/clubdrive3.jpg

Virtua Racing Deluxe (32X)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:32X_Virtua_Racing_Deluxe.pnghttp://www.videogamecritic.net/images/32x/virtua_racing_deluxe.jpg


Virtua Fighter (32X)
http://www.emumaniak.zel.pl/info/screeny/19231(1).jpghttp://www.emunova.net/img/tests/475.jpg


Battlemorph (Jaguar CD)
http://www.videogamecritic.net/images/jaguar/battlemorph_(cd).jpghttp://www.gametronik.com/site/rubriques/jaguarcd/Medias/Battlemorph.jpg

Cybermorph (Jaguar)
http://www.ataritimes.com/jaguar/images/cybermorph1.jpghttp://www.planet-atari.de/images/screenshots/jaguar/cybermorph/07.jpg


Star Wars Arcade (32X)

http://www.classicgaming.com.br/images/32x/Star_Wars_Arcade_Foto5.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/80/32X_Star_Wars_Arcade.png

I think that the polygonal Jaguar games look more like polygonal games on the Genesis:

Abrams Battle Tank (Genesis)
http://www.consoleclassix.com/info_img/Abrams_Battle_Tank_GEN_ScreenShot3.jpg

Hard Drivin' (Genesis)

http://www.defunctgames.com/pic/reviewpics/reviewharddrivin-1.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/75/Harddrivin_GenesisGame.gif

Don't they look just like Air Cars and Club Drive?

DarXide (32X)

http://www.classicgaming.com.br/images/32x/Darxide_Foto4.jpghttp://www.classicgaming.com.br/images/32x/Darxide_Foto1.jpghttp://www.classicgaming.com.br/images/32x/Darxide_Foto3.jpg

[K3V]

I have to say your choice in screenshots and commentary create a decidedly biased poll.

[fishsandwich]

I have to say your choice in screenshots and commentary create a decidedly biased poll.

Me, too. There are better Jaguar games to compare.

I love the 32x (in a weird way) but I'm thinking Jaguar.

Then again, neither console lived long enough to see their capabilities pushed. Both consoles had too many 16-bit ports. Atari had very limited funding and I don't know of any first-rate development house that did a Jaguar game nor am I aware of any Jaguar game that pushes the Jag hardware to ANY extent.

The 32x had an active lifespan of less that a year. It can take years for developer's to unlock all the power within a particular console.

Any technical people have an opinion?

[lordnikon]

I think he used good examples. He gave some examples of games that just used polygons with no texture mapping, which are more ideal for judging this sort of thing.

Based on what games were actually released, the 32X produced more impressive polygonal models.

[K3V]

Here's a better representation of what the Jag can do 3D graphics-wise.

BattleSphere:

http://jaysmith2000.ipbhost.com/uploads/post-2-1147212281.jpg
http://jaysmith2000.ipbhost.com/uploads/post-2-1147212321.jpg

Missile Command 3D:

http://www.ataritimes.com/jaguar/images/missilecommand3d_2.jpg http://www.ataritimes.com/jaguar/images/missilecommand3d_1.jpg

Hover Strike: Unconquered Lands:
http://www.atari-jaguar64.de/soft_hardware/hover_strike_cd/hover_6.jpg http://www.atari-jaguar64.de/soft_hardware/hover_strike_cd/hover_13.jpg

Iron Soldier 2:
http://www.atari-jaguar64.de/soft_hardware/iron_soldier_2_cd/is2_6.jpg http://www.atari-jaguar64.de/soft_hardware/iron_soldier_2_cd/is2_2.jpg

Fight for Life:
http://www.atari-jaguar64.de/soft_hardware/fight_for_life/ffl_10.jpg http://www.atari-jaguar64.de/soft_hardware/fight_for_life/ffl_4.jpg

Zero-5:
http://jagwire.mytilde.co.uk/zero5.jpg
http://www.planet-atari.de/images/screenshots/jaguar/zero5/zero5_18.jpg http://www.planet-atari.de/images/screenshots/jaguar/zero5/zero5_12.jpg

[fishsandwich]

Air Cars versus Virtua Racing? Not fair.

There's Virtua Fighter... where's Fight for Life?

There's DarXide... where's Battlesphere?

He's picking some of Jaguar's ugliest games and pitting them against some of 32x's best games.

How about..

DOOM vs DOOM

Iron Soldier II vs Metal Head

World Tour Racing or Checkered Flag vs Virtua Racing

Battlesphere or Spacewar 2000 or Zero 5 vs DarXide

Fight For Life vs Virtual Fighter


EDIT


Damn! KV3 beat me to it. Good job with the pics!

[K3V]

Air Cars versus Virtua Racing? Not fair.

There's Virtua Fighter... where's Fight for Life?

There's DarXide... where's Battlesphere?

He's picking some of Jaguar's ugliest games and pitting them against some of 32x's best games.

How about..

DOOM vs DOOM

Iron Soldier II vs Metal Head

World Tour Racing or Checkered Flag vs Virtua Racing

Battlesphere or Spacewar 2000 or Zero 5 vs DarXide

Fight For Life vs Virtual Fighter


EDIT


Damn! KV3 beat me to it. Good job with the pics!

Thanks, I think we were writing our posts at the same time :)

[bangtango]

Zadoc,

All this proves is that Sega was better at developing games than Atari. Just because Atari did a sloppy job with some of their games doesn't mean the Jaguar couldn't stand up to the 32X. Truth is, Atari was so stuck in their 8-bit past with no idea how to create next generation games (32-bit and beyond) that they were bound to fail. That doesn't mean Jaguar couldn't get the job done if the right people had been working it.

Jaguar had some of the B-team licenses doing their third party games. Who would have ever expected Telegames to deliver games that took advantage of Jaguar's capabilities? Who would expect those guys to churn out games that sold well or received 8's or 9's in EGM? Sega had the A-team licenses doing their third party stuff.

If Sega had released the same game on 32X and Jaguar, the game would look and run better on Jaguar every time out.

[jmetal88]

Yeah, Jaguar can definitely push more polygons than the 32X. The pictures in the first poll are horribly biased, K3V's are really much better examples. I still think we need some Checkered Flag pictures, though. A lot of people don't like that game, I know, but I just love it!

EDIT: Spelling. :roll:

[Anthony1]

I have to say your choice in screenshots and commentary create a decidedly biased poll.



EXACTAMUNDO!!!!!!

[jmetal88]

Here's one:

http://www.hostmyfile.info/files/1852/cflag4.png

I just love the weather effects in that game!

[bangtango]

Here's one:

http://www.hostmyfile.info/files/1852/cflag4.png

I just love the weather effects in that game!

Count me in the minority but I thought Checkered Flag was fun and still do!

The control is tough to get used to but I've played it so often that I do great on the tracks. If people actually read the manual and used the tires (or lift) that are supposed to go with each track or weather condition, then the control wouldn't be so bad. It says right in the manual what is recommended for nearly every possible weather condition.

[Kid Ice]

Looking at those Battlesphere pics and comparing them to Shadow Squadron, I'd say the graphics are about equal. Hard to say w/ just screenshots though, you really need to see things move around. In my experience the graphics are equivalent.

Doom would seem to be a logical comparison but the graphics are not polygonal.

[Anthony1]

Doom, NBA Jam and Pitfall the Myan Adventure were the 3 games on both systems. Most people believe the Jag version of Doom to be superior, myself included. As for NBA Jam, I haven't had the opportunity to play it on either system. Same thing with Pitfall, so I can't really comment on the other two. I have heard of people preferring the Jaguar version of NBA Jam, but I have no idea about Pitfall, although I would love to track down Pitfall for either system so I could try it. I'm guessing the 32X version is extremely similar to the Genesis game. The Genesis version was pretty good, so that's not necessarily a bad thing.

[T2KFreeker]

I think he used good examples. He gave some examples of games that just used polygons with no texture mapping, which are more ideal for judging this sort of thing.

Based on what games were actually released, the 32X produced more impressive polygonal models.

Uhm, so you are telling me that the asteroids in that Darxide screen shot isn't textured? I ain't trying to start wars here as I like both systems, but the Jaguar wins hands down man, Hands Down. Someone post some screens of I-WAR, that is another really good example of what the Jaguar can do with Polygons, also, where is Tempest 2000? That is an amazing Polygonal game, and one that the 32-X would not be able to handle, especially with the framerate. The Saturn and Playstation had problems with it, and they weren't even goraude shaded!

[Zadoc]

Here's a better representation of what the Jag can do 3D graphics-wise.

BattleSphere:

http://jaysmith2000.ipbhost.com/uploads/post-2-1147212281.jpg
http://jaysmith2000.ipbhost.com/uploads/post-2-1147212321.jpg

Missile Command 3D:

http://www.ataritimes.com/jaguar/images/missilecommand3d_2.jpg http://www.ataritimes.com/jaguar/images/missilecommand3d_1.jpg

Hover Strike: Unconquered Lands:
http://www.atari-jaguar64.de/soft_hardware/hover_strike_cd/hover_6.jpg http://www.atari-jaguar64.de/soft_hardware/hover_strike_cd/hover_13.jpg

Iron Soldier 2:
http://www.atari-jaguar64.de/soft_hardware/iron_soldier_2_cd/is2_6.jpg http://www.atari-jaguar64.de/soft_hardware/iron_soldier_2_cd/is2_2.jpg

Fight for Life:
http://www.atari-jaguar64.de/soft_hardware/fight_for_life/ffl_10.jpg http://www.atari-jaguar64.de/soft_hardware/fight_for_life/ffl_4.jpg

Zero-5:
http://jagwire.mytilde.co.uk/zero5.jpg
http://www.planet-atari.de/images/screenshots/jaguar/zero5/zero5_18.jpg http://www.planet-atari.de/images/screenshots/jaguar/zero5/zero5_12.jpg


Many of those games used SPRITES in conjunction with polygons, hence why they weren't used. Same reason whiy I didn't use Metal Head or Doom. They are based on SPRITES, not POLYGONS.

[Zadoc]

Yeah, Jaguar can definitely push more polygons than the 32X.


Jaguar polys per sec: 10,000

32X Pollys per sec: 50,000

[Zadoc]

Air Cars versus Virtua Racing? Not fair.

There's Virtua Fighter... where's Fight for Life?


I couldn't remember the name of it, however, VF is about 10x faster.



There's DarXide... where's Battlesphere?


Who cares? How can you compare the two?




DOOM vs DOOM


Not polygonal, but EGM ranked DOOM on Jag an average of 68% and DOOM on 32X an average of 801% in the 1/1995 issue.



Iron Soldier II vs Metal Head


Metal Head isn't a true 3D polygonal game, as most of the backgrounds are rendered in sprites.



World Tour Racing or Checkered Flag vs Virtua Racing


Virtua Racing is better looking, has more pollys per sec, and has a higher frame rate than either of those titles.

[cyberfluxor]

Topic: "32X vs. Jaguar: Which has better 3D polygonal graphics?"


Yeah, Jaguar can definitely push more polygons than the 32X.


Jaguar polys per sec: 10,000

32X Pollys per sec: 50,000
With that alone, obviously 32X is more powerful so why do we have this thread? Because people want to judge the graphics output of what the best 32X and Jag games put out. And of course most users will think directly with graphics all around rather than just pointing out the 3D polygon graphics.


So basically, 32X > Jag but Jag > 32X all around graphically and was harnessed better than what the 32X games put out, although it out performs it on polygons. :)

[T2KFreeker]

There's DarXide... where's Battlesphere?


Who cares? How can you compare the two?


What are you talking about dude? They are both space battle games done in 3D, that's how we can compare the two. Why are you getting all hostile on this? Darxide is a really cool game, but so is Battlesphere, if not, a much better game, I might add! Yes, the 32-X can technically push more polygons than the Jaguar, but it also is a newer machine that was built to specifically push 3D graphics as an add on, right when 3D games were dawning heavily in the market, whereas the Jaguar was a full system that was still built when 2D games were the top in the gaming bussiness.

Besides, this is pointless here as you seemed to ask which system had the better looking 3D games, you now seem to point out that this is about technical prowess. Which is it? I really can sayu that not only is Battlesphere a much faster game than Darxide, but it is also linkable to boot, whereas Darxide isn't, so yeah, I guess that you can't compare the two I guess!

[T2KFreeker]

There's DarXide... where's Battlesphere?


Who cares? How can you compare the two?


What are you talking about dude? They are both space battle games done in 3D, that's how we can compare the two. Why are you getting all hostile on this? Darxide is a really cool game, but so is Battlesphere, if not, a much better game, I might add! Yes, the 32-X can technically push more polygons than the Jaguar, but it also is a newer machine that was built to specifically push 3D graphics as an add on, right when 3D games were dawning heavily in the market, whereas the Jaguar was a full system that was still built when 2D games were the top in the gaming bussiness.

Besides, this is pointless here as you seemed to ask which system had the better looking 3D games, you now seem to point out that this is about technical prowess. Which is it? I really can say that not only is Battlesphere a much faster game than Darxide, but it is also linkable to boot, whereas Darxide isn't, so yeah, you can't compare the two I guess!

[Shaggy_Arcade]

Um, EGM is probably the least reliable source to quote on Jaguar game scores. They were so decidely biased against the system that it was sad.

Your quote of the polygon pushing powers of each system is relative to a number of things such as shading, color depth and texturing. The usage of some sprites here and there in some Jag games shouldn't eliminate them from the running as the sprites used were usually minimal in games that were primarily 3D.

VF is faster that the released version of FFL - well of course, FFL is texturing everything. Take a look at the beta version of FFL and it actually runs a lot smoother than the released version and still looks much better than VF ever could.

[Zadoc]

First of all, you're off topic, but I'll entertain you.


Doom, NBA Jam and Pitfall the Myan Adventure were the 3 games on both systems. Most people believe the Jag version of Doom to be superior, myself included. As for NBA Jam, I haven't had the opportunity to play it on either system. Same thing with Pitfall, so I can't really comment on the other two. I have heard of people preferring the Jaguar version of NBA Jam, but I have no idea about Pitfall, although I would love to track down Pitfall for either system so I could try it. I'm guessing the 32X version is extremely similar to the Genesis game. The Genesis version was pretty good, so that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Look at your fanboism shine through!

"Doom, NBA Jam and Pitfall the Myan Adventure were the 3 games on both systems. Most people believe the Jag version of Doom to be superior, myself included."

Then you go on to say that you have never played the 32X versions of the game.

"As for NBA Jam, I haven't had the opportunity to play it on either system. Same thing with Pitfall..."


Then you speculate that the 32X version of Pitfall, for unknown reasons, must be like the Genesis version without expressing any logic or reasoning for your decision!

"I'm guessing the 32X version is extremely similar to the Genesis game."

INCREADLOUS!

- I have already showed you that with DOOM vs. DOOM in EGM scores, the Jag version scored about 12 points lower than the 32X version. You have no basis whatsoever for that claim.

- If you want to claim that Pitfall and NBA Jam T.E. were better on the Jaguar, I am going to need you to back that up. Find a review from the same mag for each game. Gamepro, Gamefan, EGM, find it. I have played both versions, and they are nearly identical. They're both exactally the same as the SNES version.


I have used facts to show what is true. Games on the 32X had higher framerates and higher polygon counts. Therefore, the 32X had better 3D polygonal graphics. Period.

You are simply relying on conjecture and speculation.

Even Atari's own fluffed specs do not support you in what you are saying.

[Zadoc]

First of all, you're off topic, but I'll entertain you.


Doom, NBA Jam and Pitfall the Myan Adventure were the 3 games on both systems. Most people believe the Jag version of Doom to be superior, myself included. As for NBA Jam, I haven't had the opportunity to play it on either system. Same thing with Pitfall, so I can't really comment on the other two. I have heard of people preferring the Jaguar version of NBA Jam, but I have no idea about Pitfall, although I would love to track down Pitfall for either system so I could try it. I'm guessing the 32X version is extremely similar to the Genesis game. The Genesis version was pretty good, so that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Look at your fanboism shine through!

"Doom, NBA Jam and Pitfall the Myan Adventure were the 3 games on both systems. Most people believe the Jag version of Doom to be superior, myself included."

Then you go on to say that you have never played the 32X versions of the game.

"As for NBA Jam, I haven't had the opportunity to play it on either system. Same thing with Pitfall..."


Then you speculate that the 32X version of Pitfall, for unknown reasons, must be like the Genesis version without expressing any logic or reasoning for your decision!

"I'm guessing the 32X version is extremely similar to the Genesis game."

INCREADLOUS!

- I have already showed you that with DOOM vs. DOOM in EGM scores, the Jag version scored about 12 points lower than the 32X version. You have no basis whatsoever for that claim.

- If you want to claim that Pitfall and NBA Jam T.E. were better on the Jaguar, I am going to need you to back that up. Find a review from the same mag for each game. Gamepro, Gamefan, EGM, find it. I have played both versions, and they are nearly identical. They're both exactally the same as the SNES version.


I have used facts to show what is true. Games on the 32X had higher framerates and higher polygon counts. Therefore, the 32X had better 3D polygonal graphics. Period.

You are simply relying on conjecture and speculation.

Even Atari's own fluffed specs do not support you in what you are saying.

[Zadoc]

First of all, you're off topic, but I'll entertain you.


Doom, NBA Jam and Pitfall the Myan Adventure were the 3 games on both systems. Most people believe the Jag version of Doom to be superior, myself included. As for NBA Jam, I haven't had the opportunity to play it on either system. Same thing with Pitfall, so I can't really comment on the other two. I have heard of people preferring the Jaguar version of NBA Jam, but I have no idea about Pitfall, although I would love to track down Pitfall for either system so I could try it. I'm guessing the 32X version is extremely similar to the Genesis game. The Genesis version was pretty good, so that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Look at your fanboism shine through!

"Doom, NBA Jam and Pitfall the Myan Adventure were the 3 games on both systems. Most people believe the Jag version of Doom to be superior, myself included."

Then you go on to say that you have never played the 32X versions of the game.

"As for NBA Jam, I haven't had the opportunity to play it on either system. Same thing with Pitfall..."


Then you speculate that the 32X version of Pitfall, for unknown reasons, must be like the Genesis version without expressing any logic or reasoning for your decision!

"I'm guessing the 32X version is extremely similar to the Genesis game."

INCREADLOUS!

- I have already showed you that with DOOM vs. DOOM in EGM scores, the Jag version scored about 12 points lower than the 32X version. You have no basis whatsoever for that claim.

- If you want to claim that Pitfall and NBA Jam T.E. were better on the Jaguar, I am going to need you to back that up. Find a review from the same mag for each game. Gamepro, Gamefan, EGM, find it. I have played both versions, and they are nearly identical. They're both exactally the same as the SNES version.


I have used facts to show what is true. Games on the 32X had higher framerates and higher polygon counts. Therefore, the 32X had better 3D polygonal graphics. Period.

You are simply relying on conjecture and speculation.

Even Atari's own fluffed specs do not support you in what you are saying.

[jmetal88]

Yeah, Jaguar can definitely push more polygons than the 32X.


Jaguar polys per sec: 10,000

32X Pollys per sec: 50,000

Doh! Here I am, the victim of bad phrasing again! :roll:

EDIT: Anyways, the Jaguar still looks better than the 32x, in my opinion.

[K3V]

Many of those games used SPRITES in conjunction with polygons, hence why they weren't used. Same reason whiy I didn't use Metal Head or Doom. They are based on SPRITES, not POLYGONS.

Completely discounting a 3D engine because there happen to be some sprites on-screen as well seems pretty silly to me. You honestly think there aren't any sprites in any of the games you posted screenshots of?

Doom uses raycasting, which is totally different. All the games I posted run full 3D polygonal game engines.

[bangtango]

- If you want to claim that Pitfall and NBA Jam T.E. were better on the Jaguar, I am going to need you to back that up. Find a review from the same mag for each game. Gamepro, Gamefan, EGM, find it. I have played both versions, and they are nearly identical. They're both exactally the same as the SNES version.

FACT: This very web site has game reviews for both the Jaguar and 32X versions of Doom and NBA Jam TE. The same guy wrote all four reviews and has written dozens of reviews for this site, for games on a bunch of systems, so he is hardly biased. Care to read all four reviews listed above to see which system ends up with the higher scores? You can even read his review for Pitfall on 32X. Pretty poor showing, I must say.........

MORE FACTS: The reviewer admits that the only advantage NBA Jam TE on 32X has over the Jaguar is that the 32X system had a better controller.

That is reality. Follow the link and be enlightened.

http://www.digitpress.com/reviews/index.htm

By the way, there is a thread similar to this one in Modern Gaming. It was a different topic but ended up getting hijacked and turned into a Jaguar vs 32X war.

In there, you will find claims on how 32X is "twice as powerful as the Jaguar" (huh?) and other claims saying "32X CD has way more power than the Jaguar cd."

Here is the link!

http://www.digitpress.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=89389&sid=de55384f1d0a8cd38c3ac25860ba9a44

Jaguar fans, get in there and do your stuff :D

[T2KFreeker]

Well, as I have said before, I have both systems, and the funny thing here is that I have played a number of the cross platform games. The Jaguar controller is no better than the Genesis and vice versa as both were made for two totally different things! It's like trying to compare a 2600 paddle with a Intelevision pad, both rotate, but not the same thing! I see that alot of what I said was overlooked, as I asked, where are the shots of T2K? It doesn't matter how many polygons you can push, but what you do with them.

Besides, we all know that DOOM on the Jaguar rocked all over the 32-X version, although I do like the 32-X version as well.

[Shaggy_Arcade]

Um, EGM is probably the least reliable source to quote on Jaguar game scores. They were so decidely biased against the system that it was sad.

Your quote of the polygon pushing powers of each system is relative to a number of things such as shading, color depth and texturing. The usage of some sprites here and there in some Jag games shouldn't eliminate them from the running as the sprites used were usually minimal in games that were primarily 3D.

VF is faster that the released version of FFL - well of course, FFL is texturing everything. Take a look at the beta version of FFL and it actually runs a lot smoother than the released version and still looks much better than VF ever could.

I'm not familiar with Darxide but it looks similar to Space War 2K. SW2k, even though it was in an alpha state looked and ran pretty well. The main problem with Jag games was the usage of the 68k. Had more games been created without relying so much on that processor things would have been different (that and if Atari had created a better rendering engine)

[j_factor]

EGM is stupid. Every real person that I've talked to that's played Doom for both Jag and 32x has said that the Jaguar version is better. I've played them both myself, and I don't see how anyone could think otherwise.


Jaguar polys per sec: 10,000

32X Pollys per sec: 50,000

I don't know where you got those numbers, but that's not right. Jaguar's 10k spec is for gourad shaded polygons; 32x's 50k quote is for texture-mapped polygons. Two very different numbers. I was unable to find any spec on 32x for gourad polys (maybe it can't do them?), but Jaguar's spec on texture-mapped polygons is 900,000. Now, Atari's numbers may be exaggerated, and Sega's numbers may be conservative, but still. 900k versus 50k.

If you look at the hardware overall, Jaguar easily trounces 32x. The only thing is that Jaguar's bizarre architecture, consisting of 5 processors each with specialized tasks, is ridiculously unwieldy. 32x wasn't the easiest machine to program for, but its dual SH-2's were a cakewalk in comparison.

Consider also who was coding for these systems. Whatever third party support Jaguar had was almost entirely, if not 100% in 2d games (not counting Telegames); Jaguar's 3D games were done by Atari Corp. No offense to anyone at Atari, but really, most of their programmers at the time were a bunch of people from previous Atari systems who didn't really know what they were doing when it came to 3d stuff. Combine that with the fact that almost all (if not all) of Jaguar's 3D games were originals. 32x, on the other hand, had developers who had experience in 3D, and it had ports of 3D games from the arcade.

In conclusion (:P), hardware-wise Jaguar is clearly superior, but as for which system's 3D games looked better, it's pretty much a toss-up.

[Anthony1]

Hey Zadoc..... I think it's time to wave the white flag bro LOL

[T2KFreeker]

The 32-X is capable of doing Goraud shaded polygons. The 32-X is really a well put together little company, but it is still outclassed by the Jaguar. The fact that people are still making Jaguar games is awesome, and people are still figuring out how to get the system to do more tricks! :D

[JChris]

Hi everyone! I'm Chris. Glad to be here. :D

I'm lovin' this guy-> :evil:




Yeah, Jaguar can definitely push more polygons than the 32X.


Jaguar polys per sec: 10,000

32X Pollys per sec: 50,000

Well I heard the 32x isn't really 50,000 after you consider putting in A.I. and collision and stuff like that. What I heard was around 20-30,000. And this number was flat non textured, non gourad shaded polys.

As for the Jag specs being 10,000 polys, what's your source for this number?

Those IS 2 screen shots look great K3V. And to think Eclipse said they could get more out of the Jag.

Anyways, it's good to be here. Hi T2K!

[JChris]

I have heard of people preferring the Jaguar version of NBA Jam, but I have no idea about Pitfall, although I would love to track down Pitfall for either system so I could try it.

The Jag version of Pitfall:The Mayan Adventure goes for under $20 new.

[JChris]

Many of those games used SPRITES in conjunction with polygons, hence why they weren't used. Same reason whiy I didn't use Metal Head or Doom. They are based on SPRITES, not POLYGONS.

Yeah they use sprites for the explosions and such, but the games are polygon BASED.

This just proves the Jag can spit out a 3D poly engine while also doing other things such as throwing explosions up and shot fired graphics etc.

And like what was said before, you don't really think the ones you posted didnt use bitmaps?

[fishsandwich]

First of all, you're off topic, but I'll entertain you.

Yeah, you have been entertaining! LOL

All I'm saying is that you've got to compare games that are similar. Comparing Air Cars to Virtua Racing is unfair and illogical as Air Cars is a piece of shit programmed by a small company with dick for resources. Virtua Racing was programmed by a much larger team with much better resources and funding. Checked Flag or World Tour Racing may very well be slower, crappier games... but they are a hell of a lot better of a comparison to VR than Air Cars.

And if your'e going to show Virtua Fighter for 32x you need to show its only Jaguar competitor, Fight for Life.

LOTS of the examples you're using from BOTH systems use sprites to some degree. VF uses sprites for the backgrounds. So does Virtua Racing. To knock Metal Head or DarXide out of contention based on the fact that they use sprites for their backgrounds or some effects like explosions shows some serious bias. Check out your screenshots for Battlemorph... and check out that background! And you were the one who posted DarXide FIRST, not any of us. It's similarities to Battlesphere are pretty damned obvious.

Chill out, man. Your poll was fine but your examples sucked. You should have seen this coming. Bringing up magazine reviews didn't help your case at all.

For the record... the 32x is one of my favorite "crappy" systems. I never play my Jag. I still think the Jaguar had a lot of untapped power and may ultimately be the more powerful console of the two.

[T2KFreeker]

The three systems of the time period, 32-X, Jaguar, and 3DO never really got pushed as systems unfortunantly. It would have been nice to see what would have happened to see it. I like all three of them.

[alexkidd2000]

I eont think screenshots can be used for comparison without knowing FPS. I game can have a ton of polys but if its running at 5FPS its useless except for screenshots.

[drewbrim]

First of all, you're off topic, but I'll entertain you.

Yeah, you have been entertaining! LOL

Seriously.

Zadoc, if you already "know" the answer then why are you asking the question? Why conduct the poll? Just to argue with people? To settle a bet? What? :?

"Hey guys just wondering which soda you think is sweeter Coke or Pepsi? So I put up a poll, just pick one."

sits and waits for responses........

"Which of you morons chose Coke? Don't you know that Pepsi has 10 more grams of sugar per serving?" "And that Pepsi drinking children have 32% more cavities than the kids that drink Coke." AHHHHHHHH

[retroman]

I too do think that the 32x did look better than the Jag 3D wise, and yes i do have both...

[bangtango]

First of all, you're off topic, but I'll entertain you.

Yeah, you have been entertaining! LOL

Seriously.

Zadoc, if you already "know" the answer then why are you asking the question? Why conduct the poll? Just to argue with people? To settle a bet? What? :?

"Hey guys just wondering which soda you think is sweeter Coke or Pepsi? So I put up a poll, just pick one."

sits and waits for responses........

"Which of you morons chose Coke? Don't you know that Pepsi has 10 more grams of sugar per serving?" "And that Pepsi drinking children have 32% more cavities than the kids that drink Coke." AHHHHHHHH

I believe the whole thing started when Anthony1 commented on a thread in the "Modern Gaming" forum. It asked who is an early adopter of systems and why. Anthony said he bought both the 32X and Jaguar at launch and commented that looking back the 32X was a waste of money, something to that effect. His opinion was that the Jaguar was at least a better value. A fair assessment and opinion.

The comment ended up bringing out a whole bunch of 32X fans who were worked up into a lather. They headed into the thread to dispute what was merely an opinion from someone giving an answer to the actual topic of the thread.

Since the argument was swaying off-topic, seeing that the thread wasn't intended as a 32X/Jaguar debate, an all new thread was set up here by Zadoc to settle the score.

I'll admit I participated a little bit in the Jaguar/32X debate over in the Modern Gaming forum, I just never expected 3-4 new Jaguar and/or 32X related threads to suddenly pop up on account of it.

[JChris]

I too do think that the 32x did look better than the Jag 3D wise, and yes i do have both...

I do indeed agree with that.

Sega had teams like the legendary AM's 1, 2 and 3 and every other sub team trying to dethrone them.

Atari had Assclowns that needed to be locked inside basements to get them to finish basic gameplay elements of some of the releases. *cough*Rebellion*cough*

Another for instance. Take a look at the Cybermorph, Battlemorph and Hover Strike screenshots. Now take a look at the fighters laser/energy shots that are being fired. In each one you will see it's the lame 'tennis ball' shots. Even in Hover Strike.

Compare it to the laser/energy shots fired in games like BattleSphere. MUCH better looking!

Some of the developers thinking never evolved in some areas for some reason when it should of.

Another thing, they inexplicably refused to fund incredible development teams like 4-Play(now known as Scatologic) and 3D Stooges.

But the potential is still there. 3D Stooges has got releases on the Horizon. Eclipse is back in the Jaguar game.

Future could be interesting...

[Ed Oscuro]

Half-Life used SPRITES in conjunction with polygons, hence it can't be used. Same reason whiy I didn't use Metal Head or Doom. They are based on SPRITES, not POLYGONS.
Well, then.

"So glad you ported Half-Life to the Jag, but this here is obviously a sprite. Disqualified!"

[walter_J64Bit_]

Hmmm, let see the Jags DOOM has a network game the 32x DOOM doesn't X_x I can go on like theres more leves in the Jags DOOM O_O than what the 32x has! -_- Oh theres more when it comes to the Jags DOOM @_@

[fishsandwich]

Hmmm, let see the Jags DOOM has a network game the 32x DOOM doesn't X_x I can go on like theres more leves in the Jags DOOM O_O than what the 32x has! -_- Oh theres more when it comes to the Jags DOOM @_@

Well, that settles it! The fact that DOOM for Jaguar has more levels that DOOM for 32x and that it is networkable PROVES that the Jaguar is far, far more powerful than the 32x. You are a genius!

Additionally, I applaud your stunning use of emoticons.

Thanks, Walter!!!

[walter_J64Bit_]

Hmmm, let see the Jags DOOM has a network game the 32x DOOM doesn't X_x I can go on like theres more leves in the Jags DOOM O_O than what the 32x has! -_- Oh theres more when it comes to the Jags DOOM @_@

Well, that settles it! The fact that DOOM for Jaguar has more levels that DOOM for 32x and that it is networkable PROVES that the Jaguar is far, far more powerful than the 32x. You are a genius!

Additionally, I applaud your stunning use of emoticons.

Thanks, Walter!!!
It's a conspiracy how I use the emoticons. ROFL

[MarioMania]

32X hands down

[walter_J64Bit_]

32X hands down


the Jaguar has 63% 8-) in this poll and the 32X has 36% :embarrassed:

[bangtango]

Let's pretend the 32X is "twice as powerful as the Jaguar", as dubiously claimed in the other 32X vs Jaguar thread currently floating around.

I guess that means just a couple people sitting around in sweatpants were responsible for putting together a version of Mortal Kombat II that was actually worse than the Super NES version. Surely a system so awesomely powerful should have created graphics and music which was even better than the arcade version.

Sega's 32X games had a hard enough time looking good next to the Super NES titles from that time period. That is reality. Everybody saw the FINISHED screen shots in magazines and later on the screen. I don't care if they are first generation 32X titles or not. I don't care if we are talking 2D or 3D titles on the 32X.

Atari has always admitted that Cybermorph was basically a demo put together by their people to show what the Jaguar could do. A demo, nothing more. Same thing with the 2D shooter Trevor McFur, which most people can tell was thrown together. I find it hard to believe those two games even remotely pushed the system. For that very reason, how on earth can Cybermorph be used as an example to show that the Jaguar couldn't cut the mustard graphically? It can't.

[j_factor]

I guess that means just a couple people sitting around in sweatpants were responsible for putting together a version of Mortal Kombat II that was actually worse than the Super NES version. Surely a system so awesomely powerful should have created graphics and music which was even better than the arcade version.

There is absolutely no technical reason the 32x version of Mortal Kombat II couldn't have been arcade-perfect, or even better than the arcade. It was most likely a case of rushed porting.


Sega's 32X games had a hard enough time looking good next to the Super NES titles from that time period. That is reality. Everybody saw the FINISHED screen shots in magazines and later on the screen. I don't care if they are first generation 32X titles or not. I don't care if we are talking 2D or 3D titles on the 32X.

Really? I think, 3D-wise, Shadow Squadron far exceeds anything seen on SNES, including the SuperFX chip. And I think, 2D-wise, Kolibri is much better in terms of detail and animation than any SNES game.

[bangtango]

There is absolutely no technical reason the 32x version of Mortal Kombat II couldn't have been arcade-perfect, or even better than the arcade. It was most likely a case of rushed porting.

*Shrugs* I'll take your word for it.



Really? I think, 3D-wise, Shadow Squadron far exceeds anything seen on SNES, including the SuperFX chip. And I think, 2D-wise, Kolibri is much better in terms of detail and animation than any SNES game.

*Shrugs* Could be, I never played either game. I'm looking to get a 32X again (along with Sega CD), anyway, since I recently picked up a Genesis 2 on the Buy/Sell forums. If the games are cheap enough, I may try them someday.

[T2KFreeker]

Let's pretend the 32X is "twice as powerful as the Jaguar", as dubiously claimed in the other 32X vs Jaguar thread currently floating around.

I guess that means just a couple people sitting around in sweatpants were responsible for putting together a version of Mortal Kombat II that was actually worse than the Super NES version. Surely a system so awesomely powerful should have created graphics and music which was even better than the arcade version.

Sega's 32X games had a hard enough time looking good next to the Super NES titles from that time period. That is reality. Everybody saw the FINISHED screen shots in magazines and later on the screen. I don't care if they are first generation 32X titles or not. I don't care if we are talking 2D or 3D titles on the 32X.

Atari has always admitted that Cybermorph was basically a demo put together by their people to show what the Jaguar could do. A demo, nothing more. Same thing with the 2D shooter Trevor McFur, which most people can tell was thrown together. I find it hard to believe those two games even remotely pushed the system. For that very reason, how on earth can Cybermorph be used as an example to show that the Jaguar couldn't cut the mustard graphically? It can't.

I'll make this far easier and as painless as possible, as whoever told you that lied! Cybermorph can be used as a great example of what the Jaguar could do, although it is an older game than anything on the 32-X. Here we go, Cybermorph, quite simply, wasn't on "Rails". That is awesome as Hell when you think about when the game was made. You could go anywhere. Sega's first 3-D outing on the 32-X was on rails, although they were clever how to hide it within Star Wars Arcade, although it was a cool little game, still not as impressive a feat as Cybermorph.
The other thing though, it's not that Trevor McFur was rushed, it was originally designed for the ill fated Atari Panther, and then just ported directly to the Jaguar, and that's the story there.

[c0ldb33r]

How do the games for the system compare framerate-wise?

It's easy to make a super great looking 3D game that plays like molasses.

[fishsandwich]

Sega's 32X games had a hard enough time looking good next to the Super NES titles from that time period. That is reality. Everybody saw the FINISHED screen shots in magazines and later on the screen. I don't care if they are first generation 32X titles or not. I don't care if we are talking 2D or 3D titles on the 32X.

What? Are you being serious? What "reality" are you living in?

You specifically mention 3-D titles in your post above... are you really saying that the SNES could do a better version of Star Wars Arcade than the 32x? DarXide? Virtua Fighter?

It's odd that someone who doesn't even own a 32x can make such wildly inaccurate statements... especially when there are numerous examples of screenshots from various 32x games in the same thread.

Please show me ANY 3-D SNES game that looks even remotely as good as any of the better 3-D 32x games (or any of the weaker ones, for that matter.) Starfox 2? Stunt Race FX? DOOM?

Yeah, Mortal Kombat is weak on 32x... especially the sound. It's no secret that the 32x didn't improve on the Genny's weaker sound capabilities to any great extent. That's ONE example.

I don't think anyone could sucessfully debate that the SNES wasn't far, far superior to the 32x in terms of its game library. But to say that the SNES did 3-D better than the 32x is damned silly.

[c0ldb33r]

32X blows the hell out of Super-FX chips.

Although Genesis Virtua Racing looks pretty sweet compared to the 32X version.

[bangtango]

Let's pretend the 32X is "twice as powerful as the Jaguar", as dubiously claimed in the other 32X vs Jaguar thread currently floating around.

I guess that means just a couple people sitting around in sweatpants were responsible for putting together a version of Mortal Kombat II that was actually worse than the Super NES version. Surely a system so awesomely powerful should have created graphics and music which was even better than the arcade version.

Sega's 32X games had a hard enough time looking good next to the Super NES titles from that time period. That is reality. Everybody saw the FINISHED screen shots in magazines and later on the screen. I don't care if they are first generation 32X titles or not. I don't care if we are talking 2D or 3D titles on the 32X.

Atari has always admitted that Cybermorph was basically a demo put together by their people to show what the Jaguar could do. A demo, nothing more. Same thing with the 2D shooter Trevor McFur, which most people can tell was thrown together. I find it hard to believe those two games even remotely pushed the system. For that very reason, how on earth can Cybermorph be used as an example to show that the Jaguar couldn't cut the mustard graphically? It can't.

I'll make this far easier and as painless as possible, as whoever told you that lied! Cybermorph can be used as a great example of what the Jaguar could do, although it is an older game than anything on the 32-X. Here we go, Cybermorph, quite simply, wasn't on "Rails". That is awesome as Hell when you think about when the game was made. You could go anywhere. Sega's first 3-D outing on the 32-X was on rails, although they were clever how to hide it within Star Wars Arcade, although it was a cool little game, still not as impressive a feat as Cybermorph.
The other thing though, it's not that Trevor McFur was rushed, it was originally designed for the ill fated Atari Panther, and then just ported directly to the Jaguar, and that's the story there.

I have seen it mentioned quite a few places that Cybermorph was merely meant to showcase the Jaguar's abilities but it happened to end up becoming a game.

This is one link of several I have seen that makes some sort of reference to it.

http://www.ataritimes.com/jaguar/reviews/cybermorph.html

[bangtango]

Sega's 32X games had a hard enough time looking good next to the Super NES titles from that time period. That is reality. Everybody saw the FINISHED screen shots in magazines and later on the screen. I don't care if they are first generation 32X titles or not. I don't care if we are talking 2D or 3D titles on the 32X.

What? Are you being serious? What "reality" are you living in?

You specifically mention 3-D titles in your post above... are you really saying that the SNES could do a better version of Star Wars Arcade than the 32x? DarXide? Virtua Fighter?

It's odd that someone who doesn't even own a 32x can make such wildly inaccurate statements... especially when there are numerous examples of screenshots from various 32x games in the same thread.

Please show me ANY 3-D SNES game that looks even remotely as good as any of the better 3-D 32x games (or any of the weaker ones, for that matter.) Starfox 2? Stunt Race FX? DOOM?

Yeah, Mortal Kombat is weak on 32x... especially the sound. It's no secret that the 32x didn't improve on the Genny's weaker sound capabilities to any great extent. That's ONE example.

I don't think anyone could sucessfully debate that the SNES wasn't far, far superior to the 32x in terms of its game library. But to say that the SNES did 3-D better than the 32x is damned silly.

Not talking so much about the power or specs as I am the finished product. 3D or not, there were no games that made most gamers forget their Super NES or say to hell with it.

The Super NES graphics were "good enough" for me back then and millions of other gamers, including some who are probably reading this.

I've played 32X before, owned it twice but sold it off on Ebay each time. I guess I just played most of the bad games.

Yes, I would like to get another one, because I finally have a Genesis again.

[tom]

The 32X cannot handle this awesome poly-gone power:

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c173/thomasholzer/s_Painter_SP_1.jpg

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c173/thomasholzer/s_Painter_SP_4.jpg

One of the best Jag games ever, because I love Amidar on VCS. Painter rocks.

[fishsandwich]

Not talking so much about the power or specs as I am the finished product. 3D or not, there were no games that made most gamers forget their Super NES or say to hell with it.

The Super NES graphics were "good enough" for me back then and millions of other gamers, including some who are probably reading this.

I've played 32X before, owned it twice but sold it off on Ebay each time. I guess I just played most of the bad games.

Yes, I would like to get another one, because I finally have a Genesis again.

Indeed, the SNES was and is fine system. Its graphics were "good enough" for me, too. The SNES game library is certainly both larger and better than the game libraries of either the Jaguar or the 32x.


The poll was asking "32X vs. Jaguar: Which has better 3D polygonal graphics?"

[Garry Silljo]

Not talking so much about the power or specs as I am the finished product. 3D or not, there were no games that made most gamers forget their Super NES or say to hell with it.

The Super NES graphics were "good enough" for me back then and millions of other gamers, including some who are probably reading this.

I've played 32X before, owned it twice but sold it off on Ebay each time. I guess I just played most of the bad games.

Yes, I would like to get another one, because I finally have a Genesis again.

Indeed, the SNES was and is fine system. Its graphics were "good enough" for me, too. The SNES game library is certainly both larger and better than the game libraries of either the Jaguar or the 32x.


The poll was asking "32X vs. Jaguar: Which has better 3D polygonal graphics?"

That's true the title of the post asks which HAS the best 3D polygonal graphics. Why are people debating hardware specs and capablities? The question is not which one COULD have the best graphics, it's which one DID. That being the case, some answers may or may not need changing.

[goatdan]

Tossing in just a few cents here, and then heading back to the land of "not having any time to post"...

I had a second to read this, and I couldn't help myself but think about when the systems were produced and what their main goals were:

The Jaguar was produced at the time where 2D games ruled the world. The SNES and Genesis were duking it out, and that was the market that Atari wanted to get in on. Star Fox, one of the pioneering 3D console games was released on March 1st, 1993. The Atari Jaguar was about eight months from release, and Atari didn't exactly have enough time to change the machine from a crazy powerful 2D system to a 3D system, although they did start focusing on what was thought to be a whole new world -- the 3D game market.

The 32X was released in November of 1994, one full year after the Jaguar. By this time, Sega had seen that 3D was the big thing, and had worked in the processing power for their new system.

Both systems suffered, but for different reasons -- The Jaguar suffered from some very mediocre games at the beginning while people figured out how to push the 2D architecture to create 3D engines. The 32X suffered because the same month is was released, the Saturn was launched in Japan and the writing was already on the wall. Companies just didn't want to make 32X games when it was obvious that Sega wouldn't be supporting it long.

The reason that the Jaguar games appear to be better off overall is because companies understood that Atari was going to support the console longer. The 32X games were all rushed out the door because companies knew that the 32X might not be supported a few months later.

Could the 32X have pushed more polygons than the Jaguar? Yes. It's architecture was made for it. Did the games on the 32X display more on screen than the Jaguar? That's debateable, as Jaguar games received a longer development life which allowed places to start really tapping the systems 3D power.

From my own opinions of having played Doom and Doom, that's an easy answer -- Jaguar DOOM takes up the full screen. 32X DOOM has a border around it, supposedly to keep it running quickly. Therefore, Jaguar DOOM wins by default.

As for NBA Jam TE, it isn't a 3D game. But the Jaguar version is extremely close in quality to the arcade version (I love these titles and have played just about every version to death, and have been thinking about picking up a JAMMA board for it soon too). The players in the 32X version looks like the SNES / Genesis version, not the arcade-like graphics (larger character models, better scaling) that the Jaguar had.

So, which was more powerful? Technically -- the 32X. Actually -- I'd give the nod to the longer development cycles of the Jaguar, for that exact reason.

[j_factor]

I don't think it's accurate to say that Jaguar was 2d hardware. Just because people were still playing 2d games doesn't mean it wasn't already known that 3d was the future. Jaguar and 3DO were both designed as 3d-capable systems; 3D games had already been coming out for computers and arcade, and to a lesser extent even the consoles (Hard Drivin' came out for Genesis in 1990).

[blue lander]

The 32X was released in November of 1994, one full year after the Jaguar. By this time, Sega had seen that 3D was the big thing, and had worked in the processing power for their new system.


If Sega did know that 3D was the "big thing" in 1994, they must have forgotten it when they released the 2D-centric Saturn at roughly the same time.

Also, if you're going to say things like "the 32x can push more polygons than the Jaguar" and "the 32x architecture was made for polygons", it would help if you cited system specs to back it up. I'm not saying it's not true, but I've never seen a system diagram of the 32x that implied it was more designed for 3D than Jaguar was.

[goatdan]

If Sega did know that 3D was the "big thing" in 1994, they must have forgotten it when they released the 2D-centric Saturn at roughly the same time.

The Saturn was originally planned to only include one Hitachi processor. When they wanted to make it beefier for 3D applications (which was in response to the Playstation's displayed 3D power at the time), they decided to include two of them.

One Hitachi processor still could have blown away the two main 'competing' 3D systems at the time the Saturn was being developed. Those were, of course, the Jaguar and the 3DO. Comparing the specs on the two, you'll find that the Hitachi processor is faster than either the Jag or the 3DO (even put together!), and the Saturn had a larger 'supporting cast' of other processors too. The Playstation's architecture was just far ahead of it, and Sega didn't want to miss the boat so they quickly tossed in the second processor.


Also, if you're going to say things like "the 32x can push more polygons than the Jaguar" and "the 32x architecture was made for polygons", it would help if you cited system specs to back it up. I'm not saying it's not true, but I've never seen a system diagram of the 32x that implied it was more designed for 3D than Jaguar was.

Well, whomever it was that stated the specs before got them right:

According to http://www.cyberiapc.com/vgg/sega_32.htm the 32X "Renders up to 50,000 polygons per second."

According to http://www.ataritimes.com/jaguar/index.html the Jaguar can handle "10,000+ polys per second."

[fishsandwich]

Well, whomever it was that stated the specs before got them right:

According to http://www.cyberiapc.com/vgg/sega_32.htm the 32X "Renders up to 50,000 polygons per second."

According to http://www.ataritimes.com/jaguar/index.html the Jaguar can handle "10,000+ polys per second."

Does anyone know if these comparisons are for simple polygons versus simple polygons?

Does anyone know how the numbers change if you add shading or texture mapping to the polygons? I'm curious to know.

[blue lander]

Didn't we already established Jaguar's specs are for gouraud shaded polygons and the 32x is for flat shaded ones? So it's a completely irrelevant comparison. You'd need specs on how many each can perform of the same time, which as far as I know nobody's provided.


From the Atari Jaguar FAQ...



Actual graphics performance is hard to measure, as there are no industry-standard benchmarks. Rebellion Software has claimed that the Jaguar can render "10,000 Gourard shaded, large, 65536 color, any shape polygons per second," while still performing other tasks. Presumably this level can be increased further with optimized programming; indeed, some unofficial calculations speculate that FIGHT FOR LIFE may generate between 20,000 to 40,000 texture-mapped polygons per second.


One Hitachi processor still could have blown away the two main 'competing' 3D systems at the time the Saturn was being developed. Those were, of course, the Jaguar and the 3DO. Comparing the specs on the two, you'll find that the Hitachi processor is faster than either the Jag or the 3DO (even put together!), and the Saturn had a larger 'supporting cast' of other processors too

You can't compare processor speeds across architectures. For instance, just because the SH3 runs at 25mhz or whatever doesn't mean it's more powerful than a MIPS R3000 running at 20mhz or vice versa. And 3D performance depends more on the supporting graphical chipsets than on the main CPU. Sony, who obviously knew 3D was the future, provided a more powerful framework and released developer tools that let programmers take advantage of it. Sega, on the other hand, clearly skimped in both regards. Not the actions of a company that "knew 3D was the future" if you ask me.

[bangtango]

Not talking so much about the power or specs as I am the finished product. 3D or not, there were no games that made most gamers forget their Super NES or say to hell with it.

The Super NES graphics were "good enough" for me back then and millions of other gamers, including some who are probably reading this.

I've played 32X before, owned it twice but sold it off on Ebay each time. I guess I just played most of the bad games.

Yes, I would like to get another one, because I finally have a Genesis again.

Indeed, the SNES was and is fine system. Its graphics were "good enough" for me, too. The SNES game library is certainly both larger and better than the game libraries of either the Jaguar or the 32x.


The poll was asking "32X vs. Jaguar: Which has better 3D polygonal graphics?"

Yes, now I remember. I blindly voted for the Jaguar and erroneously padded the stats in Atari's favor without knowing the facts. Having seen the screenshots, I finally have some genuine perspective on this debate. The many hours I have spent playing (and enjoying) Jaguar games over the past seven years or so led to an extreme bias on my part.

They say it takes a big man to admit he is wrong. The reason it took me so long is because I am 5'10" and under 165 lbs. I'd come to my senses sooner if I could gain 5-10 pounds ;)

*BangTango sneaks out of the room hoping that the rabid Jaguar fans don't notice him leaving..........*

[bangtango]

Not talking so much about the power or specs as I am the finished product. 3D or not, there were no games that made most gamers forget their Super NES or say to hell with it.

The Super NES graphics were "good enough" for me back then and millions of other gamers, including some who are probably reading this.

I've played 32X before, owned it twice but sold it off on Ebay each time. I guess I just played most of the bad games.

Yes, I would like to get another one, because I finally have a Genesis again.

Indeed, the SNES was and is fine system. Its graphics were "good enough" for me, too. The SNES game library is certainly both larger and better than the game libraries of either the Jaguar or the 32x.


The poll was asking "32X vs. Jaguar: Which has better 3D polygonal graphics?"

Yes, now I remember. I blindly voted for the Jaguar and erroneously padded the stats in Atari's favor without knowing the facts. Having seen the screenshots, I finally have some genuine perspective on this debate. The many hours I have spent playing (and enjoying) Jaguar games over the past seven years or so led to an extreme bias on my part.

They say it takes a big man to admit he is wrong. The reason it took me so long is because I am 5'10" and under 165 lbs. I'd come to my senses sooner if I could gain 5-10 pounds ;)

*BangTango sneaks out of the room hoping that the rabid Jaguar fans don't notice him leaving..........*

[fonzie]

Hi, I'm new here :D
I just wanted to give some inputs :)


First, the 32x cannot draw any polygon, so the 50.000 given on the box is a full cheat...

In fact, the 32x is just two fast cpu's hooked on a 2D framebuffer (so they draw all by software) and, there is so many timings limitations that the thing is very weak in comparaison of what it could have been... If only sega had better hardware design at the time...

And for doom32x, the game uses only 1Cpu out of 3 and its a direct port of the computer code...

So, for Hardware rendering, the jag wins... For software rendering, it just depends of the programmer (and the 32x is probably hell faster than the jag).

Here, in (most?) exemples, we have hardware drawed games (jag) vs software drawed games (32x) that's not fair for the poor 32x that push pixel per pixel his crappy flat polygons :P