Higher resolution Dooms?

[Legerdemain]

While we're talking FPS, is there a playable demo of Quake on the Amiga? I want to give it a try on my new 060.

To be honest, there are no really playable 68k versions of Quake out there to be found. BlitzQuake and the original ClickBoom Quake of course works, and in really low resolutions you COULD play through the game if you are sadistic...

[Legerdemain]

Quake is great on a 060. If you have enough memory for it (>64mb). GFX card also helps. No problems on my 4000/060.

No problems? And what resolution are you running the game in and what are your FPS? It's beneath playable according to me, with our without a GFX card.

When I ran BlitzQuake on my 060/Mediator setup it ran just as fast as the ClickBoom port on my PPC equipped A4000, and faster than any of the DOOM ports I have tried.

The ClickBoom port on your PPC? The PPC doesn't matter at all in this case since the ClickBoom version doesn't support PPC (unless there is some patch for the game, I haven't bothered).

...furthermore, Quake doesn't run faster than the Doom ports   in general. You must have tried out some really lousy Doom port if that's the case. I've ran Doom ports on my B1230 that were far more playable than Quake on a 060, with or without GFX-card.

[Legerdemain]

I'd recommend not. Clickboom Quake on my 060/66 averaged 9 FPS. I never got up to the 12 or so FPS that some managed. :/ Ick...

I didn't recommend it but thank you for proving my point, that the game is unplayable...  to be honest, I have never understood why they even bothered releasing it. It seems more to be a "look, it works", than "look, it is actually playable" game. And apparently it sold rather well (and got good reviews by the critics). Some things are by me never to be understood. I would have given it a really low grade...  an average game which isn't even playable to any pleasureable extent should never be given good grades.

Quake has a really lousy 3D-engine. The one in Quake II is way much faster. In theory, a good port of Quake II should be able to perform better than any Quake port on the 68k.

[Legerdemain]

So is the existing 68k port of Quake2 no good then?

I don't know, since I haven't tried them out. That's the reason for me just theorising, not claiming anything...

[Legerdemain]

Arrrr I'm confused now. I have a Blizzard 060/50 with 128MB, and a Voodoo graphics card on my Mediator 1200SX. Is there a demo of Quake I can try to see what performance is like before I buy it?

I don't think there exists any ClickBoom Quake demo, but there is a QuakePlayer that you can download from Aminet which shows the performance... how accurate it is, I don't know.

[Legerdemain]

Hmmm, what the heck are you people talking about? DOOM runs pretty darn good on my CD32/SX32 pro 68030 @50mhz

I'm just realising I'm answering your post without really having toughroughly read throud the thread, but I was about to say that it's Quake that runs slow... not the Doom ports, and that I thought that that was what people were mainly discussing (OT, though).

[Legerdemain]

You see the defenition if something is playable or not is quite subjective.

Well, in most cases I don't believe people can be objective. By that, I do not mean that my points are not valid... rather, they reflect MY views on the specific matter in question.

But... 8-12 FPS is not much. I can understand why people, if they have no other option, decide to play through Quake on their 68k Amigas. But, the framerate IS low, and a 68k Amiga CAN'T do the game justice (or rather, the versions that exist today for the 68k Amiga don't do the game justice). That is not me being subjective, that is a fact. Of course, then it is up to the people playing the game to decide if they find it playable or not. But no one can claim it to be playing WELL, because it isn't. 10 FPS was not what Quake was designed to run in.

So, yes, I might be subjective on the "playable" matter, but if someone considers the game is done justice on a 68k Amiga, please step up and explain why that is (for any other reason than the one that it is Quake on the Amiga and that it is great that it can be, and has been, done).

[Legerdemain]

How is this not you being subjective? I would like to see the page which says this is fact.

Well, then, what's your FPS? Do you reach an FPS above 8-12 FPS and which resolution are you running under when reaching higher FPS? I have never heard of anyone reaching higher FPS? Here's a nice benchmark page which shows how well GLQuake performs on PPC-equiped Amigas, and at least we can know for sure that the ClickBoom 68k port doesn't perform BETTER. Like me, the author of the page seems to consider that everything below 15 FPS is bad performance.

http://www.amigaspeed.de.vu/

Why not turn it the other way around? Your only argument seems to be that the FPS rate is to low, but that would be obvious if compared to the game running on a PC, running the same screensize, etc. As I see it, playability can't be determined by FPS, only by the person playing.

Didn't you just read what I wrote? I said that, yes, playability is up to each and one to decide! What I don't think is subjective to say is that the game doesn't play WELL (in other words: like it originally was intended to be played and NOT how what each and one thinks about the playability) on any 68k Amiga.

Of course the Amiga ports of the game can, without having to be questioned over and over again, be compared with how well the original performs on the PC because it was written FOR the PC's from the beginning. Or, would you consider a film playing at 10 FPS instead of its original 24 FPS would be playing WELL (no matter if one thinks it is watchable or not)?