www.tombraiderforums.com  

Go Back   www.tombraiderforums.com > Tomb Raider Series > The Last Revelation

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 30-01-20, 03:54   #1
LUIS2289
Hobbyist
 
LUIS2289's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Buenos Aires
Posts: 28
Default Playing the Dreamcast version right now.

I'm currently replaying TR IV for the second time, this time in the Dreamcast, the first time it was way back in my PS1, didn't played it again until a summer some years back when I replayed all the games in my PC and with a guide this time to find all the secrets. Now I have some excuses to play it for the third time because the Dreamcast emulation is moving forward, now that are emulators that can play WinCE, I have the opportunity to play the only version I was missing -sadly real hardware is not an option in my third world country.

So I'm using retroarch with the Flycast emulator, the best and more accurate yet. Game runs fine and looks BEAUTIFUL, way much better than PC, nearly every texture in the game have those bump maps, in PC only some textures have it or are not very noticiable, in the SEGA console are all over the place, I found that they also are dynamic, fox example, in some complex and big areas they dissapear to help with the performance that was really bad in de DC -The only bad thing about this version. Add the beautoful volumetric fog already present on the PC, real time shadow and a bunch of beautiful filters that are avaible in retroarch to simulate old CRT TV look and you have the ultimate nostalgia gaming trip.

I was wondering... if those bump maps effects could be ported to the PC, It really gives the world a total different look, like less blocky and more real.

UPDATE: Example screenshot gallery

Last edited by LUIS2289; 04-02-20 at 00:18.
LUIS2289 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-01-20, 08:19   #2
Wooxman
Relic Hunter
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,912
Default

In terms of visuals the Dreamcast version is stunning! I think that the bump mapping in the PC version is just broken. It seems to work best in areas with fog or special lighting effects but doesn't show up otherwise.

I'm curious: Do you experience music and cutscene sounds starting too late or ending too early? Because that was a huge issue that I had when I played the PAL Dreamcast version on original hardware. It's pretty much the only thing in that version that is worse than in the PC version.
__________________
Never forget: Gameplay is king!
Wooxman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-01-20, 15:26   #3
LUIS2289
Hobbyist
 
LUIS2289's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Buenos Aires
Posts: 28
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wooxman View Post
In terms of visuals the Dreamcast version is stunning! I think that the bump mapping in the PC version is just broken. It seems to work best in areas with fog or special lighting effects but doesn't show up otherwise.

I'm curious: Do you experience music and cutscene sounds starting too late or ending too early? Because that was a huge issue that I had when I played the PAL Dreamcast version on original hardware. It's pretty much the only thing in that version that is worse than in the PC version.
My thoughts are that developers were too much enthusiastic about the Dreamcast capabilities and so they added the dynamic shadow and the extra bump maps in nearly all textures. I replayed it on PC some years back and I remember seeing the effects only in certain objetcs and places like the carved stone head in Angkor Wat.

About the audio and cutscenes desync issue, as far I'd played -karnak- I have found none, there're some audio glitches but are emulation related, since WinCE emulations it's still new.

Last edited by LUIS2289; 31-01-20 at 15:33.
LUIS2289 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-01-20, 18:20   #4
Tomb Raidering
Professor
 
Tomb Raidering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: In your eyes
Posts: 3,080
Default

AFAIK these features canít be ported to the PC version because thereís no source code.

But maybe level builders will able to easily re-create the game on TR5Main, which is compatible with modern Windows, with more graphical details...
__________________
Must be a way to free another cart.
Tomb Raidering is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-01-20, 23:48   #5
fallenangle
Archaeologist
 
fallenangle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: NW London
Posts: 1,868
Default

I'm always surprised to read these things about the PC versions of the TR games.

I've played them all PS, DC on original PAL DC (TR4/5) and PC and much as I love my still fully working DC I'd go for the PC versions every time. PC 1280x1024, best you get on the DC is 480p and that's only if you have a VGA adapter.

A few graphical enhancements that were not translated to the PC versions; I can live with that and until I read posts from people talking about these differences I would not have even known they were an issue. You wouldn't without direct comparison.
fallenangle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-01-20, 23:56   #6
Tomb Raidering
Professor
 
Tomb Raidering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: In your eyes
Posts: 3,080
Default

Well, one downgrade that I hate in the Dreamcast version is that Lara can’t sprint+duck because both sprint and duck are mapped to the same button. >.<
__________________
Must be a way to free another cart.
Tomb Raidering is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-20, 12:48   #7
michaeldt
Tomb Raider
 
michaeldt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia, WA
Posts: 16,447
Default

Just bought the dreamcast version today . Found it in a retro games store! Still in great condition, no scratches and still has the manual and promo material inside .
__________________
"I keep touching things that i shouldn't, I can't help it" - atlanta73, 2014
michaeldt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-20, 02:07   #8
LUIS2289
Hobbyist
 
LUIS2289's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Buenos Aires
Posts: 28
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fallenangle View Post
I'm always surprised to read these things about the PC versions of the TR games.

I've played them all PS, DC on original PAL DC (TR4/5) and PC and much as I love my still fully working DC I'd go for the PC versions every time. PC 1280x1024, best you get on the DC is 480p and that's only if you have a VGA adapter.

A few graphical enhancements that were not translated to the PC versions; I can live with that and until I read posts from people talking about these differences I would not have even known they were an issue. You wouldn't without direct comparison.

High resolutions and classic TRs don't go together for me. TR -like any old game- looks horrible in high resolution. Classics TRs were meant to be played in old analog crt TVs wich they really contributed to make the game look better. The low resolution hid the lack of polygons and details. Another thing is darkness and contrast, TR games in console were always very dark, this apply for the PS1 even more, dreamcast not too much, CORE made it that way to add athmosphere (tombs are supossed to be kinda dark after all) thats why they also put flares, in the PC version all that is gone, I remember never using a single flare when I replayed them all in PC, you see with clarity in every corner each detail, each texture is exposed, add to that the high resolution and definition that modern PC/LCD outputs and you have all the original visual as was intended ruined. Of course thats only my opinion and taste, if you think that higher resolution is always better I can see why but is not always the case, for me PC gaming was **** up until 2010, nearly every game that was developed for consoles and ported to PC were butchered in graphics, GTA San Andreas is best example, Angel of Darkness got its cinematic butchered too.I'sd stick always with the original experience, I discovered that recently, thanks to emulators and filters I even started to enjoy again playing old classic games from the 16 bit era. That's why I play on low resolution emulator with filters.

Last edited by LUIS2289; 02-02-20 at 02:11.
LUIS2289 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-20, 14:33   #9
fallenangle
Archaeologist
 
fallenangle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: NW London
Posts: 1,868
Default

LUIS2289 -I bet you like scan lines too. Ugly, ugly, ugly.

Problem is that what you describe as the PS TR classic experience is not what many others experienced and what many others hated. Argentina and a couple of other S.American countries apparently use(d) PAL-N and NTSC-M capable TVs - very unusual in that if it is a RGB SCART capable one too you can play NTSC games at 480i/60Hz RGB. That's the best picture quality you can get from a SD display.

In the UK/EU to be able to do that you had to import the US NTSC version of the game and either mod the PS or use a boot disc like PS-X. That also assumes the TV was NTSC compliant (most were) and supported RGB SCART too.

Not all did, a lot of gamers here played their early PS games in 576i/50Hz via an RF connection ie. to the aerial socket. If the game was not PAL optimised (many were not) it would display bordered and have slower and therefore less smooth animation. That was their 'classic' PS game experience.

The result was not pretty and even though AV Composite was better and RGB SCART capable TVs with NTSC 60Hz support quickly became ubiquitous, as described, you still had to import the NTSC version of a game to get the best 'classic' display experience.

Most gamers did not ever get to see that.

Then you have to consider the later Playstations as well: consoles like the PS2 that directly supported original PS games providing the universal option of using Component YPbPr. That is as good as RGB SCART for SD when TV settings are adjusted properly. The PS2 also offers certain display enhancements for PS games which were a definite benefit in some cases but barely noticeable in others. Later Playstation consoles add HDMI display capability into the mix. That's all genuine console experience, potentially far better looking than when the games were first released. But then the display issues of the flat screens that replaced CRTs has to be considered - many displayed SD interlaced games terribly.

Even with the PAL DC, the only games console I know of that specifically supports PAL60 and not NTSC, you still had to use a RGB SCART cable and many casual users did not. Its VGA capability was used by even less worldwide.

Even you are not getting the original console experience. You're using an emulator and with filters (ePSXe?) - not exactly authentic.

My point is the so called 'classic' console experience of TR means different things depending on where you live, your system hardware and cabling.

On PC you get consistency of experience and whilst I agree resolution is not the be all and end all, 1280x1024 60Hz on a decent monitor is better looking than any console version displaying interlaced in lower resolution. Of course you can adjust the gamma of the PC version to give you a murky, more genuinely console version experience............. if you're a masochist.

Last edited by fallenangle; 03-02-20 at 13:37. Reason: typo
fallenangle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-20, 11:32   #10
Legends
Tomb Raider
 
Legends's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 18,381
Default

I'd love to see pics!
Legends is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 01:25.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.