>people used to say PS1 had no real 3D because it lacked Z buffer
>but they also used to say PS1 had no real 2D, that it had something like sprites mapped to 3D
Then, according to those people, what did PS1 even have?? 1D? 2.5D?
What those people think doesn't matter because they are mentally retarded.
PS1 and N64 had no hardware sprites. They're strictly triangle-pushing machines.
>>11806434 (OP)>what did PS1 even have??A generation; It's ethereal. It has everything you needed i during the 90s.
It doesn’t matter. I don’t care and neither should you.
>>11806437Psx didn't have hardware native sprites? Is that why alucard in SotN is secretly polygons? (Couldn't find a pic....not even on TCRF, wtf)
I've never once heard the former said by anyone...
The PS1 doesn't draw triangles that it considers "not visible" so it is 100% full 3D, the issue is that it has no hardware accelerated way to calculate what isn't visible when polygons overlap or move around the same area. You can see this in the famous T-rex walk tech demo.
Unless you want constant flickering from polygons that are close together, you have to do it in software and even then the PS1 is inaccurate and the polygons will still snap and overlap just because that's how the hardware is.
The latter is something I've heard but a 2D game made of flat polygons "not being 2D" is as laughable as saying no 3D games exist because it's rendering 2D frames to your display.
also cute toes
>>11806434 (OP)The ps1 is a 2d gpu, but so is the ps2, and the ps3. The vast majority of gpus are 2d, having no concept of what depth is. All they do is blindly draw 2d triangles in the exact order they are submitted. The z-buffer is a barely functional hack that approximates depth in a very limited way.
the TV screen is 2D so all games are 2D
You're listening to people who think PS1 has no games because it has no Mario or Zelda games
Textured polygons are just distorted sprites.
>>11806586they're 1D when displayed on CRTs
