![]() ![]() My own card has 4MB, so I get to play at 640×480. Tomb Raider will default to 512×384 on such versions. Shut up, it was just misunderstood, okay? This is the Matrox Mystique MGA 170, which usually came with 2MB of video memory. So we start with one of Matrox’s most famous cards. My 4MB edition allows me to play with an impressive 640×480. I’ve tried to take detailed shots whenever needed. ![]() Unfortunately, I can’t take screenshots of DOS games, so you’ll have to bear with some crappy camera photos. These tests are run on a P3-450mhz with 64MB RAM, Soundblaster 16, and Windows 95. But which was the best one? We’ll have to see, though many could take an educated guess and give it to the Voodoo. Of course all that changed when the 3D patches were released. You needed a very strong CPU to run in high resolution (such CPUs usually weren’t even available yet), while the low resolution mode looked straight out of the Saturn, except without the higher quality cutscenes. Oh, of course, most people could just run the game in software mode, but that wasn’t very good. Sounds like a pain, but I guess people back then didn’t really have a choice. Tomb Raider was one of those mid-90s games which required a different executable for each card it needed to run on. Having recently acquired a copy of Tomb Raider (the 1996 one), and with all those 3D accelerators gathering dust in my cupboard, I had this idea flash in my mind: why not try and see how the game looks with different cards? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |