How well could Doom run on the Genesis?

[Blastfrog]

Assuming you render in a lower resolution (such as 144x168 maybe?), don't render flats, optimize the hell out of the assembly and simplify the gameplay logic, how well could Doom run on the Genesis?

[fraggle]

Genesis, not 32X?

Given the existence of this hack, I'd say "as fast as you want, provided you can put anything you want inside the cartridge" (same thing they did with SNES Doom, after all).

[Blastfrog]

I probably should have specified that I meant without any coprocessors, just a plain-jane Genesis.

[Justince]

r_init: getpostnumberforname: post not found!

Edited August 1, 2017 by Justince

[Sallan]

It's not doom, but you can have a idea:

[axdoomer]

It would run faster, but your game experience will be even worse.

I would ask, you much can you downgrade Doom before it isn't Doom anymore.

I you get the SNES port to work on the Genesis or the 32X, I'm sure it would run at 35FPS or at least so smooth that you won't know if it doesn't run exactly at 35FPS. .

[PizzaGuy]

Sallan said:

It's not doom, but you can have a idea:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9doqwl-U7jU

I never knew Duke 3D was released on the MegaDrive/Genesis. To be fair , considering the limitations they didn't do a bad job.
DOOM was released for the add-on 32X system but was severely limited.

Someone mentioned Zero Tolerance , I imagine it would be very similar to that.

It may have also ran like this game too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QocuSsovRJg

[VGamingJunkie]

The one edge the Genesis had over the SNES was CPU power "blast processing" so I can't imagine it would even be able to handle the SNES version of Doom, unless it was also given a co-processor in its cartridge which you specified as not being the case so I imagine a direct port of Doom in any fashion is out of the question. At best, they may only be able to create an imitation of Doom that plays more like Wolfenstein 3D in the same vein as that unofficial Duke 3D game.

[VGA]

MetroidJunkie said:

The one edge the Genesis had over the SNES was CPU power "blast processing" so I can't imagine it would even be able to handle the SNES version of Doom, unless it was also given a co-processor in its cartridge which you specified as not being the case so I imagine a direct port of Doom in any fashion is out of the question. At best, they may only be able to create an imitation of Doom that plays more like Wolfenstein 3D in the same vein as that unofficial Duke 3D game.

The Genesis processor is faster, so why would it need a coprocessor to run SNES Doom? The problem would be the RAM.

[VGamingJunkie]

The Co-Processor in the Super FX chip is clocked at 21 MHz.

The SNES' processor is 3.58 MHz and the Genesis has a CPU speed of 7.67 MHz.

That's a difference of only 4.09 MHz, 16.91 MHz less than what the Super FX chip adds. That's simply not enough to compensate for the difference. If you compare the FX chip's processor alone to the Genesis', it's still much less than half.

[axdoomer]

I believe the Duke 3D port is a fan-made port.

[VGamingJunkie]

Nope, it's just an unofficial and unlicensed game made in Brazil. A company made this. It's not a port, either, it's a Wolfenstein 3D engine with unauthorized use of Duke 3D sprites and sounds.

[Revenant100]

Duke Nukem 3D for the Sega Mega Drive/Genesis was officially licensed from GT Interactive, 3D Realm's distributor at the time. The engine was custom created from scratch by the developer, TecToy, and they were able to work it on the console without requiring extra processing chips in the cartridge.

This article, interview excerpt with TecToy's president, and a helpful comment from someone who knows the original programmer covers the circumstances: http://www.seganerds.com/2016/08/07/the-secret-behind-duke-nukem-3d-for-sega-genesis/

[hex11]

MetroidJunkie said:

That's a difference of only 4.09 MHz, 16.91 MHz less than what the Super FX chip adds. That's simply not enough to compensate for the difference. If you compare the FX chip's processor alone to the Genesis', it's still much less than half.

Yeah having an extra co-processor makes a difference. That's one reason why Turrican on Amiga was better than on Atari ST, even though Atari cpu is clocked slightly higher.
Both versions were coded by same people (Factor 5) and they could have done even better on Amiga, but probably wanted to use as much common code as possible (both machines have same cpu as the Genesis: Motorolla 68000).
https://youtube.com/watch?v=VpsCVkHOZZg