Cheeseoman | Rayman 2 (N64) Graphics Settings Comparison @cheeseoman | Uploaded July 2013 | Updated October 2024, 9 hours ago.
There are five possible graphics settings in Rayman 2:
1. Expansion Pak, high resolution, maximum sharpness
2. Expansion Pak, low resolution, maximum sharpness
3. Expansion Pak, low resolution, standard sharpness
4. Jumper Pak, low resolution, maximum sharpness
5. Jumper Pak, low resolution, standard sharpness
If you start the game with an Expansion Pak inserted, the game starts with setting 1. I never thought much about changing the settings, so my speed run was done with setting 1. However, CloakedYoshi recently noticed that the game runs faster in low resolution mode. I investigated the issue by recording five cutscenes with each of the five settings above. This video shows the cutscenes played side by side. You can tell that setting 1 is by far the slowest. For the other settings, it seems that maximum sharpness is usually faster than standard sharpness and the Expansion Pak is usually faster than the Jumper Pak. Here are the frame counts for each cutscene (at 29.97 frames per second):
Intro:
1. 5781
2. 5707
3. 5724
4. 5709
5. 5719
Escaping the Ship:
1. 1326
2. 1292
3. 1296
4. 1294
5. 1297
Globox Babies:
1. 1235
2. 1230
3. 1230
4. 1229
5. 1228
Luring Rayman:
1. 2683
2. 2565
3. 2591
4. 2569
5. 2596
Between Grolgoth Forms:
1. 3828
2. 3784
3. 3788
4. 3787
5. 3789
Here are some graphs of this data:
http://i.imgur.com/oAKeyrP.png
I also calculated the percentage improvement that each low resolution setting provides over high resolution:
Intro:
2. 1.28%
3. 0.99%
4. 1.25%
5. 1.07%
Escape:
2. 2.56%
3. 2.26%
4. 2.41%
5. 2.19%
Globox Babies:
2. 0.40%
3. 0.40%
4. 0.49%
5. 0.57%
Luring Rayman:
2. 4.40%
3. 3.43%
4. 4.25%
5. 3.24%
Between Grolgoth Forms:
2. 1.15%
3. 1.04%
4. 1.07%
5. 1.02%
Here's a graph of this data:
http://i.imgur.com/dk7SMHz.png
I'm guessing that the more graphically complex a scene is, the greater the difference is between rendering it in high resolution and rendering it in low resolution. This might explain the variations in the percentages above between cutscenes. The Globox Baby cutscene seems pretty simple graphically, while the Luring Rayman scene has lots of stuff to render. I'm not sure why the Jumper Pak would be faster than the Expansion Pak for the Globox Baby cutscene, though.
For this video, I used cutscenes in order to prevent human input from affecting the results. I'm not sure what kind of speed boost you get in regular gameplay using low resolution mode, but I'm guessing you get at least some boost. With this in mind, a run could have several more minutes of mistakes than mine and still be faster. For example, a 2:20-quality run might be fast enough to beat my 2:17:25. I just made up 2:20; the real figure could be higher. I'm not sure if I'll defend my "title," though. Maybe I'll think about doing another any% run if someone actually beats mine.
There are five possible graphics settings in Rayman 2:
1. Expansion Pak, high resolution, maximum sharpness
2. Expansion Pak, low resolution, maximum sharpness
3. Expansion Pak, low resolution, standard sharpness
4. Jumper Pak, low resolution, maximum sharpness
5. Jumper Pak, low resolution, standard sharpness
If you start the game with an Expansion Pak inserted, the game starts with setting 1. I never thought much about changing the settings, so my speed run was done with setting 1. However, CloakedYoshi recently noticed that the game runs faster in low resolution mode. I investigated the issue by recording five cutscenes with each of the five settings above. This video shows the cutscenes played side by side. You can tell that setting 1 is by far the slowest. For the other settings, it seems that maximum sharpness is usually faster than standard sharpness and the Expansion Pak is usually faster than the Jumper Pak. Here are the frame counts for each cutscene (at 29.97 frames per second):
Intro:
1. 5781
2. 5707
3. 5724
4. 5709
5. 5719
Escaping the Ship:
1. 1326
2. 1292
3. 1296
4. 1294
5. 1297
Globox Babies:
1. 1235
2. 1230
3. 1230
4. 1229
5. 1228
Luring Rayman:
1. 2683
2. 2565
3. 2591
4. 2569
5. 2596
Between Grolgoth Forms:
1. 3828
2. 3784
3. 3788
4. 3787
5. 3789
Here are some graphs of this data:
http://i.imgur.com/oAKeyrP.png
I also calculated the percentage improvement that each low resolution setting provides over high resolution:
Intro:
2. 1.28%
3. 0.99%
4. 1.25%
5. 1.07%
Escape:
2. 2.56%
3. 2.26%
4. 2.41%
5. 2.19%
Globox Babies:
2. 0.40%
3. 0.40%
4. 0.49%
5. 0.57%
Luring Rayman:
2. 4.40%
3. 3.43%
4. 4.25%
5. 3.24%
Between Grolgoth Forms:
2. 1.15%
3. 1.04%
4. 1.07%
5. 1.02%
Here's a graph of this data:
http://i.imgur.com/dk7SMHz.png
I'm guessing that the more graphically complex a scene is, the greater the difference is between rendering it in high resolution and rendering it in low resolution. This might explain the variations in the percentages above between cutscenes. The Globox Baby cutscene seems pretty simple graphically, while the Luring Rayman scene has lots of stuff to render. I'm not sure why the Jumper Pak would be faster than the Expansion Pak for the Globox Baby cutscene, though.
For this video, I used cutscenes in order to prevent human input from affecting the results. I'm not sure what kind of speed boost you get in regular gameplay using low resolution mode, but I'm guessing you get at least some boost. With this in mind, a run could have several more minutes of mistakes than mine and still be faster. For example, a 2:20-quality run might be fast enough to beat my 2:17:25. I just made up 2:20; the real figure could be higher. I'm not sure if I'll defend my "title," though. Maybe I'll think about doing another any% run if someone actually beats mine.
