Support NeoGAF

[Italia64]

You should post some videos of WDC Australia stage or whichever is the one with the big metallic bridge.

Also, there is another stage where you are driving through an airport or something and you can see how behind the glass they modeled the interior.

Here we have a person with very good tastes.
On Sidney the bridge is very impressive, it's enormous and you can admire dozens of shadows over the road and the car.

And yes, in Zurich you can see the airplane over you, the cars and truck in the bridge over the track and you can actually watch inside buildings thrugh the glasses. Crazy what they did.

 

[Italia64]

Originally Posted by My words exactly!
Italia64 on point


Yep, agreed with this.

Grazie!

 

[Celine]

Quake 2 on the PS1 is witchcraft. It's the most impressive game on that console for me.

It was witchcraft, a very laborious one ;-)

A gaffer worked on that game (developed by hammerhead), here how they achieved that stunning result on PS1:

Remember there's no z-buffer on PSX, so in order to make an object look solid you need to apply the painter's algorithm to each face and draw it back-to-front relative to the camera. Rather than compute this every time for each face, we basically pre-generated 8 lists per object -be that a chunk of world geometry or an entity within it- then simply selected which one of the lists to use.

As a system it really had no major drawbacks other than the inherent limitation of the painter's algorithm which struggles with complex shapes. 8 angles pretty much covers all cases but its very manpower intensive to prepare it as what it entails is someone sitting there and manually selecting faces and pushing/pulling them around in the order until you have something that looks right as much of the time as possible.

Where stuff was problematic we either removed or rebuilt to work around the problem.

It was a pure code/data solution that required no hardware assistance, very old school in its reliance on pre-calcing as much as possible to reduce cpu overhead.

To clarify a bit on why 8 lists, its really simple if you imagine you are rendering a cube. A cube is made up of 6 faces, each made up of 2 triangles. Now if you look diagonally down on the cube's corner from above and build your face-draw order list, you are 1/8 of the way there.

Do all 4 corners looking diagonally down, you are half way. Then repeating the process looking up from below covers all bases because looking directly parallel can always be covered by the corresponding diagonal orders.

Octant sort-lists.

Every object was stored as 8 seperate painter-order draw lists, with the correct list to draw for correct appearance being applied according to camera orientation.

The editor we built for it did an initial pass to try and figure it out programatticaly, but it still required a team of around a dozen "mappers" who's job was to laboriously hand tweak everything so it looked ok.

Do that for the scene objects and every key-frame of every enemy, and you have a very fast brute-force rendering method.

Obviously the sheer size of ID's original maps (which we stupidly tried to replicate) were far too large to fit into memory, and so after conversion and simplification had to be broken down in PSX-sized chunks. Each chunk was further sectored using a portal-based occlusion system to further reduce the draw overhead in real-time.

Other than that, just the usual PSX bits of business; surface subdivision where possible to get around the lack of perspective correction on textures, UV decals and lighting, the works. We already had a pretty solid tech-base from Shadowmaster the year before, but a huge amount of effort was poured into a bespoke unified editor program unimaginatively titled GLMFC (for OpenGL in a MFC wrapper) which basically did everything from world geometry construction from prefab chunks, lighting and texturing, level population, pathing and event triggering.

Bane of my existence for about 3 years lol.



Thanks for the kind words. I assume you had the first-party multi-tap? As I remember the Mad-Catz one having some weird issues due to it behaving slightly different electrically. That said, the 4x mouse/controller combo thing was more than a bit nuts

 

[Italia64]

Banjo-Kazooie is even better with even bigger and more complex areas and even better textures.

Banjo-Kazooie makes everyone happy. It's probably the overall best well rounded graphics with WDC.

- Great polygonal models
- Perfect draw distance
- Very smooth frame rate
- Great texture work

And much more. It doesn't show not even a graphical flaw. Usually everybody agree when BK is the subject.

It's not amazing like Tooie or Perfect Dark, but the frame rate is considerabily better. Unluckily it looks good only on CRTs, I never found a YouTube video where it's not blurry. So if someone never played it on CRT is difficult to let him figure out how great the graphics are.

 

[Celine]

The backgrounds were more "3D" in general.

You can travel back in the distance and those pillars can get in the way during a fight. It's not just a flat surface with a 3D building in the distance. It's a proper 3D environment.

Absolutely, the polygonal budget for Mace backgrounds was notably higher than something like Fighter Destiny 2.
Mace and FD2 used roughly the same budget to render the characters (about 1000 polygons) however the big difference was that the Mace arena below was composed of about 2000 polygons while FD2 polygonal budget for the backgrounds was minuscule (50-100 polygons).

 

[rjc571]

Battle for Naboo:

Watch the air missions in this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poV3KN7JgPE

- frame rate always between 30-60 fps, even with dynamic lightings and a lot of enemies on screen

I watched the entire video. The only time that it showed the game running at 30 fps was when there was nothing on screen except one or two ships against a 2D bitmap background.When there were more than two polygonal objects on screen the frame rate never went above 20.

 

[Italia64]

I watched the entire video. The only time that it showed the game running at 30 fps was when there was nothing on screen except one or two ships against a 2D bitmap background.When there were more than two polygonal objects on screen the frame rate never went above 20.

I'm not able to count frame rate watching a video. I never met a frame rate noticeable drop playing Battle for Naboo.

I completely agree with the IGN consideration about BoN frame rate.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2000/12/16/star-wars-episode-i-battle-for-naboo

Glenn Plant videos don't run in 60fps. So I don't think are the best source for discover if a game reaches or not 60 fps.

 

[nkarafo]

Absolutely, the polygonal budget for Mace backgrounds was notably higher than something like Fighter Destiny 2.
Mace and FD2 used roughly the same budget to render the characters (about 1000 polygons) however the big difference was that the Mace arena below was composed of about 2000 polygons while FD2 polygonal budget for the backgrounds was minuscule (50-100 polygons).

Damn, this is a very good post.

How did you get those pictures?

It would be awesome if we could see how more games used polygons. I'm curious about games like WDC.

 

[Celine]

Damn, this is a very good post.

How did you get those pictures?

Not mine.
Look here:
http://www.vandal.net/foro/mensaje/880573/hilo-de-detalles-y-curiosidades-de-n64/

 

[jett]

This is typical of people who tries to defend a weaker thesis.

One side showed an huge list of graphical features all on screen at the same time, and the other side tried to spot a weak point and focus on it.

Nah, what you've done is post a lot of speculation and mostly random, unsourced shit. You're sometimes outright making shit up, or are incapable of actually recognizing what is on screen. Here's one example.

Battle for Naboo:

Watch the air missions in this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poV3KN7JgPE

- frame rate always between 30-60 fps, even with dynamic lightings and a lot of enemies on screen

That video is not only obviously only encoded at 30fps, the game itself has a hard time even reaching 30fps in there. If you can't even tell that, what are you doing talking about performance in the first place?

Then there's using horrifically flickering, off-screen videos that you think somehow prove your point. And you're incapable of admitting that the performance of PD is absolute garbage. No wonder the game is pushing a lot of graphical effects, it's doing so at the complete expense of performance. What am I supposed to say here exactly?

 

[Italia64]

Man why you deletes the A Black Falcon part?
A Black Falcon is a great user, plenty of experience and unbiased.

I don't want to fight or insult, I'm here just to talk about N64 graphics and to learn.

Personally I can't notice frame rate problems in BoN, and I agree work all the reviews who said that BoN frame rate is incredibly good.

By the way, if I edit the 30-60fps part can you reply to this topic please?


On N64 library you have:

- the highest polygons count (WDC, Battle for Naboo, Perfect Dark, 007 TWINE, Rush 2049, NFL QB Club 2000, etc.)

- better dynamic lighting (Conker, Tooie, Turok 2, etc.)

- better real-time shadows (Conker, ASB 2000, etc)

- the best frame-rate/polys/effects coefficient of the entire generation (Battle for Naboo)

- the best lip synch and animations (Conker)

- far better animations in sport games (NFL QB Club games, ASB Games, ISS games, etc.)

- the highest texture quality reached (Tooie, Conker, Perfect Dark)

- the best transparencies (Conker, Tooie, Perfect Dark)

- the best draw distance (Battle for Naboo, Rush 2049, Tooie, Indiana Jones, Majora's Mask etc)

- about 30-40 games running on 640x480 (if you add the whole PSX and Saturn libraries you don't reach this number)

- the best real-time explosions (Turok 2)

- best physics (WDC; Rocket Robot on Wheels, Wave Race 64 etc.)


...and I can continue for a day or two, you get the point yet. And the N64 games I listed show the features in completely 3D games with completely free camera, with all filterings running.
It's much more difficult than show graphics features in on-rail cameras games, games with cameras which moves in one axis only, games with prerendered backgrounds, etc.

How is not possible to recognise the N64 graphical superiority in matter of 3D graphics?

So for you N64 is not better despite tons of things impossible for PS1 I listed, only because frame rate issues? Not a problem man, we can play your game and talk about:


Battle for Naboo:

Watch the air missions in this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poV3KN7JgPE

- very smooth frame-rate even with dynamic lightings and a lot of enemies on screen
- 640x480 resolution
- dynamic lighting
- probably the best draw distance of the generation
- very high number of polys on screen (often much over 100.000 per second)
- complete freedom of movement
- slick animations

Can you mention a PS game capable to do that?


Or we can talk about World Driver Championship:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xg9JFWFu2nk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtPEsa2jHg4

Here's a sample of the poly count
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48X0jJCQucc

- smooth frame rate even with 8 very high polys cars on screen at the same time (better overall frame rate than GT2)
- one of the most polys intense games of the generation
- 640x480 res without Expansion Pak
- physics system more advanced than RRT4 and GT
- great draw distance
- great backgrounds realisation with high polys models
- clean, detailed and crispy textures
- pre-lit better than GT, fake reflexes at the same level
- best lens flare of the gen
- perfectly rounded curves, not squared like GT2
- not trembling or pixelated

And this is GT2, the best graphics on PSX.
Look at the backgrounds...are embarassing. It's a great graphic for the system, but there is no doubt about what is better. And look how is trembling and pixelated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuuXJx6a9BE


So, for people who thinks that N64 is capable of impossible visuals for PSX only because it sacrifies the frame rate, weel I showed they're wrong.

 

[jett]

Man why you deletes the A Black Falcon part?
A Black Falcon is a great user, plenty of experience and unbiased.

Because it served no need to call him out, I don't want to come off like I'm too much of an asshole. He's absolutely not unbiased though.

I cannot really reply to the rest of your post, since there's so much unsourced stuff there.
Where are you getting your triangle counts? Have you compared polygon counts on PS1 and N64 games? Do you haev figures?
What basis are you using for claiming games like Conker have the best texture quality?
What does best transparencies mean? The PS1 is perfectly capable of doing transparencies, unlike the Saturn.
How do you even know exactly how many PS1 games run in high resolution?

Some of the rest is more subjective, I never really played sports game so I can't refute or confirm your claim that N64 games have better animation.

I'll agree that games like the Zelda titles have truly impressive draw distance, and Conker is pushing a lot of colored lighting effects. Also, I wouldn't consider GT2 to be the best graphics on the PS1.

 

[Italia64]

Not mine.
Look here:
http://www.vandal.net/foro/mensaje/880573/hilo-de-detalles-y-curiosidades-de-n64/

Luckily I know Spanish and I read that sources some time ago. It's very interesting.

What a pity they didn't ripped WDC.

By the way even these sources have to be read with knowledge. In fact for instance they wrote that Rush 2049 has 3000-6000k polygons per frame.
But if you ripp some other parts Rush 2049 can reach even 10k polygons per frame.

For instance:

8879 (start of track 1)
7075 (track 1)
8076 (start track 2)
7338 (start track 3)
9275 (start track 4)

Are impressive numbers.


Considering that the frame rate oscillates from 20 to 30fps on time trial and from 12 to 30fps in normal races, in the worst of the cases you have 120.000 polygons per second when the frame is 10k.


While on Ridge Racer Type 4 that sources cites 90.000 polygons per second. But Rob Povey, the World Driver Championship lead programmer, personally ripped it and it was 50.000. Who is right? While WDC always stays over 100.000.

I don't think polygons are important. But I often read about the false myth that PS can push more polys, so I write even these things.

On PS the most impressive polygonal achievements aren't in games with adjustable camera, so it's much easy to do it (Crash, Tekken 3, etc).

A very interesting article about this:
https://yuki.la/vr/2388679

But compares polygons between the two consoles with 1:1 proportion is very wrong.
In fact N64 can display 600.000 polygons in PS1 quality.
Luckily they preferred to add filterings, AA, Z-Buffer, etc. So basically 1 N64 polygon worth is much more.

Nintendo was afraid to allow the custom microcode use, because they was afraid to have PSX looking games. Here's the words of the WDC lead programmer:

"...there was always a concern during development that Nintendo would bounce the title if they saw PlayStation like visual artifacts"

Cory Bloyd (Monkeryfun studios)
"Everything just kinda works. For the most part, it was fast and flexible.
You never felt like you were utilizing it well. But, it was OK because your half-assed efforts usually looked better than most PS1 games."

Julian Eggebrecht (Factor 5)
"A typical well done made N64 game looks always better than a similar Playstation game"

Lee Schunemann (Rare)
"It's still the best system out there. The graphics are far better than any of the other systems"

Rob Povey (Boss Studios, he developed on both systems)
"As crippled as the N64 processor was it was still a lot better than the PSX it was competing with"

Julian Eggebrecht (Factor 5)
"Rogue Squadron wouldn't have been possible on PlayStation"

N64 was a graphical beast.

 

[Italia64]

1) Where are you getting your triangle counts?

I have my sources

2) Have you compared polygon counts on PS1 and N64 games?

Yes

3) Do you haev figures?

What this means?


4) What basis are you using for claiming games like Conker have the best texture quality?

In this and other topics I showed Conker's face texture quality and some Perfect Dark very near close-ups. Asking to provide me the same quality with close-ups on PSX, never happened. I also played a lot of PS1 games and never seen that quality.

A close-up of an HoverCrate in Perfect Dark. The texture work of this game is phenomenal.
And in this pic is not even good like actually it is seen with my eyes. Here it's slightly blurry, on CRT is sharp as a knife.

(photo made by me on my CRT)

Or look this video, despite the low resolution video take a look at Conker's eyes:
https://youtu.be/gUxlKO-Ie0c

5)What does best transparencies mean? The PS1 is perfectly capable of doing transparencies, unlike the Saturn.

Show me the best transparencies on PSX, later I'm going to show you what high class multilayered transparencies are.


6) How do you even know exactly how many PS1 games run in high resolution?

I read various lists and 640x480 games are very few. While I counted more than 35 on N64 only using my memory.
Lists are incomplete? Let's hope somebody enlights us.

7) Some of the rest is more subjective, I never really played sports game so I can't refute or confirm your claim that N64 games have better animation.

All I wrote is objective and demonstrable. N64 sport games showed the best animations, especially with the graphic engines Quagmire and Quagmire 2.
Watch the whole NFL PS1 games and after watch the intro and the gameplay of NFL QB Club 2000 or ASB 2000. You will understand.

8) I wouldn't consider GT2 to be the best graphics on the PS1

Almost all the experts agree that it is the best or among the best. You can choose Metal Gear Solid,Tekken 3, Terracon, Crash Team Racing, Soul Reaver, RRT4 or what you want. It remains the fact that not even one is better than Conker, Perfect Dark, Tooie, WDC, Naboo, etc.

 

[jett]

Off-screen shots are worthless, and if you don't want to provide me with exact numbers then I can't really argue polycounts with you.

When it comes to texture quality, I've yet to see any N64 game with better textures than Threads of Fate.

Yeah DewPrism is an exceptionally good looking PS1 game, one of the best.

Luckily I know Spanish and I read that sources some time ago. It's very interesting.

What a pity they didn't ripped WDC.

By the way even these sources have to be read with knowledge. In fact for instance they wrote that Rush 2049 has 3000-6000k polygons per frame.

The vandal.net thread does not mention Rush at all.

 

[Italia64]

Off-screen shots are worthless, and if you don't want to provide me with exact numbers then I can't really argue with you.
btw


The vandal.net thread does not mention Rush at all.

Instead they did, search better man

 

[HTupolev]

4) What basis are you using for claiming games like Conker have the best texture quality?

In this and other topics I showed Conker's face texture quality and some Perfect Dark very near close-ups. Asking to provide me the same quality with close-ups on PSX, never happened. I also played a lot of PS1 games and never seen that quality.

N64's texture filtering did mean that it was easier to get a super-high-quality texture applied to a surface to look good. Combine that with smart use of blurry crap and/or per-vertex coloring, and you could get a pretty clean-looking scene with some selectively well-textured objects.

That's a strength that the N64 has.

But, on the development side, there's also nothing fundamentally impressive about putting a high-quality texture on the occasional single object. PS1 could do it as well, although it was often avoided because it would look bad at a distance due to undersampling of the detail.

When it comes to distributing a ton of unique rich texture data throughout a scene, the PS1 does well, due to a combination of the larger storage medium and more elegant handling of large textures.

 

[jett]

Instead they did, search better man

Ah thanks for reminding me to search the entire thread. Seems they're getting their numbers by extracting information from DirectX, and for the Rush screens the guy is showing the entire location zoomed out, not what is actually shown on screen with the game running.

That's pointless to be honest.

What's more interesting is that there are a few PS1 games in there pushing more than 100K polygons per second (which you said was impossible, for some reason) like Wipeout 3.

(which is pushing five times more polygons than Wipeout 64)

Even the original Wipeout pushes close to three times more polygons.

 

[Italia64]

Guys I didn't write that N64 has overall better texture quality. I wrote that it reached the highest texture quality of the generation.

And while Conker's Bad Fur Day mixes blurry and incredibly crispy textures (the best of the gen), Perfect Dark is clean in every surface.

https://youtu.be/xcgzS63Ma0c


I replied yet about DewPrism. It's a game with cameras on axis. Try to do a close-up like the ones I posted and you'll discover the difference.

Wipeout comparison is pretty useless. Wipeout 64 has to be compared with Wipeout XL, even children know. And at least in graphical department is better than XL.

But it's not for sure a game who pushes the system. Wip3out has to he compared with Episode 1 Racer and Rush 2049 graphics. And it can't nothing against them.

 

[jett]

Guys I didn't write that N64 has overall better texture quality. I wrote that it reached the highest texture quality of the generation.

And while Conker's Bad Fur Day mixes blurry and incredibly crispy textures (the best of the gen), Perfect Dark is clean in every surface.

https://youtu.be/xcgzS63Ma0c


I replied yet about DewPrism. It's a game with cameras on axis. Try to do a close-up like the ones I posted and you'll discover the difference.

Wipeout comparison is pretty useless. Wipeout 64 has to be compared with Wipeout XL, even children know. And at least in graphical department is better than XL.

But it's not for sure a game who pushes the system. Wip3out has to he compared with Episode 1 Racer and Rush 2049 graphics. And it can't nothing against them.

I edited in a comparison to the FIRST Wipeout, W64 still gets beat polygons-wise pretty bad.

btw I refute the notion that any of the games you mentioned are better looking than Wipeout 3.

These are direct feed screens taken by me, W3 actually runs at a higher-than-normal resolution of 512x256.

 

[HTupolev]

Guys I didn't write that N64 has overall better texture quality. I wrote that it reached the highest texture quality of the generation.

What does that statement even mean?

If you mean objects rendered texel density, then we have to ask "texel density with respect to what"? Hard to use world-space, because there's no meaningful absolute reference. Screen-space is a possibility, and as I noted the N64 can more reasonably get extreme cases to look clean, but this is also hard to asses; it's plenty easy to get textures in PS1 games to be very dense on their surfaces by simply standing far away, and it could be argued that at these moments the PS1 is actually drawing in a higher-texel-density source since the filtering hardware isn't selecting a smaller MIP (not that this is a good thing).

If you mean largest individual textures being referenced from the perspective of the hardware that samples textures, then PS1 trivially wins handily.

 

[Italia64]

I edited in a comparison to the FIRST Wipeout, W64 still gets destroyed polygons-wise.

W64 was the first attempt on the console of the developers. It's not a very good graphics.
And it looks better than Wipeout and Wipeout XL. I think nobody has doubts about this.

Wip3out is graphically my favourite. Despite they had to reduce the velocity in order to do that. This is why everybody prefer XL.

I love Wipeout. The 64 version is a great game, it has exclusive features and the 4 player mode. But of course is not a pushing graphics game.

Even controls are fantastic, definitely one of the best controls I met in a racer.

 

[Italia64]

If PS1 shows better texture than the ones I posted, please show me.
I never seen on PS textures that look so clean, crispy and smooth (even looked by very near) as the ones I linked.

If you know better ones please link me. I don't played the whole PS library so maybe there are better textures and I don't know them.

 

[jett]

If PS1 shows better texture than the ones I posted, please show me.
I never seen on PS textures that look so clean, crispy and smooth (even looked by very near) as the ones I linked.

If you know better ones please link me. I don't played the whole PS library so maybe there are better textures and I don't know them.

This is Xenogears.

That nice painting looks like this up-close.

 

[Lord Error]

you can't be serious, right?

I know that Tobal runs much smoother and looks cleaner but there is just no way that it's as detailed as Mace which also features animated interactice 3D backgrounds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6UeaAMkIM0

You are seriously posting that and asking him if he can be serious, lol?

From the perspective of someone who hasn't played either game back when the were released, Mace looks like a clumsy stuttering mess, running at 20FPS tops, where Tobal seems like something that could be an indie game made today with how smooth and well animated it is. I think you'd have a difficult time finding people today who are unfamiliar with both games, who'd think that Tobal doesn't look both immensely better, and much more playable.

 

[Italia64]

I don't want to be an asshole but despite the paint it looks perfect, in the boarders I can count the squares.
Please post other close-ups of the game.
By the way this is very impressive.

 

[Lord Error]

Another thing is, I have to say that despite all its technical prowess, WDC just looks so plain and ugly - again just judging from the videos posted here recently.

RR4 looks so much more striking and eye catching - and before someone jumps in saying that "it's all just art direction", you need to understand that especially on these old machines where every resource was precious "just art direction" doesn't fly, because the underlying tech needs to be doing something spectacular to achieve that kind of art direction. What I mean is that to achieve that vibrant, dynamic look, RR4 had to use a lot of *something*, be it light maps, or highly varied textures, or something else that for a console of that time was not something you could just keep throwing into the game and expecting to work.

 

[Chuck Norris]

ITT: People compare high res emulated pictures from each system

 

[Italia64]

World Driver Championship ugly...
https://youtu.be/xg9JFWFu2nk
https://youtu.be/vkPU9I4Pals
https://youtu.be/tSNsUFAf1po

And try to compare them on CRT...Believe me there's no comparison.

And while RRT4 looks better than GT2, even GT2 is better than RRT4 from a pretty graphical standpoint.

 

[HTupolev]

If PS1 shows better texture than the ones I posted, please show me.
I never seen on PS textures that look so clean, crispy and smooth as the ones I linked.

If you know better ones please link me. I don't played the whole PS library so maybe there are better textures and I don't know them.

Okay, let me rephrase: your statements are too vague to address.

"It reached the highest texture quality of the generation" is an extremely non-specific claim. I think you actually meant the same thing I've been saying in my last few posts (the texture filtering allows textures to be very densely applied to objects in such a way that they're smoothly sampled and don't suffer from undersampling at a distance), but you worded it in such a way that it could mean all kinds of things, including some that are very clearly wrong.

I don't want to be an asshole but despite the paint it looks perfect, in the boarders I can count the squares.

Using nearest-neighbor filtering, texturing in N64 games would be similarly blocky.

 

[Italia64]

Yes, God bless the filterings

 

[Ruud_Luiten]

This is Xenogears.

That nice painting looks like this up-close.

i wish I had this Playstation HD.

 

[hardcastlemccormick]

Jett fighting the good fight against those who would slander the Ridge Racer Type 4, I see. Doing the good work sir.

Amazing how this thread keeps coming back to life over and over again. Remarkable.

i wish I had this Playstation HD.

Does that somehow invalidate that the game actually had that texture to begin with? Why are people making a big deal over emulators when nobody's trying to argue that's what the game actually looked like? The title of the thread is "How much more powerful," not which one looked better at the time.

 

[jett]

I don't want to be an asshole but despite the paint it looks perfect, in the boarders I can count the squares.
Please post other close-ups of the game.
By the way this is very impressive.

PS1 textures being unfiltered can't be helped. I don't think there are any other super high quality textures like that in the game, I'm not sure how they achieved that. But it's a nice looking game either way.

 

[K' Dash]

I love this thread, I particularly enjoyed Jett being stomped bu Italia

 

[hardcastlemccormick]

I love this thread, I particularly enjoyed Jett being stomped bu Italia

Is that how people are reading this thread? I'm seeing Italia64 posting absolute gibberish and made up "citations" to Jett's actual cited facts and posts.

 

[Ruud_Luiten]

Jett fighting the good fight against those who would slander the Ridge Racer Type 4, I see. Doing the good work sir.

Amazing how this thread keeps coming back to life over and over again. Remarkable.



Does that somehow invalidate that the game actually had that texture to begin with? Why are people making a big deal over emulators when nobody's trying to argue that's what the game actually looked like? The title of the thread is "How much more powerful," not which one looked better at the time.

DS emulator makes DS games look different, clean, upscaled and more detailed than they actual are. How would those upgraded pictures help us when we are talking about power of the hardware?

DS hd screens can compete with actual PSP screens. But we all know PSP is MUCH stronger.

I just don't get it.

 

[Italia64]

This kind of threads are very good for knowledge enhancing.

And here at least people are more educated than the Gamefaqs.com. There usually they insult me

 

[jett]

I want to draw some attention to Einhander, which looks pretty nice, although it is a "simple" side-scrolling shmup, it does run at 60fps (although you can't see it in this video unfortunately) and has some neat effects.

https://youtu.be/iRSLwuo-Azs?t=1262

ITT: People compare high res emulated pictures from each system

i wish I had this Playstation HD.

Why, how petty. Here's what the painting looks like in this low quality video, if it makes you feel better.

https://youtu.be/yg8LDr3seZs?t=109

 

[KojiKnight]

PS1 textures being unfiltered can't be helped. I don't think there are any other super high quality textures like that in the game, I'm not sure how they achieved that. But it's a nice looking game either way.

I mean, they achieved it by simply leaving some room in vram for that room. There is something similar in Mega Man Legends 2 in the opening cutscene with a picture of Roll and her family.

 

[hardcastlemccormick]

DS emulator makes DS games look different, clean, upscaled and more detailed than they actual are. How would those upgraded pictures help us when we are talking about power of the hardware?

DS hd screens can compete with actual PSP screens. But we all know PSP is MUCH stronger.

I just don't get it.

Both the N64 and the PS1 had atrocious image quality. To actually see the games properly, you have to use emulator shots. It's the only way you'll be able to discern things like texture quality or scene complexity with any accuracy.

I mean, everybody could be arguing over pictures the size of postage stamps, or they could actually be posting pictures to support their particular argument as supporting evidence to something a game did well in one particular area. Jett wasn't saying that Xenogears had amazing image quality on the PS1, he's saying it had one very impressive texture. To properly see the texture, an emulator shot was provided. How is that a problem?

 

[Mr Swine]

I don't want to be an asshole but despite the paint it looks perfect, in the boarders I can count the squares.
Please post other close-ups of the game.
By the way this is very impressive.

And you can see the texture warping ugh. Otherwise that painting is very impressive

 

[Italia64]

PS1 textures being unfiltered can't be helped. I don't think there are any other super high quality textures like that in the game, I'm not sure how they achieved that. But it's a nice looking game either way.

This kind of graphics is considerably better on PSX.
On N64 you have some good representatives, but very few and among the Japanese exclusives.

 

[Italia64]

By the way, we can talk about one or another particular feature for hours.

But please, what PS1 game you would choose for stand in front of Conker?

- flawless draw distance
- some textures are unmatched
- amazing dynamic shadows who follows different lights, surfaces, stairs, walls, etc.
- dynamic lighting in every single centimeter of game, sometimes tons of different dynamic lighting at the same time
- multilayered transparencies
- mirrored surfaces which reflex everything
- ears animation
- fantastic elaborated tail animation which follows movement and sensations of the character
- facial animation, Conker's perfectly textured blended eyes moves and look everywhere, Conker has tons of different facial expressions in-game and during cut-scenes
- lip synch unmatched in that generation
- clothes animations
- motion blur
- NPC characters with tons of animations and lip synched
- environment animations
- water physics (in War stage)
-smooth frame rate (only occasional drops but every reviewer agrees that are never annoying)
- free cameras

And much more.

Add the game doesn't show not ever one cartridge limit (more than two hours of speeches, tons of sounds effects, amazing variety of musics, Dolby Surround, etc.) and you don't have loading times.
Conker is not only the best graphics game of the gen, it's also technically the best game of the gen.

And I didn't even describe every detail. Conker graphical features literally deserve a dedicated description for each level. I never manage to play it without noticing some new amazing features.

Only people very ignorant in matter of graphics can think that N64 doesn't have the best graphics of the entire generation.

Look this video after 5m30s and you will see all the effects on screen at the same time:
https://youtu.be/J-2UuMSzPro

 

[Version 3.0]

Does that somehow invalidate that the game actually had that texture to begin with? Why are people making a big deal over emulators when nobody's trying to argue that's what the game actually looked like? The title of the thread is "How much more powerful," not which one looked better at the time.

Does storing a texture contribute heavily towards "how powerful"? More heavily than displaying it correctly?

The thread title is not "which system's games look better on an emulator?". Maybe we should have that thread, though, because that would be a question that does not have an objective, factually correct answer.

 

[Version 3.0]

It was witchcraft, a very laborious one ;-)

A gaffer worked on that game (developed by hammerhead), here how they achieved that stunning result on PS1:

Very cool! Thanks for posting this.

 

[GameAddict411]

The PS1 was an older console but it was a balanced system with less bottlenecks than the N64. The N64 had unified ram, but it had to go through the GPU for the CPU to access, and both can't access the memory at the same time. This led to a lot of waiting time for both processors while the PS1 enjoyed a separate but simple memory system. Another large issue with the N64 is the size of the game limitations. The largest size is about 64MB while the PS1 enjoyed 700MB of storage. The PCB were also super expensive to make and took a huge size of the game cost while CDs were pretty much free for publishers per game.

The PS1 processors ran at 1/3 the speed of the N64 so in that aspect the N64 destroyed the PS1 but it only showed in a few titles because of the bottlenecks.

 

[hardcastlemccormick]

Does storing a texture contribute heavily towards "how powerful"? More heavily than displaying it correctly?

The thread title is not "which system's games look better on an emulator?". Maybe we should have that thread, though, because that would be a question that does not have an objective, factually correct answer.

Considering how much debate there is in this thread about texture quality, I guess so? That's one aspect how how the consoles compete. We're not talking about a pure "power level" here, there's pros and cons for each machine.

Again, emulator shots can be used to back up points being made. The thread isn't about emulator shots, and nobody is claiming it should be. I'm not sure why people have such a difficult time wrapping their heads around points being brought up as supporting evidence, not as a direct debating point.

 

[Italia64]

Watch this video I recorded.

Watch it on 1080p
https://youtu.be/ycIyTqoWpsY

It much more near to a PS2 game than s PS1 one. Look how crispy that textures are and how everything is mind-blowing.

 

[nkarafo]

If you compare the best looking games for each system you can tell that

1 - The PS1 has better textures.

2 - The N64 can move more polygons.


The problem with the N64 was that most developers had to use the hardware in a specific, "mandatory" way. The reason why some devs like BOSS managed to push more polys was because they used the hardware in their own way. Very few devs did this.