Vorg
Banned
I think he was joking.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
How much more powerful was the N64 compared to the PlayStation anyway?
- Thread starter Snakeyes
- Start date
I think he was joking.
Nightstick11
Banned
I think Daytona had worse draw-distance than Touring Car.
Combichristoffersen
Combovers don't work when there is no hair
I actually owned the RR64 cart, made it all the way to the last race on Grand Prix mode in the "secret" nighttime track(although couldn't finish it). It's just no good, the controls are crazy loose and the camera is constantly shaking for some inexplicable reason, it's hard to make out the corners and know when to stop drifting without memorizing everything. Even when you get used to the weirdness, it doesn't feel satisfying to drift in this game. I only played it all the way because I paid full price for the thing.
It is ugly though, it's nothing but a mess of primary colors.
Regarding R4's aesthetic and and audiovisual presentation, my god, you're just from another planet.
And RR64 doesn't have motion blur, you might be confusing the blurry textures for that.
A Black Falcon
Member
Camera shaking? Huh? I don't think so. You do need to memorize every turn, but that's the kind of game it is. That';s as much a product of the "you must place first to progress" design as it is anything else, though, and of course other Ridge Racer games like R4 share that design element, as I've sad.I actually owned the RR64 cart, made it all the way to the last race on Grand Prix mode in the "secret" nighttime track(although couldn't finish it). It's just no good, the controls are crazy loose and the camera is constantly shaking for some inexplicable reason, it's hard to make out the corners and know when to stop drifting without memorizing everything. Even when you get used to the weirdness, it doesn't feel satisfying to drift in this game. I only played it all the way because I paid full price for the thing.
Colorful isn't ugly.
Uh, what? Has it been so long since you played the game that you forget what it looks like? Specifically, the other cars have a heavy blur effect as they move, particularly on their taillights. It's a quite unique look for the N64, can't think of any other N64 racing games with that effect. It looks pretty cool.
As for the textures, they're pretty good for the system, no issues there.
It really does shake when you are drifting, it's weird. And it's mostly the two new NST tracks that give problems with taking corners, they are terrible.
The color palette in RR64 is ghastly.
As you can see from the gif above, I've played the game very recently. The only blur effect is the trailing taillights(that's not motion blur), which was "borrowed" wholesale from R4(which had come out more than a year ago), the first racer where such an effect appeared.
And for kicks, in R4 you actually could enable full screen motion blur during replays
...and just to drive the point further of how much stronger the aesthetic and overall presentation of R4 is, here's its car selection screen to comparison's sake
Notice the superior reflections on the windshield, btw.
A Black Falcon
Member
For the shaking camera, no, I haven't noticed that. I think NST's tracks are good though; they're not worse than the original ones. They're not better, but aren't worse, at least.
Nice colors. What in the world is your problem with that? Current-gen "everything should be brown" is not something I like...
The color palette in RR64 is ghastly.
Oh, R4 had the taillight trails too? I played it recently, but didn't notice. I guess it does, though. But seriously, using the word "borrowed" like that is ridiculous. RR64 is a Ridge Racer game. Of course it's going to take some ideas from the other games in the series. It better, if it wants to live up to the name.As you can see from the gif above, I've played the game very recently. The only blur effect is the trailing taillights(that's not motion blur), which was "borrowed" wholesale from R4(which had come out more than a year ago), the first racer where such an effect appeared.
Oh, replays only? That's pretty much irrelevant for all practical purposes, then. The N64 can do that effect -- for instance, Rally Challenge 2000 has full-screen motion blur during replays -- but I couldn't care less that it's not in RR64. I almost never watch replays anyway.And for kicks, in R4 you actually could enable full screen motion blur during replays
Uh, so it has a slightly different reflection in the car selection screen, so it has better graphics? That's a pretty sketchy case... sure, that is a nice reflection, but the N64 one isn't bad either....and just to drive the point further of how much stronger the aesthetic and overall presentation of R4 is, here's its car selection screen to comparison's sake
Notice the superior reflections on the windshield, btw.
Also, RR64 has a better interface. RR64's interface is so stylish, I like it a lot more than that cluttered R4 menu system, as seen in the gif above.
Not only that way, no. Also, will you ever explain what you dislike about that second shot? I mean, because it's a concert, so bright colored lighting certainly fits the theme perfectly.
... You really dislike that shot because of the red lighting? Really? That's kind of odd, if true...
I don't like it because I find it painful to look at. It's a bright red blurry mess.
Nothing inherently wrong with red lighting, it's just when it's that intense, and blurry at the same time, it's not at all pleasant to look at. And you can't just say concerts have to look like that, because they certainly don't.
Yeah sure nice colors :lol Primary colors out the butt with complete disregard for style.
Too? I'm beginning to think you haven't even played R4.
Oh so now that you know it's not in RR64 you couldn't care less, huh? :lol And since R4 does it and RR64 does not it's irrelevant? Hahaha.
It is better, though.
Good lord you are insane. RR64's menus are an ugly piece of garbage. R4 is the epitome of graphic design in a video game.
Looking at all these screenshots and youtube videos, I'm get the feeling that the difference between PS1's graphics and N64's graphics is the same as the difference between WinQuake (or DosQuake) and GLQuake. WinQuake has jaggies, a flat color pallete, and is generally dull similar to the PS1. GLQuake, however, is more vibrant, has less jaggies, colored lighting, and is overall a better graphical experience similar to the N64.
Here's a good comparison picture courtesy of vintag3d.org:
I remember when the voodoo1 cards first came out, I was thinking "does this mean I can get Quake to look more like Mario64 now?" Cause that's how awesome Mario64 was at the time.
Here's a good comparison picture courtesy of vintag3d.org:
I remember when the voodoo1 cards first came out, I was thinking "does this mean I can get Quake to look more like Mario64 now?" Cause that's how awesome Mario64 was at the time.
Here's a good comparison picture courtesy of vintag3d.org:
Man I tried to read that website and I felt like I was developing dyslexia. I'm assuming English isn't that writer's first language.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
Reading posts from ABF reminds me of that scene from Friends when Ross makes the baked bread. There's just no point. Some people can't tell good from bad if their lives depended on it. Jett is about as correct here as if he was arguing that breathing fresh air won't rot your lungs, but it just won't do anything.
A Black Falcon
Member
Again, what's wrong with colors? Bright colors are just as good as dark ones!
Also, doesn't R4 not even have a car color slider?
I played it yesterday, along with RR64. I played RR64 more, but I certainly played at least an hour of R4.
No, as I said, I don't care about replays in general. No matter what racing game you're talking about, I think that replays are mostly a waste of time. It's annoying when racing games force you to watch replays at the end of races... make it optional, and let me skip the thing. I'm not interested in re-watching what I just played.
They both do a nice job there with the lighting. RR64's probably isn't quite as good as Rush 2049, but it's a solid lighting job.
:lol
Seriously, that's pretty ridiculous. I guess you like cluttered and boxy, then, over simple and stylish. I disagree.
If you want me to mention something negative about RR64 versus R4, though, that's easy, I can think of one important thing: it's absolutely crazy that RR64 doesn't save your best lap times, and instead they just reset every time you turn the game off. R4 does save best times, yes? Of course, so does virtually every racing game on the N64, too. It have no idea how they managed to cut that out of RR64, but it's pretty annoying.
But concerts often have colored lighting. It's very common. There's certainly nothing wrong with having colored lighting in a concert scene... and the bright color looks fine, I think.
They're called opinions for a reason. This is not a discussion about fact, but opinion.
Looking at all these screenshots and youtube videos, I'm get the feeling that the difference between PS1's graphics and N64's graphics is the same as the difference between WinQuake (or DosQuake) and GLQuake. WinQuake has jaggies, a flat color pallete, and is generally dull similar to the PS1. GLQuake, however, is more vibrant, has less jaggies, colored lighting, and is overall a better graphical experience similar to the N64.
Here's a good comparison picture courtesy of vintag3d.org:
I remember when the voodoo1 cards first came out, I was thinking "does this mean I can get Quake to look more like Mario64 now?" Cause that's how awesome Mario64 was at the time.
Are there actually people defending WinQuake over GLQuake, though?
Red Blaster
Member
Are you guys new to Black Falcon's immense cognitive dissonance regarding anything N64 or something
This isn't an N64-specific thing, though. ABF likes bright and garish colors from any media. If you disagree with him that Ridge Racer 64 or this are aesthetically appealing, you're not going to change his mind.
There's nothing inherently wrong with it, just how P.A. Works did it. It's certainly possible to make it look good, but the Angel Beats shots is just eye-stabbingly bright and blurry.
This is cognitive dissonance on a whole new level.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
That's true. I'm just saying this reminds me of arguing against someone who holds an opinion that inhaling deeply would explode their lungs, and no amount of medical evidence can convince them otherwise. Opinions are fine, carry on.
Yeah, I didn't really read the article, I was just using the site for the image. The aliasing I see in the software rendered quake is reminiscent of what I see in PS1 games. Likewise, the smooth textures I see in the hardware rendered quake (GLquake) is reminiscent of what I see in N64 games.
A Black Falcon
Member
That's a pretty good question... the two are pretty close in a lot of ways, yeah.
GBA:
Wikipedia said:
32X:
Wikipedia said:
Remember also that the 32X actually draws graphics in two layers, one from the 32X and one from the Genesis, which are merged and sent out together as one image. The hardware above is just the 32X layer; the Genesis layer is restricted to that system's hardware, including its much lower color limit, etc. Genesis specs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_Genesis#Technical_specifications Different 32X games use the two layers differently. 2d Platformers for instance usually have the sprites and foreground done by one, and the backgrounds by the other (usually the Genesis). As a result, for instance, Pitfall: The Mayan Adventure for 32X has high-color sprites, but low-color Genesis backgrounds. The GBA doesn't have any limitations like these.
Anyway though, RAM is about the same (32X has more video ram, but it's running higher resolution visuals, so it needs more). Colors are about the same comparing just the 32X layer to the GBA (32X layers generally don't push more than a few hundred colors at once, so that's not too different in results from what you see on GBA) but overall the GBA probably wins because of the lower-color Genesis layer. The 32X runs at higher resolutions, but it's for a TV, not a small screen, of course. The 32X has faster CPUs, but again, it does have to render higher resolution visuals. Also, the 32X doesn't have hardware 3D polygon support -- developers have to do it all in software in the 32X CPUs. That means that developer skill matters a lot. Both systems have very ugly 3D, but by the time the GBA came around developers were much better at making 3d graphics, and that's probably its biggest advantage in that category -- the 32X only lasted from late '94 to early '96, and its few 3d games were quite early for 3d console games. You can tell. Still, the 32X is probably more powerful than the GBA, though it is also harder to program for and limited in some ways the GBA isn't thanks to that dual-layer design that makes programming for it more complex, the multiple CPUs, and such. Still though, I think I would go with the 32X as being slightly more powerful.
For instance, I think the GBA would have a hard time matching this techdemo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOWZbydnlZE or the unreleased and unfinished X-Men game http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv2SXc06Wrk . Even for released games, Virtua Racing 32X probably looks better than Drome Racers or other similar titles on GBA... the GBA can do some nice demos though, like this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuMcCJkS5ZI , or Driver 2 for released games, so it is definitely a competition. Doom and Metal Head on 32X might not be as impressive as those two... Driver 2 is blockier than Metal Head, but has a much better draw distance, for instance.
If you think that your opinions are facts, then sure, you might think that there's that happening. However, your opinions are just that, opinions... apart from the technical side, where of course the N64 is much more powerful by all objective measures, I don't know if you can have an objectively factual opinion about what kind of lighting and color design you like better. Those are quite obviously matters purely of opinion. Your opinions are not facts simply because you believe them, that's not how it works.
If you think that comparison is valid, then you don't understand the difference between opinion and fact... things like color palette preferences between these two games are certainly things entirely in the realm of opinion.
No, but it's baffling to me that people are defending PS1 over N64 in terms of graphics capability.
I liked both, some amazing games on both platforms and some ridiculously overrated ones (I hated GoldenEye as a kid and it was basically all my friends ever wanted to play :/ ). Many of the N64 games had this crisp clean look with big blocky polys and flat textures which could be really impressive when it suited the game and PSX allowed for more complex texturing and larger, longer games because of the storage medium. The jittery graphics were a little frustrating with PSX but outside of a couple genres that N64 excelled in (look at 3d platofrmers on PSX vs N64, N64 clearly dominates) the PSX hardware was better for my taste in games at the time N64 had some awesome platformer and multi games though, and Pokemon SNAP! Still one of the best games to get high and play.
ResidentDante
Member
Has the RR1 Hi-Spec demo that followed R4 been mentioned, cause I really don't see what RR64 has going for it. It may have had smoothing, but the visuals looked like downgrade compared to RR1 and RR Rev.
This actually pissed me off at the time, I thought the cars in R4 would have reflections ingame, like Gran Turismo and it fucking didn't. Only in replays I believe.
...and just to drive the point further of how much stronger the aesthetic and overall presentation of R4 is, here's its car selection screen to comparison's sake
Notice the superior reflections on the windshield, btw.
This actually pissed me off at the time, I thought the cars in R4 would have reflections ingame, like Gran Turismo and it fucking didn't. Only in replays I believe.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
...So this is a glimpse of what console wars looked like back at the time of the oldies, yeah, hahaha. Reading this thread gives me a rather surreal feeling
You're absolutely right. I love bright colors as well.
I simply don't feel that RR64 uses them tastefully.
I particularly hate the "farm yard countryside" vibe the game has going for it.
Ah, I see, you have very limited musical exposure. I thought that way 15 years ago but there's a whole world of music out there just waiting to be explored. I'm not knocking you there as, again, I once would have written the same exact answer (right down to techno and classical), but I think you'd be surprised by how much amazing music you're missing.
You're not wrong, of course, but I feel that your opinions are akin to claiming Blade Runner has poor art direction in favor of a some "Uguu~~ anime". There's no real objective way to pass judgement on good art, however.
Also, regarding the graphic design.
R4 has a unified style with great fonts, transitions, and other design elements. Lots of animations abound with everything moving smoothly around the screen in a very concise fashion.
RR64, however, is the kind of game that would gladly paste a static image of a CG model on the side of a black screen and call it a day. It just seems cheap and ugly in comparison.
papersleeves
Member
What do these games have all in common?
Shit ass framerate for around 50% of the game, Turok 2 being the worst offender with Conker and PD fighting for the second place. Turok 2 and PD hi-res are simply put, offensive. See unplayable. I had to switch to low-res back then when I was much more tolerant. Today I wouldn't even think of trying these hi-res mode.
Quake II is also "immune" to polygon warping unless you really search for it, and as a bonus the game is quite the looker.
Also, has anyone played ESPN X Games Pro Boarder on PS1? I thought it was damn impressive at the time. Good draw distance, good use of gouraud shading, coronas, good selection of color, butter smooth framerate, really clean look and no jittering. Another game which is fighting the lack of perspective correction very well.
ESPN X Games Pro Boarder
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
Indeed it was not entirely valid. Better would be if someone prefers a page from a porn magazine to a Mona Lisa painting.
Sorry if that was blunt but everything about RR64 seems garish and half assed visually with no effort and thought put in it at all - whereas R4 clearly had incredible talent and effort dedicated to visual styling. Those pictures from dark10x post really say it all, and would even more if they'd show what the animation there looked like.
Are you suggesting the Ps1 could do better?
papersleeves
Member
Yes. Quake II.
Nightstick11
Banned
I find it hilarious in 2012 that I just read a debate that included whether Ridge Racer 4's soundtrack was better than Ridge Racer 64's soundtrack.
Have you seen the pre-rendered backgrounds on the N64 version?
DonMigs85
Member
Well that's more a consequence of limited cart space.
A limitation that shouldn't be disregarded in the comparison. It's in keeping with the discussions in this thread, where cart space has been brought up before.
I am amazed that they got RE2 onto the N64 and in a reasonably fair state, though, but I don't think it should be used as a yardstick in measuring the N64's power over the PS1.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmViSPAxLpM
The textures on the characters seem to be less detailed on the N64, and blurrier obviously, but that's a given huh?
At the end of the day it's an inferior version of the game. Backgrounds are way blurrier and the FMVs are compressed to hell. It's a really impressive achievement though.
Haha I was actually just reading the Lens of Truth article where that vid came from.
http://www.lensoftruth.com/retro-head2head-resident-evil-2/
Though the models in the N64 version are higher poly, the texture work is mostly inferior to the ps1 game.
http://www.lensoftruth.com/retro-head2head-resident-evil-2/
Though the models in the N64 version are higher poly, the texture work is mostly inferior to the ps1 game.
I prefer playing winquake over glquake, as with all quake-engine derived games like hexen 2. The texture work is of such low resolution that smoothing it out actually ruins the perception of detail and makes it look very muddy. I'll take nice sharp pixel art in my quake.
A Black Falcon
Member
No, it's a better version of the game (slightly; not by a lot). Better controls, first -- it has real analog support! That was completely awesome, tank controls aren't the worst but actual analog support is certainly better. The in-game visuals are very close, as that comparison there shows, but I think the N64 has the edge; getting rid of jaggies alone makes a huge difference. The PS1 version does have better FMVs, but gameplay matters more than videos... (As for the backgrounds, going by those screenshots they look pretty similar.)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmViSPAxLpM
The textures on the characters seem to be less detailed on the N64, and blurrier obviously, but that's a given huh?
At the end of the day it's an inferior version of the game. Backgrounds are way blurrier and the FMVs are compressed to hell. It's a really impressive achievement though.
I agree, it's not the best title to use; they did an amazing job getting it working well, but it's clearly not the kind of game that makes the best use of the N64's power.
Yeah, TrickStyle's choppy framerate was pretty disappointing. If it'd been stable it could have been okay, but as choppy as it is, it's distracting. However, they did do a better job with their other Dreamcast racing game, Suzuki Alstare Extreme Racing; that one's a pretty good game, has very nice graphics, and does play smoothly, too. Much improved over TrickStyle.Yeah, Trickstyle was a Criterion game as well (who would go on to deliver so many beautiful 60 fps PS2 titles). Trickstyle, unfortunately, ran at a VERY VERY low framerate. It was so damn choppy.
Trying hard to live up to your tag and sound like a complete fool at the same time, huh? Well, you're succeeding.
We disagree on this, then.
Huh? The first two tracks take their themes from the first two PS1 games, and the third track's a desert, pretty much. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "farm yard countryside". Countryside perhaps, most of the game is not in big cities, but farmyard?
On topic, really, what you're saying here is irrelevant to the discussion, because both R4 and RR64 have techno/electronic soundtracks...
But anyway, no, I highly doubt that. I don't know what kind of music you're talking about there, but as I said, I don't like other kinds of music. I don't listen to music on its own, it's just background stuff while I'm doing something else. I almost never listen to music with words either, at least not words I can understand (ie, that are in English); I don't care much about the "story" the music is trying to tell, or whatever, in almost all cases. I also dislike guitar music in general.
You're incredibly overrating R4 to crazy degrees here. I'm not saying that RR64's one of the highlights of design or anything, it's certainly not. I'm just that it looks better than R4. Plenty of things do.
That's just the main menu, she's not in any of the other menus. RR64's main menu looks fine, but really, what should they do, just leave that part of the screen blank? As if R4's main menu is so amazing looking? At least compare similar menus, like the track screen versus the track screen, or the main menu versus the main menu!Also, regarding the graphic design.
R4 has a unified style with great fonts, transitions, and other design elements. Lots of animations abound with everything moving smoothly around the screen in a very concise fashion.
RR64, however, is the kind of game that would gladly paste a static image of a CG model on the side of a black screen and call it a day. It just seems cheap and ugly in comparison.
Oh, and R4 has reversed buttons in the menus too. Lazy Namco, X should be confirm and O cancel...
Yeah, I have no idea why you think that those shots show R4 to have the better menus, because they certainly don't... though RR64's menus do lose a little in screenshots, as the music, animation, etc. are part of why they look so stylish, they hold up pretty well, at least. As for R4... as I said, much less interesting design going on there. And I'm not saying that because of the system, but because of the game. It's all boxy menus and cluttered text... oh, and I'm not really a fan of the "racing team" theme of the game, either, with that team manager who talks to you (via text boxes) in between races and such. I get the idea, to make the game slightly more "realistic", and it's okay, but RR64's simpler, more arcadey game style, where you just choose a race and go, is at least its equal and might be better. I was thinking of this (game presentation) as well when I said that about the menus, though RR64 does have more stylish menus too. Those little track animations in the upper right corner of the R4 screen are kind of neat, but don't give it overall better menus.
Yeah, no. As for RR1 Hi-Spec, sure, it looks visually nice, but there's only one opponent car! What, so they could only pull off graphics that nice by limiting it to two vehicles in the race, or something? RR64 has twelve cars per race... I know R4's only got eight, and RR1 Hi-Spec is just two. Do any of the PS1 games match RR64 in that? I forget about the older PS1 games.
Few games that gen have good in-race reflections... Rush 2049 did on the N64, and it looked awesome, but I don't think most games did.
Sure, I think that shot looks good, but your obsession with bashing Angel Beats is somewhat strange... why do you find it so hard to imagine that someone could have liked it? I mean, there are lots of animes I hate, sure, and some of the time I can't figure out why people actually like them, but usually there's something that can explain it. And there are lots of reasons why I think Angel Beats is good. But that's quite off topic here.
One step above, pretty much. I think the screen size matters more than the resolution, overall -- and yes, the sizes of the screens those images are going to matters a lot, and certainly helps make the DS look a little less bad than it would on a TV.
I think that every console has good games on it, but yes, the N64 is my overall favorite, and I'm biased against Sony (note: I like Sega consoles too, slightly less than Nintendo ones but I definitely like them). As I've said though, there are lots of games I like on their consoles... but the Ridge Racer series is definitely not among them. My favorite PS1 racing game would probably be Rollcage. Maybe Wipeout XL or 3. As for the PS2, my favorite PS2 racing game... hmm, probably Outrun 2006. Amazing game.
I'd say that as I said before, it depends on the framerate. In a 3d action-adventure game I think a 25 or something framerate can be fine (heck, most racing games are okay at 30 too, even if 60 is a bit smoother), but if we're talking 10, or 15 or something? Then I have a problem with it, yes. I also dislike when a game has a mostly okay framerate, but occasionally it drops far too low. You see this in both Banjo-Tooie and Conker's BFD sometimes, for instance, particularly in areas with longer vistas. That bothered me, and I don't think Donkey Kong 64 had anything like that... maybe B-T and Conker should have had Expansion Pak support.
Bjoern the Smexy
Member
In terms of pure performance: definitely.
But considering the biggest N64 cartridges (like Resident Evil 2 or Paper Mario) were only 64 MB (512 MBit) at the most...yeah well, 64 MB just isn't that much to work with.
It's actually a miracle games like Starcraft and RE2 got pretty good ports to that console.