Support NeoGAF

[Codes 208]

Nothing wrong with wanting more than "decent" resolution and frame rate. How about "high" resolution and frame rate?

Don't be scared. It's okay to want more out of life and have standards.

i have a gaming pc specifically for those reasons. The thing is I’ve set realistic expectations in the regards of each platform. Telling me a switch game launches at 720fps/60fps or 900-1080p/30fps hardly bothers me because I expect that as the limitations of the system. But that’s sure as hell hasn’t stopped me from playing dozens if not hundreds of hours into the games I’ve previously mentioned to name due to gameplay which frankly is far more important to me.

 

[Yoshi]

EVERY multiplat game ran and looked better on N64.

Not Gex 64 and Gex 3!

 

[Birdo]

Not Gex 64 and Gex 3!

I dunno. I just watched some vids and the N64 version looks smoother and has a longer draw distance.

 

[Xplainin]

I guess I'm just anticipating what the new Fable is going to be like, and then thinking how amazing it would be to see a new Zelda like that.
Oh well.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I think N64 is the only "premium" system they've ever done.

My answer to the title question is No.

 

[93xfan]

I wish they made a non handheld switch. I know I can playy switch on the TV, but man it somehow feels weird in my head.

get a box, paint it purple and poke holes in the top. Now set it over the switch and you’re all set

 

[Jubenhimer]

If you're asking if Nintendo will compete in the main console market again, then the answer is no, that ship has long sailed. The reason Nintendo abandoned that battle is because it became increasingly difficult and expensive to do so while differentiating themselves. By 2001 they were not only going up against Sony, but also Microsoft, and both had a lot more momentum and enthusiasm behind them than they did with the GameCube.

The core underlying problem with the GameCube is that it offered nothing the PS2 or Xbox couldn't already give you. Those systems already had solid controllers, great graphics, great exclusives. They just offered more. That's why Nintendo decided to forge a new path from the Wii onward, it's a way to fill underserved holes in the gaming industry, instead of competing in a heavily competitive and cut-throat market. As the saying goes, 2 is company, but 3 is a crowd.

Nintendo could theoretically do a traditional, set-top console that competed with the PS5 and Xbox. The question is, why would they do that? And what exactly would they gain from it? They already have great sales, a solid lineup, and positive momentum going for their current strategy. The only thing they would gain is maybe day and date releases of big AAA titles, but that's about it.

 

[lestar]

Hobbyists have been able to rip the games and confirm it for themselves.

Here's Wipeout on Playstation 1

And Wipeout on N64

PS1 does not have perpective correction, so to mitigate the classic texture bending look, you have to use more polygons per area, so when you compare the wireframes in levels in ports or similar games between ps1 and n64, the later always have far less polygons.

 

[JordanN]

PS1 does not have perpective correction, so to mitigate the classic texture bending look, you have to use more polygons per area, so when you compare the wireframes in levels in ports or similar games between ps1 and n64, the later always have far less polygons.

Both PS1 and N64 would regularly use vertex shaded polygons so that's not really an argument against the PS1's power.
Especially since the PS1 was also capable of rendering higher resolution textures.

It was N64 games like Mario 64 that had to skip them almost entirely because trying to go the textured route revealed how underpowered the console really was.

Here is Mario 64 when the N64's bilinear filtering was turned off. When the image wasn't slapped with a vaseline filter, the textures were really pixelated.

Meanwhile, PS1 games like Crash Bandicoot could do both high polycounts and higher resolution textures.

 

[Susurrus]

Don't need. to. I've already got an XB1 and a PS4, and plan to get both XSX and PS5 at some point. I have the high spec covered, do I really need a 3rd of the same thing? Fuck no. Where Microsoft and Sony have their places as being powerhouse console builders, Nintendo is well established in its own right as the innovator. I'd rather have a hybrid console than another of the same in the case.

 

[Kumomeme]

i like nintendo continue to be what they currently are...more focused on creativity, gameplay and artstyle than chasing hardware power

but i hope they release competent power scale console too...not necessary on level that can toe to toe with ps5 or xsx..but not to crappy either..not like the gulf gap Wii vs ps360 has, or another example like switch is powerfull if we compared to other mobile phone specs released during it launch with price vs performance wise, but i hope it bit more than capable or juicy than that...atleast capable to run proper 720p handheld and 1080p docked, not sub par 540p for example

We will see..maybe that time there not much option from nintendo..but there already rumors that samsung suggested 5/8nm cortex A76/X1 for next nintendo switch...we will see how it goes

 

[Rickyiez]

With the Switch pricing recently , it's already "premium" enough

 

[Danjin44]

I already have PS4 and PS5 later on, I like Nintendo because it gives me different experience different than other consoles.

 

[Entroyp]

But could you imagine Mario or Zelda on the PS5 or XSX? Sad to think these experiences will never happen.

They will happen. In 2027 or 2032.

 

[GiJoint]

It was sad that Nintendo went the Wii route when they did. Prior they really gave Sega and Sony some REAL competition in the hardware stakes. N64 was worthy of the PS1 and Saturn, and the Gamecube was a very good price of kit, and ran rings around the PS2 with graphics.

Hear what you are saying but it’s not sad for Nintendo, the Wii beat out PS3 and 360, a great turn around from the GameCube which was amazing but disappointing overall.

Nintendo are just doing their thing and it’s working fine for them.

I gotta say though, they’re definitely premium with their pricing!

 

[Ten_Fold]

Nah, I think Nintendo is fine, they make some impressive games, their gameplay really shines well over basically any ps4/Xbox exclusive imo. Now what I want for the switch pro to be AT LEAST Xbox one X level of power, they could still get some 3rd party support, but they really need to get better online.

 

[KINGMOKU]

I'm unsure why you've equated premium to graphics but for me the switch is the premium console as I can play it sitting in my living room, or take it outside by the pool.

That's a premium feature.

Still wish Microsoft and Sony went the exact same route.

 

[Cutty Flam]

The Switch was pretty premium though? Launched at 350€ and had extremely strong mobile hardware at the time.

The library of games alone make it a premium console imo

I can think of like 40-60 games I wouldn’t mind playing to completion if I were to game a different way. I usually focus on like 3-5 for a very long time these days. But the games make the Switch an incredible system. So many excellent ones. Really excited about BOTW2 as well

 

[UnNamed]

Hobbyists have been able to rip the games and confirm it for themselves.

Here's Wipeout on Playstation 1

And Wipeout on N64

The only reason Wipeout Psx pushed more polygons was the texture warping. Affine texturing is much more evident with big polygons. PSX had to waste polygons near the camera creating mini polygons, a sort of hand made tasselation, in order to hide texture warping. N64 didn't have this issue, texture looked good even with large polygons.

A game like World Driver Championship ran at solid 30fps with 8 cars on screen, reaching up to 6k polygons every frame(do the math) Gt2 ran at 25fps with slowdowns with 6 cars on track, moving around 3k.
No, PSX wasn't more powerful.

 

[JordanN]

The only reason Wipeout Psx pushed more polygons was the texture warping. Affine texturing is much more evident with big polygons. PSX had to waste polygons near the camera creating mini polygons, a sort of hand made tasselation, in order to hide texture warping. N64 didn't have this issue, texture looked good even with large polygons.

This is fake news.

N64 games with the bilinear filtering turned off revealed the console was actually struggling to keep up with PS1.

And Ocarina of time was running at 20 frames per second.
The sequel was even worse.

 

[GeorgPrime]

Nintendo doesn't even making the most technically driven games on their own hardware.

Like when Wii U launched, the best graphical showcase was Assassins Creed and Need for Speed.
On Gamecube it was Rogue Squadron by Factor 5.
On 3DS, Capcom was the one who pushed the system to the max.

Their best looking Switch games could possibly be outdone by the best PS3/360 games.

And the problem with it is.... it doesnt matter.

As soon as Mario or Zelda come out nobody cares about Graphics and the system sells like hot cakes.

 

[ScarletSpider]

.

 

[Yoshi]

This is fake news.

N64 games with the bilinear filtering turned off revealed the console was actually struggling to keep up with PS1.

And Ocarina of time was running at 20 frames per second.
The sequel was even worse.

This is a very bad argument, because the filter was taken into consideration when designing the textures. Turning the filter off does not represent what the artists were going for. The filter itself is an expensive effect. And, you know, large textures take up a lot of space, so indeed this is strongly linked to a real weakpoint of the N64: The low capacity of the modules (which are counterbalanced by incredibly fast loading).

 

[PSYGN]

I'm sorry but I'm not buying this lol.

EVERY multiplat game ran and looked better on N64.

Look at the Playstation version of SF Rush

My bro and I really enjoyed the game at the arcade so I did what every big brother does and convinced him to buy the game for his birthday. We were like 10 or so and even then had enough standards to be like wtf is this? Is this the right game? The handling was god awful.

 

[JordanN]

This is a very bad argument, because the filter was taken into consideration when designing the textures. Turning the filter off does not represent what the artists were going for. The filter itself is an expensive effect. And, you know, large textures take up a lot of space, so indeed this is strongly linked to a real weakpoint of the N64: The low capacity of the modules (which are counterbalanced by incredibly fast loading).

Actually it wasn't.

Just like in modern game development, game assets are typically made at the highest quality and then shrunk down at render time.
Except in the N64's case, developers were forced to shrink their textures far lower than what PS1 was capable of.

Look at the texture sheets in Rare's games. They would split up bitmaps many times or just try and fit them within the horrible 4kb cache limit.

One of Conker's texture is 2x2 pixels.

 

[UnNamed]

This is fake news.

Sorry, with that I was intending N64 textures didn't have texture warping. Have big polygons without texture warping was a huge benefit with N64, helped a lot. This issue was more evident in many F1 games on Psone. I remember I read even the devkit recommended to use this trick.

In any case, N64 had bad textures was a fake news too, I suggest you to read the Beyond 3d thread where the image you take came from, it's very interesting explaining how N64 graphics worked.

Lot of first games had trouble with the 4k bus and the strange memory architecture N64 had, but things improved a lot few years later. One of the big issues was N64 cartridge hadn't enough memory to store detailed textures.

 

[Stiflers Mom]

Probably not, and at this point I’ve grown fine with it. Say what you want about the switch but I found more hours played into just BotW, Mario odyssey, Mario kart and smash bros than most ps4/XBO games this gen.

When I had to decide for one console, I sold my PS4 and kept my Wii U with BotW, Mario Kart, 3DWorld, DKC:TP and Yoshis Wooly World to play on it.

Never regretted that decision.

Nintendo is so good with these kind of graphics.

 

[CuteFaceJay]

The Switch Lite was pretty premium if you ask me.

 

[JordanN]

Sorry, with that I was intending N64 textures didn't have texture warping. Have big polygons without texture warping was a huge benefit with N64, helped a lot. This issue was more evident in many F1 games on Psone. I remember I read even the devkit recommended to use this trick.

In any case, N64 had bad textures was a fake news too, I suggest you to read the Beyond 3d thread where the image you take came from, it's very interesting explaining how N64 graphics worked.

Lot of first games had trouble with the 4k bus and the strange memory architecture N64 had, but things improved a lot few years later. One of the big issues was N64 cartridge hadn't enough memory to store detailed textures.

You can blame Nintendo's greed for this.
No Publisher was going to spend the money going for more expensive carts, when the CD based Playstation was right next door.

 

[GymWolf]

Lol no.

They sell buckloads of shitty tablets and games with 2006 graphics with probably 1\10 of the budget of M and sony, why change something that works like that?!

 

[jufonuk]

Doubt it.
Their most successful consoles in the last 20+ years have all gone for unique designs instead of power, and I honestly think they are doing better for going that route instead of being a third (or fourth if you count PC) option focusing on power.

Not to mention that their software must be more profitable than that of Ms and Sony combined. Their most popular games sell insanely well for years at full price with production values that must cost a fraction of your average first party AAA game like TLOU2

Yeah I agree with you.
I think they are sticking to the strategy Iwata envisaged. I love Nintendo but a lot of Mario/Zelda games do not need bleeding edge visuals. They seem to be able to go a lot with what they got.

it’s usually third party games trying to push the hardware with realism etc.
The indie games and some ports seems to be helping bolster the switch.
Nintendo is Unlucky with third parties shame. But I think after all these years they found their niche in regards to hardware power design.


besides they have a theme park to keep them going.

 

[Yoshi]

Actually it wasn't.

Just like in modern game development, game assets are typically made at the highest quality and then shrunk down at render time.
Except in the N64's case, developers were forced to shrink their textures far lower than what PS1 was capable of.

Look at the texture sheets in Rare's games. They would split up bitmaps many times or just try and fit them within the horrible 4kb cache limit.

One of Conker's texture is 2x2 pixels.

Yes, the texture cache was very limited and you had to work around it if you wanted to achieve highly detailled visuals such as the ones used in Conker, but the artists at Nintendo who made those small textures that were used on huge surfaces did design them around the N64's output. It is not by chance that all the environment textures of Mario 64 and Zelda OoT look significantly better in the in-game application over what you get if you disable the filter.

EDIT:
Without filter:

With filter:

 

[jufonuk]

The DS lite was an awesome system, but no. Power-wise it was outclassed by the psp.

Yes. The PSP looked miles ahead in terms of graphics.
I remember thinking the graphics what over the DS but the games were trying to be full fat console games. DS had the pick up and play design to games.

 

[JordanN]

Yes, the texture cache was very limited and you had to work around it if you wanted to achieve highly detailled visuals such as the ones used in Conker, but the artists at Nintendo who made those small textures that were used on huge surfaces did design them around the N64's output. It is not by chance that all the environment textures of Mario 64 and Zelda OoT look significantly better in the in-game application over what you get if you disable the filter.

That's in spite of the console being poorly designed though. Not because they were actually forward thinking with their mistakes.

Case and point, you only need to look at the future remasters/ports.
Whether Nintendo still had the original assets, or they designed them from scratch, it was clear the 4kb cache was holding back the original artstyle since the 3DS remake addressed this.

Mario 64 also showed it wasn't just an oversight. Look at the castle pictures, and they were divided into 4 smaller bitmaps to get around the limitation.

 

[Yoshi]

That's in spite of the console being poorly designed though. Not because they were actually forward thinking with their mistakes.

Case and point, you only need to look at the future remasters/ports.
Whether Nintendo still had the original assets, or they designed them from scratch, it was clear the 4kb cache was holding back the original artstyle since the 3DS remake addressed this.

Mario 64 also showed it wasn't just an oversight. Look at the castle pictures, and they were divided into 4 smaller bitmaps to get around the limitation.

I did not want to claim it was an oversight. It is true that the texture cache was comically small on N64 (in fact, when designing the visuals for Regina & Mac, my wife deliberately limited herself to 64x64 textures to achieve a similar look; it is pretty tough to make decent looking textures this small when stretched to larger surfaces). However, that does not make the N64 weaker than the PS1 overall. It was one major disadvantage though.

EDIT: In your example, you can pretty clearly see that the textures are not higher res versions of the N64 textures, but redrawn textures in a similar vein.

 

[JordanN]

EDIT: In your example, you can pretty clearly see that the textures are not higher res versions of the N64 textures, but redrawn textures in a similar vein.

The background in the N64 image was completely pre-rendered (minus the pots and characters).

The 3DS remake made the interiors completely 3D with higher texture quality and as a result, it's clearly not blurry.

It's also not the only part of the game that was remade.

The 3DS version is clearly what the N64 should have looked like if the hardware wasn't a mess.

 

[UnNamed]

I've found an old interesting thread on Neogaf about N64 vs PSX. Take a look:

How much more powerful was the N64 compared to the PlayStation anyway?

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...

www.neogaf.com

Hilo de detalles y curiosidades de N64 - Foro Vandal

www.vandal.net

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

Not even in the 90s was this true.

SNES CPU was slower than the Genesis.
N64 had really low polygon counts and was bottlenecked on memory.

Also, look at when they launched those systems. It was years later when the competition was already out. They did this to cut costs as opposed to actually making something super powerful.

SNES had better visuals than the Genesis.
N64 has the best looking console games that generation.
GameCube was up there with XB.

 

[Revolutionary]

Nope. They make more money this way.

 

[Yoshi]

The background in the N64 image was completely pre-rendered (minus the pots and characters).

The 3DS remake made the interiors completely 3D with higher texture quality and as a result, it's clearly not blurry.

It's also not the only part of the game that was remade.

The 3DS version is clearly what the N64 should have looked like if the hardware wasn't a mess.

I am aware of the changes, I have played through both versions multiple times. The 3DS version is special in that it retains the look and feel of the original while still having pretty substantial technical improvements. Zelda OoT 3DS is more like what Zelda OoT would have looked like if it were a Dreamcast game than what it would have looked like if N64 weren't "a mess".

 

[Gallard]

They won't, and I don't blame them. The last time Nintendo made a "premium" console was Gamecube, and it sold ~18m vs PS2's 100m+? There was a lot of NintenDOOMed sentiment around that era. How quickly people forget. Nintendo made a smart choice to survive. It's a business.

You might as well ask, "Will Sony ever put out a handheld console out again?"

 

[JordanN]

I am aware of the changes, I have played through both versions multiple times. The 3DS version is special in that it retains the look and feel of the original while still having pretty substantial technical improvements. Zelda OoT 3DS is more like what Zelda OoT would have looked like if it were a Dreamcast game than what it would have looked like if N64 weren't "a mess".

Is that's suppose to be a knock against my view on N64 hardware consider the time difference between PS1, N64 & Dreamcast.

Nintendo found themselves launching a new 3D system in the middle, and after the crippling bottlenecks, only had a machine that was barely better than Sony's 1994 console with a lot of shortcomings.

Meanwhile, Dreamcast launched 2 years after the N64 and it already had 7x* the hardware memory. It's clear Nintendo was either incompetent or were giving us an extremely raw deal.

*Dreamcast came with built in texture compression which made system memory behave closer to 30mb.

 

[Coolwhhip]

What is stopping them from releasing a tv only pro version though? Some Switch games would look great at higher resolution and frame rate.

 

[Yoshi]

Is that's suppose to be a knock against my view on N64 hardware consider the time difference between PS1, N64 & Dreamcast.

Nintendo found themselves launching a new 3D system in the middle, and after the crippling bottlenecks, only had a machine that was barely better than Sony's 1994 console with a lot of shortcomings.

Meanwhile, Dreamcast launched 2 years after the N64 and it already had 7x* the hardware memory. It's clear Nintendo was either incompetent or were giving us an extremely raw deal.

*Dreamcast came with built in texture compression which made system memory behave closer to 30mb.

Nintendo 64 came later than planned because the games were not ready. The jump to N64 was not just a technological, but also a creative one. In reality, there's almost three years between N64 and Dreamcast because of this. This is not a case of incomepetence. And the matter was just whether N64 was stronger than PS1, which it was.

 

[MisterBrimstone]

Nintendo is about software, not hardware. (And that's fine with me.)

I have to say I disagree. The best aspect of Nintendo is software but they are also all about the gimmick hardware. Since they got out of the power console race each new hardware of theirs had a gimmick.

 

[Gallard]

What is stopping them from releasing a tv only pro version though? Some Switch games would look great at higher resolution and frame rate.

Optically, wouldn't that look bad? The average Switch consumer isn't thinking about frame rates and resolutions. They just enjoy the product. Now picture a "SwitchHome" which boasts higher fidelity and that's basically admitting and advertising that your regular Switch is underpowered and needs a boost.

I wasn't personally even a fan of the Switch Lite ("A switch that doesn't switch?"). It's all conjecture here, but I imagine having another Switch that doesn't switch would only obfuscate further the Switch's message. Add in the need to line up the factories and the manufacturing to produce the thing weighed against the probably small demand for such a product, and I imagine there isn't much incentive to do it.

On a personal level, I would enjoy a Switch Home since 99% of my Switch gaming is docked. But I understand why they wouldn't do it for business reasons.

 

[Starlight Lotice]

Nintendo being behind Sony and Microsoft in technology isn't a bad thing when you think about it.

Kids mostly play these consoles and have to be durable to damage and if they do break, have to be cheap to replace. (Except Joy Cons since they made them expensive and fragile)

Now imagine the PS4 being broken by a kid and trying to replace it.

At this point, Nintendo have found a happy medium in performance and price.

 

[LarknThe4th]

The power wars are an evolutionary dead end for this industry, Nintendo just saw the writing on the wall before the other "big boys" did

We will see how many publishers are left after this generation with budget bloat now bringing executives and developers out of the woodwork pleading the case for bumping game prices in a desperate attempt to keep this bloated mess called "AAA" development on the road

Their is a reckoning coming for this industry when it comes to its relationship with excessive dev costs

 

[Gifmaker]

The power wars are an evolutionary dead end for this industry, Nintendo just saw the writing on the wall before the other "big boys" did

We will see how many publishers are left after this generation with budget bloat now bringing executives and developers out of the woodwork pleading the case for bumping game prices in a desperate attempt to keep this bloated mess called "AAA" development on the road

Their is a reckoning coming for this industry when it comes to its relationship with excessive dev costs

That narrative has been around since the original Wii though, and in 14 years it somehow hasn't seemed to happen yet imo. Technology moves on, and keeping up with it doesn't seem to be the death sentence people like to make it out to be.

 

[JordanN]

Nintendo 64 came later than planned because the games were not ready. The jump to N64 was not just a technological, but also a creative one.

Not a valid excuse.
Delaying N64 may have even done more damage than calculated.

The company that Nintendo had a falling out with over a CD-addon had just dethroned SEGA and was snatching up Third Party Publishers left and right.
Launching a console that now had mediocre hardware while charging for the privilege to use their cartridges benefited no one.

In reality, there's almost three years between N64 and Dreamcast because of this. This is not a case of incomepetence. And the matter was just whether N64 was stronger than PS1, which it was.

The events that played right after launching clearly showed it did.

Nintendo immediately fell into 2nd/3rd place, lost access to many Publishers who were once loyal/exclusive to them, and they even went on to bully other developers that further increased their pariah status in the industry (i.e Look up the story of Miyamoto and Rockstar games. Their falling out eventually lead to the creation of Grand Theft Auto which Nintendo systems almost never get).

And that was the marketing alone. N64's hardware compared to the competition had already reached obsolesce status. No one but the most loyalist Nintendo diehards had stuck around to even invest in its ecosystem.

When Dreamcast arrived, the console was a generation leap over the PS1/N64, even if it came too soon. The gap between N64 and PS1 however was marginal, despite Nintendo having a full extra 2 years to come up with something better.