Support NeoGAF

[Kura]

I thought Sheep, Dog n Wolf was the best looking PS1 game, it looked just like looney tunes !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLjz1XJuAN4

On a side note, why was this game never popular? It was hilarious, unique and had great music and gameplay.

I loved that game man. It was so awesome.

BTW, GAF didnt disappoint, this turned on another fanboy war discussion.

By the time we were playing those systems, noone cared about antialiasing, texture filters, number of polygons, fps... nothing. You just pluged in the game and had some amazing experiences there.

At the end of the day, graphics are only really important if you are expecting them to be good. PSX with that shitty 3D had incredible games everyone enjoyed because no one cared about that 3D.

And also, Crash 2 ran at 24 fps. Still an outstanding game.
So see how times have changed... for worse.

This war have no sense. PSX may dont hold up as well as N64 in graphics terms, but did it prevent people from enjoying the games? Absolutely not.

As long as a game is good, graphics are secondary.

 

[Uncle Rupee]

I loved that game man. It was so awesome.

BTW, GAF didnt disappoint, this turned on another fanboy war discussion.

By the time we were playing those systems, noone cared about antialiasing, texture filters, number of polygons, fps... nothing. You just pluged in the game and had some amazing experiences there.

At the end of the day, graphics are only really important if you are expecting them to be good. PSX with that shitty 3D had incredible games everyone enjoyed because no one cared about that 3D.

And also, Crash 2 ran at 24 fps. Still an outstanding game.
So see how times have changed... for worse.

This war have no sense. PSX may dont hold up as well as N64 in graphics terms, but did it prevent people from enjoying the games? Absolutely not.

As long as a game is good, graphics are secondary.

Are you kidding? There was lots of console wars going on at the time, especially between the Saturn and PlayStation. Saturn was considered far worse at 3D, and it showed in some of the multiplatform titles like Tomb Raider, for example. Between the N64 and PS1 a lot of it came down to the "mature" feel of the PS compared to the N64 which became known for "kiddy" games. Don't rewrite history with your rose-tinted glasses.

 

[arhra]

There was also a third problem which doesn't directly involve textures but which does indirectly affect them, which is that PS1 uses fixed point precision for vertices instead of floating point. This means that polygon vertices "snap" into pixels instead of moving smoothly. Combined with the lack of texture filtering or perspective correction, this creates the jello-like shaking effect common in PS1 games.

I believe the issue you're talking about is primarily caused by the lack of subpixel correction in the rasterizer, rather than the fixed-point geometry engine directly. The lack of floating point certainly caused some issues, though, especially with lazily ported PC code that just swapped out floating-point math for fixed-point...

 

[baphomet]

I loved that game man. It was so awesome.

BTW, GAF didnt disappoint, this turned on another fanboy war discussion.

By the time we were playing those systems, noone cared about antialiasing, texture filters, number of polygons, fps... nothing. You just pluged in the game and had some amazing experiences there.

At the end of the day, graphics are only really important if you are expecting them to be good. PSX with that shitty 3D had incredible games everyone enjoyed because no one cared about that 3D.

And also, Crash 2 ran at 24 fps. Still an outstanding game.
So see how times have changed... for worse.

This war have no sense. PSX may dont hold up as well as N64 in graphics terms, but did it prevent people from enjoying the games? Absolutely not.

As long as a game is good, graphics are secondary.

Actually we were discussing all of those things back when they were new as well.

And most ps1 games aged far better than n64 stuff.

 

[dark10x]

BTW, GAF didnt disappoint, this turned on another fanboy war discussion.

By the time we were playing those systems, noone cared about antialiasing, texture filters, number of polygons, fps... nothing. You just pluged in the game and had some amazing experiences there.

At the end of the day, graphics are only really important if you are expecting them to be good. PSX with that shitty 3D had incredible games everyone enjoyed because no one cared about that 3D.

And also, Crash 2 ran at 24 fps. Still an outstanding game.
So see how times have changed... for worse.

This war have no sense. PSX may dont hold up as well as N64 in graphics terms, but did it prevent people from enjoying the games? Absolutely not.

As long as a game is good, graphics are secondary.

How old were you during those days?

The console wars were raging since the 80s and the N64/Saturn/PSX era was no different. People absolutely cared about the differences and these differences were discussed heavily. Go search through old Usenet posts and you'll see.

It even boiled out into televised ads. The differences between systems were very hotly debated.

 

[A Black Falcon]

Yet the PSX can handle far more with far more variety across larger games. This isn't an exaggeration at all; the basic storage unit for a PSX game is literally ten times larger than the largest carts that were ever made for N64, and you could boost that a lot farther by using multiple discs (and even when you did that, manufacturing could still be cheaper than N64 games).

This is partially true here, but you leave out several important things.

First, N64 games were often compressed, while on the PS1 developers were much less likely to bother. As a result you can fit a lot more onto the N64 than the cart size suggests -- this is how they pulled off stuff like RE2 in 64MB.

And second, 5th gen games on CD don't use that whole storage medium for lots and lots of textures. Do you have any proof that PS1 games often used so many different textures that even with compression it'd have been impossible on N64? Because I just don't think they used as much texture variety as you suggest. It's music and FMVs that filled those discs, not textures.

I never said that. Obviously it would be self-contradictory, since you'd be saying that the N64 is objectively more powerful than the PSX and the PSX is objectively more powerful than the N64.

What I said was that the N64 is not objectively more capable than the PSX. It does not follow from that that the PSX is objectively more capable that the N64, unless there exists a strict objective inequality, which I've argued does not exist.

You're completely and totally wrong here on all points, of course. Objective analysis can and does exist and is a valid thing. "Well if people over-estimate the importance of one category the PS1 is better" is not a defense, that's a description of the problem that objective analysis of hardware capabilities solves!

Err, the WiiU can do stereoscopic 3D.

Fine, then insert some other relatively modern system that can't, then. The original Xbox, or Vita, stuff like that. Point is the same.

But even if it couldn't, all that could be said is that the Virtual Boy would be more capable in that it could do 3D. It wouldn't make it objectively more capable. Though certainly someone with an insanely strong preference toward 3D imagery could consider the Virtual Boy more capable in their own estimation.

I would never agree with the idea that there is no way to determine an objective bar for graphics; your idea that over-emphasizing one element of graphics is equally objective to looking at all categories of graphics just does not make any sense at all.

I haven't put anything anywhere. I haven't laid out any value claims. I haven't said the PSX is objectively more capable than the N64. I haven't claim it tied. I haven't claimed that anything is objectively more capable than anything else, I've simply criticized your claim that that's a claim that we can even make in these cases.

You haven't claimed it tied? But you're trying quite hard to create a scenario where people can objectively claim that the PS1 has better graphics than the N64 and be right! Regardless of your intentions, that is exactly what you're doing. The idea that you can't compare overall graphical ability between different systems and come to an objective result is not right. You can. If we go down this "there is no objective anything" rabbit-hole it leads to bad, bad places... and regardless, I strongly disagree with such things. Of course biases will always exist, but you CAN analyze things and come to something very close to an objective result.

 

[Kura]

Are you kidding? There was lots of console wars going on at the time, especially between the Saturn and PlayStation. Saturn was considered far worse at 3D, and it showed in some of the multiplatform titles like Tomb Raider, for example. Between the N64 and PS1 a lot of it came down to the "mature" feel of the PS compared to the N64 which became known for "kiddy" games. Don't rewrite history with your rose-tinted glasses.

I'm not rewriting any history with any tinted glases.

In that times 3D tech was just 'starting', people didnt had the concept of IQ or fps we have now, and sure most of people didnt buy their platform thinking about horse power.

The system your friends had, or the company of your last console had much more impact.

What I wanna say is that then, what system was more powerfull didnt really matter, as of PSX ended up 'winning' the generation by a long gap, because it had a lot more amazing games, with its shitty 3D, than N64 had.

 

[baphomet]

I'm not rewriting any history with any tinted glases.

In that times 3D tech was just 'starting', people didnt had the concept of IQ or fps we have now, and sure most of people didnt buy their platform thinking about horse power.

The system your friends had, or the company of your last console had much more impact.

What I wanna say is that then, what system was more powerfull didnt really matter, as of PSX ended up 'winning' the generation by a long gap, because it had a lot more amazing games, with its shitty 3D, than N64 had.

You're just proving that you were either too young back then, or really didn't pay attention. IQ, fps, and resolutions were very relevant topics even when these consoles were new.

 

[warheat]

One of the best looking game on PSX IMO

 

[HTupolev]

This is partially true here, but you leave out several important things.

First, N64 games were often compressed, while on the PS1 developers were much less likely to bother. As a result you can fit a lot more onto the N64 than the cart size suggests -- this is how they pulled off stuff like RE2 in 64MB.

And second, 5th gen games on CD don't use that whole storage medium for lots and lots of textures. Do you have any proof that PS1 games often used so many different textures that even with compression it'd have been impossible on N64? Because I just don't think they used as much texture variety as you suggest. It's music and FMVs that filled those discs, not textures.

I agree, which is why I actually brought that up to you earlier:

Scale of contents in general, not just textures.

You're completely and totally wrong here on all points, of course. Objective analysis can and does exist and is a valid thing.

Yes, it does. But not every question has a strict objective answer.

Look:

"Well if people over-estimate the importance of one category the PS1 is better"

Herein lies the problem. By what standard can you claim that such people are over-estimating the importance of said category?

You've chosen a variety of categories and placed values on them according to your estimations. You didn't draw them up objectively.

You haven't claimed it tied? But you're trying quite hard to create a scenario where people can objectively claim that the PS1 has better graphics than the N64 and be right! Regardless of your intentions, that is exactly what you're doing.

Then you haven't understood any of my argument.

If someone claimed that the PSX was objectively more capable than the N64, I'd answer them in the same way I answered you.

I have repeatedly stated that a single objective answer to the question of "more capable system" doesn't exist in a case like this where each system has its strengths (certainly not without adding qualifiers onto the question, like imposing "according to such-and-such objectively-assessable rubric").

If we go down this "there is no objective anything" rabbit-hole it leads to bad, bad places...

Oh, I'm extremely familiar with that rabbit hole; I've seen my share of ontological bullshit, and when the discussion turns into pedantic silliness, sometimes a bit of Descartes-inspired shenanigans is the most sane foothold. It's not that the hole leads to bad places, it's that if you ever have to go down it, you're already in a bad place.

But that's not a hole I've strayed anywhere near in this discussion.

 

[SerodD]

Actually we were discussing all of those things back when they were new as well.

And most ps1 games aged far better than n64 stuff.

Nothing on the ps1 has aged better than Mario 64 or Zelda OOT

 

[dark10x]

Nothing on the ps1 has aged better than Mario 64 or Zelda OOT

A lot of the 2d stuff and certain 3d fighters sure have.

 

[A Black Falcon]

I agree, which is why I actually brought that up to you earlier:

By "scale of contents in general" I thought you meant texture variety, because of course as far as size of games goes N64 games aren't just just as large as PS1 games, they often are larger in terms of how large 3d in-game worlds are. Cartridges and the N64's additional hardware power allow for larger, more detailed environments in full 3d.

Yes, it does. But not every question has a strict objective answer.

Not EVERY question, but this one sure does. Some people just don't want to have to take a position on things, and you sound like you're one of them.

Look:

Herein lies the problem. By what standard can you claim that such people are over-estimating the importance of said category?

If you are saying that one category of graphics which one system is better at in most but not all cases is singularly more important than EVERY SINGLE OTHER category, it's a very likely sign that you're making a statement of opinion and not fact. The idea that objectively somewhat better textures are equal to all of the N64's advantages is beyond absurd. I shouldn't have to keep saying this... and that there are N64 games that DO have good textures shows even more how wrong that over-estimation is, and how it really is just massive Playstation bias at work and nothing more. What excuse is there for that? "But most N64 games don't look like that"? That's a bad excuse; a system's potential, and maxed-out performance, are important.

And of course, this is heightened when you remember that praising PS1 textures while attacking the N64 often also comes with criticism of the triple buffering and anti-aliasing that help give N64 3d its distinctive "blurry" look. It takes a lot of hardware power to make those textures blurry! Saying "well I like the look of the super-pixelated PS1 textures more so they are better" completely ignores that those blurry textures are in fact a sign of how the N64 is objectively a more powerful system because of the hardware power required to use those effects. It's putting subjective opinion above objective fact. But of course, relying entirely on subjective opinion and not objective fact is all "the PS1 has better graphics than the N64" people have, since the facts are not on their side.

You've chosen a variety of categories and placed values on them according to your estimations. You didn't draw them up objectively.

... No. If we were going only by my own biases, then perspective and texture warping correction would be by far the most important things. But objectively, while they are very important, other things are important too. And so I emphasized how it's everything versus part of one thing.

Then you haven't understood any of my argument.

If someone claimed that the PSX was objectively more capable than the N64, I'd answer them in the same way I answered you.

I have repeatedly stated that a single objective answer to the question of "more capable system" doesn't exist in a case like this where each system has its strengths (certainly not without adding qualifiers onto the question, like imposing "according to such-and-such objectively-assessable rubric").

So first you claim that no objective analysis is possible of something perfectly easy to objectively analyze...

Oh, I'm extremely familiar with that rabbit hole; I've seen my share of ontological bullshit, and when the discussion turns into pedantic silliness, sometimes a bit of Descartes-inspired shenanigans is the most sane foothold. It's not that the hole leads to bad places, it's that if you ever have to go down it, you're already in a bad place.

But that's not a hole I've strayed anywhere near in this discussion.

And then you claim that you're not going down that rabbit hole? Yeah right!

 

[timetokill]

And most ps1 games aged far better than n64 stuff.

Wow, completely opposite for me. A few RPGs and stuff did well but most everything else didn't age well at all.

 

[notBald]

I thought Sheep, Dog n Wolf was the best looking PS1 game, it looked just like looney tunes !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLjz1XJuAN4

That game looks shockingly good. Tell me it was low budged PS2 title and I'd believe you.

On a side note, why was this game never popular? It was hilarious, unique and had great music and gameplay.

From that youtube video the gameplay looks boring. Sheep rimes with sleep. Yawn.

It was also released in 2000. Gamers were drooling at the PS2, not kiddy PSX games.

 

[HTupolev]

If you are saying that one category of graphics which one system is better at in most but not all cases is singularly more important than EVERY SINGLE OTHER category, it's a very likely sign that you're making a statement of opinion and not fact.

Yes, you would absolutely be making a statement of opinion.

Saying that better visual stability delivers more than being able to support lots of high-quality FMVs and other high-quality assets is also a statement of opinion.

... No. If we were going only by my own biases, then perspective and texture warping correction would be by far the most important things. But objectively, while they are very important, other things are important too. And so I emphasized how it's everything versus part of one thing.

So you're claiming that your initial rubric of values is indeed objectively applicable to the general question of which system is more capable, and that it includes none of your own biases.

In that case, how did you ascertain this objective rubric? On what basis was it drawn up? What's the objective source?

 

[A Black Falcon]

Yes, you would absolutely be making a statement of opinion.

Only if we follow your 'there is no objective fact' train of thought, or if reality had a Playsation bias that it doesn't have. Otherwise no. A few of the best looking N64 games CAN do textures that look about as good as PS1 textures, after all.

Saying that better visual stability delivers more than being able to support lots of high-quality FMVs and other high-quality assets is also a statement of opinion.

Now you're changing the question. The issue was about 3d graphics only, not any of that other stuff. If you're moving to 'well the PS1 can hold FMVs and stuff' then it's kind of conceding that the N64 can do better 3d graphics... which of course it can. And of course it can't hold much FMV on its carts. But the question was about 3d graphics, not FMVs or music.

So you're claiming that your initial rubric of values is indeed objectively applicable to the general question of which system is more capable, and that it includes none of your own biases.

In that case, how did you ascertain this objective rubric? On what basis was it drawn up? What's the objective source?

What rubric? They're all equal! That's all I said. You're the one inventing calculations that don't exist.

 

[level44]

I haven't seen one PS1 game that looks as good as Mario 64 and that's a lunch title

Crash Bandicoot beats it.

 

[dark10x]

Crash Bandicoot beats it.

I don't know if I could agree with that. Crash was impressive but is very narrow in comparison.

 

[Talladega Knight]

Wow, completely opposite for me. A few RPGs and stuff did well but most everything else didn't age well at all.

i'm of the same opinion. outside of rpgs, metal gear solid, and a few random games like policenauts, tony hawk, and the crash/spyro series, i can't play most ps1 games. i can go back to pretty much all of my n64 collection even today though.

 

[HTupolev]

Now you're changing the question. The issue was about 3d graphics only, not any of that other stuff.

I suppose that's specific to what you were addressing, but it doesn't really change my argument in any kind of meaningful structural way; even if we restrict ourselves to discussing scenes involving real-time 3D graphics, the PSX can deliver games that make use of a broader variety of high-quality assets.

What rubric? They're all equal! That's all I said.

What I'm referring to as your rubric is the assortment of attributes and the assignment of equal value to each (and implicitly, whatever methodology you use to assess each system's performance within each attribute).

 

[A Black Falcon]

I suppose that's specific to what you were addressing, but it doesn't really change my argument in any kind of meaningful structural way;

Of course it does! That change is a fundamentally different question. Saying 'well the N64 can do better 3d but the PS1 can do FMV and more prerendered backgrounds and CD audio and stuff' is a fairly normal argument that I wouldn't disagree with. But saying 'well the PS1's 3d graphics are better'? That's aiming straight at the N64's primary advantage. Of course it's a completely different question, based entirely on bias and with an absence of fact to support it.

even if we restrict ourselves to discussing scenes involving real-time 3D graphics, the PSX can deliver games that make use of a broader variety of high-quality assets.

Can... probably so, though people who say that the N64 couldn't have done better textures because of cart space limits are wrong. But does it? How often DO PS1 games take advantage of this? What games use a huge amount of texture variety, beyond anything the N64 could ever handle even with a compressed 64MB cartridge like those that hold Conker or RE2?

What I'm referring to as your rubric is the assortment of attributes and the assignment of equal value to each (and implicitly, whatever methodology you use to assess each system's performance within each attribute).

That you can't admit that putting a massive bias on the one thing that the PS1 has any kind of advantage in is an inherently, and very strongly, biased action is kind of amazing. Seriously, you REALLY can't recognize that?

 

[big_z]

Crash Bandicoot beats it.

crash bandicoot took amazing coding to make it look like it does and even still its limited to basic hallway levels. Mario 64, banjo, conker and others have large open levels with lots of verticality. There's nothing quite like the n64 platformers on the ps1. Developers did their best within the ps1 limitations but the n64 was a step ahead.

 

[HTupolev]

Of course it does! That change is a fundamentally different question. Saying 'well the n64 can do better 3d but the PS1 can do FMV and more prerendered backgrounds and CD audio and stuff' is a fairly normal argument that I wouldn't disagree with. But saying 'well the PS1's 3d graphics are better"? That's aiming straight at the N64's primary advantage. Of course it's a completely different question, based entirely on bias and with an absence of fact to support it.

I'm not denying that it's a different question. I'm pointing out that the form of my argument doesn't have to change; just some of my particular examples of advantages have to be removed from consideration.

Can... probably so, though people who say that the N64 couldn't have done better textures because of cart space limits are wrong. But does it? How often DO PS1 games take advantage of this? What games use a huge amount of texture variety, beyond anything the N64 could ever handle even with a compressed 64MB cartridge like those that hold Conker or RE2?

Who knows whether you'll accept that as a valid response (since the blend of 2D and 3D details is usually somewhat strongly biased toward the 2D), but I would hazard a guess that stuff like the baked background texturing in some of the big JRPGs gets rather huge in some cases.

At the least, it's obvious that the PSX can use a broader variety of high-quality assets.

That you can't admit that putting a massive bias on the one thing that the PS1 has any kind of advantage in is an inherently, and very strongly, biased action is kind of amazing. Seriously, you REALLY can't recognize that?

I'm not sure what you're responding to. I absolutely agree that opinions carry bias.

Bias relative to your rubric would indeed make PSX defenders inaccurate, supposing that your rubric was a precise and accurate means of attaining an objective answer to the question. Otherwise, your rubric just represents an opinion of yours, and their claims are just another opinion with a bias relative to your opinion.

Which is why I asked what the basis for your rubric is.

 

[Kain]

Nothing on the ps1 has aged better than Mario 64 or Zelda OOT

Play Crash 3.

Also, lots of emulator screenshots here. PSX games didn't look that good as in the last pics shown in this thread. Maybe CTR did, but that game has pure black magic written all along its code.

 

[goomba]

The N64 destroyed the playstation and saturn on paper but was more difficult to develop on and its solid state media was expensive.

Up to four times the amount of RAM, a 64 bit cpu running at three times the mhz speed, anti aliasing , actual 3d perspective correction!

 

[M3d10n]

Can you imagine how bad some PS1 games would have looked if they ran at the resolution of most N64 games?

We don't need to imagine it because the vast majority of PS1 and N64 games ran at 320x240. A few N64 games ran at 640x480, but I believe all them required the 4MB RAM expansion, while a bunch of PS1 games ran at oddball higher resolutions.

The N64 destroyed the playstation and saturn on paper but was more difficult to develop on and its solid state media was expensive.

Up to four times the amount of RAM, a 64 bit cpu running at three times the mhz speed, anti aliasing , actual 3d perspective correction!

The N64 had a weird architecture full of bottlenecks that made it a pain to get good performance from. The near complete lack of sound hardware, for example, required developers to use precious CPU time and RAM to perform software sound synth and mixing.

Nintendo was really soured with the experience, which made them work hard on making the GC architecture as friendly as possible.

 

[mrklaw]

I don't know if I could agree with that. Crash was impressive but is very narrow in comparison.

did the N64 stream world data from the cart, or was everything loaded into main memory? Just wondering whether the storage choice made N64 better at 'open world' games than PS1?

 

[piratethingy]

Reading this topic title makes me think about how hilariously unfounded in actual knowledge my 90's gaming opinions were.

N64 was better because fuck you

Spoiler

it was the one i randomly chose

 

[M3d10n]

did the N64 stream world data from the cart, or was everything loaded into main memory? Just wondering whether the storage choice made N64 better at 'open world' games than PS1?

The N64 has 4 MBs of RAM and the Mario 64 ROM as 8 megabytes. I don't think they needed to stream anything in that game.

 

[staticneuron]

I'll never understand how PS1 fanboys like you clearly are manage to convince themselves that perspective correction, Z-buffering, anti-aliasing, and all those things don't matter. Because what you're missing is that the N64 uses a LOT of hardware power to keep polygons where they should be, while the PS1 uses none because it can't do that. If Fast3d -- that is, the N64 microcode with none of those features -- had been allowed, N64 games would look as inaccurate as PS1 games, with texture warping and polygon popping galore, but polygon counts would be far above where they are on the PS1. Nintendo chose to require better-quality graphics instead, and it was one of the better moves they did with the system, I would say. Games look and perform better on the N64 than the PS1 because the 3d actually looks like 3d graphics, and not like a warping popping mess as it does on PS1. Just look at how many polygons developers had to waste to try to cover up the worst of the effects of those problems! And that couldn't deal with it all.

As for the RAM, RDRAM has higher latency, but very fast access during each read. It's got just as many plusses as it does minuses, and was VERY fast for the time. This is why the first revi8sions of Pentium 4 motherboards in the early 2000s require RDRAM, and why the Playstation 2 uses RDRAM for its RAM as well. Eventually DRAM got better and exceeded RDRAM, but the idea that RDRAM's slower access times actually was an overall drawback is false; in fact, it's very good RAM for the time, some of the best. It just works slightly differently.

As for textures, the N64's limited texture cache is its one real design flaw. A few of the best developers figured out how to work around this and produced amazing-looking things, but most studios couldn't match Nintendo, Rare, or Factor 5... (Some people would also complain about the lack of a dedicated sound chip in the N64, but I think N64 audio was good enough.) The idea that texture quality matters more than overall image quality, as PS1 fans always seem to insist, is wrong on any objective level. It matters, yes... but PS1 image quality matters more.

Ouch. It is ok my friend no need to get so prickly. The 3D issue you mentioned was a software based bug in the firmware of the PS1 iirc and that issue wasn't present in the titles in the latter half of its life.

It is nice that you champion Rdram but the issue stated with the N64 is that there was nothing to compensate for the latency of the ram because it was unified. Each processor had to deal with and manage the same limitations. Sony, since they are smart designers, never had such an issue with the PS2 because they had paths to other types of ram and lines that lead directly into specific chips bypassing a need for a bridge. The never had a unified approach until the PS4.... and even then they found a way to compensate for the issues with GDDR.

Despite arguing image quality, even when looking at the comparison to MP titles across the 2 titles, for the most part PS1 games still look better image quality wise. The N64 though could be more pleasing to the eyes in some cases but the question was what irked you more, pixelated textures, or blurry smooth shaded textures.

I played both consoles and loved both of them but even back then when asked what console had the better visuals I still would have said PS because of the total finished product also seemed better. Especially those that leveraged the streaming of the CD technology on the original PS. Nothing beats that wow factor of watching 3D polygons running alongside FMV's for the first time in FF7.

Edit and...

The N64 had a weird architecture full of bottlenecks that made it a pain to get good performance from. The near complete lack of sound hardware, for example, required developers to use precious CPU time and RAM to perform software sound synth and mixing.

Nintendo was really soured with the experience, which made them work hard on making the GC architecture as friendly as possible.

Makes the issue as succinct as possible.

The main problem with N64's textures was the tiny texture cache. If they'd just given it a decent cache the system would blow away PS1 visually.

I imagined that was the case as well. Didn't the Mem expansion pack address that?

 

[bronzodiriace]

Wasn´t there a cheat in Turok 1 N64 that pixelated textures and had some very sluggish animations? Post some pics for comparison´s sake!

It was a bug on the first level of turok. You can see this "wave effect" looking the side of the rock texture.

 

[ResidentDante]

Crash Bandicoot beats it.

That's you personal opinion. From a technical side though; Mario 64 thrashes Crash. Gameplay wise Mario 64 has kept itself waaaay better than the Crash 1 controls.

 

[immortal-joe]

This thread....

 

[bronzodiriace]

The only big complaint I have to say was about World Driver Championiship and the lack of support of the expansion pack.

That game was awesome.

 

[JimiNutz]

I haven't seen one PS1 game that looks as good as Mario 64 and that's a lunch title

Agreed. I thought the N64 was jaw dropping when I first saw it.
Mario 64, Starfox 64 and Goldeneye looked so good to me at the time...
I remember just standing in stores and staring at it. Couldn't belive that videogames could look that good.

 

[Rising_Hei]

N64 was and looked better in certain genders, and that was it...

It was more powerful than PSX in some regards (polygons), but PSX was much better than N64 in other aspects (memory avalaible, textures, disc cacacity which affected the overall game experiences, framerates etc)

P.D Zelda OOT has aged really really POORLY imo

 

[M3d10n]

I imagined that was the case as well. Didn't the Mem expansion pack address that?

No, you can't expand a cache: it's super fast memory that sits close to the graphics chip. It just increased the amount of (high latency) RAM. Developers still needed to deal with swapping stuff in and out of the cache.

Another problem with the N64 was the whole microcode thing. The graphics unit was somewhat programmable (in a very primitive way) and the SDK shipped with SGI's provided microcode that implemented all the basic stuff like vertex transformation and lighting.

However, SGI's microcode was designed for accuracy (not performance), was badly documented and Nintendo didn't allow developers to write custom microcode until very late in the system's life, which is when we got actual system-pushers from the likes of Factor 5 and Rare.

 

[Tinzo]

I think ps1 had better graphics when i see this comparison.
http://www.lensoftruth.com/retro-head2head-resident-evil-2/

 

[TheD]

Ouch. It is ok my friend no need to get so prickly. The 3D issue you mentioned was a software based bug in the firmware of the PS1 iirc and that issue wasn't present in the titles in the latter half of its life.

Fuck no, the PS1 lacked the hardware to support sub pixel correction, perspective correct texture mapping and per a pixel depth.
It had nothing to do with "firmware" and all 3D games on the system suffered those problems.

 

[PaulloDEC]

In honour of this thread rising from the grave yet again, here's some GIFs from some of my favourite PS1 games. Screenshots are nice, but sometimes you've just gotta see them in motion.

Spoiler

Before anyone asks, yes, they're sourced from emulation. I'm running them in the pSX emulator, which is allegedly as close to the original hardware as you can get on PC. No higher resolutions, no filtering, no other tricks as far as I can tell.

The first two are slower than usual because they're PAL versions of the games, and therefore fall between the available framerates in the GIF format.

 

[Contra11]

Most of the screenshots in this thread captured from an emulator not from the actual hardware .. so it does not represent anything
anyway PS1 games looks better on the emulator

 

[Dictator93]

PS1s problem with polygons, texture filtering, and lake of anti-aliasing makes me like the N64 more from a pure hardware perspective. Only if the devs would focus on frame rate... Curious what a 60fps turok would have looked like on N64.

But PS1 had most of the games that I would consider as quality.-

 

[ResidentDante]

In honour of this thread rising from the grave yet again, here's some GIFs from some of my favourite PS1 games. Screenshots are nice, but sometimes you've just gotta see them in motion.

Before anyone asks, yes, they're sourced from emulation. I'm running them in the pSX emulator, which is allegedly as close to the original hardware as you can get on PC. No higher resolutions, no filtering, no other tricks as far as I can tell.

The first two are slower than usual because they're PAL versions of the games, and therefore fall between the available framerates in the GIF format.

You haven't played real PS1 hardware in a while have you? The textures are filtered in those gifs (the PS1 couldn't blur textures like that) and the framerate looks too high. CTR was horrendous at times regarding framerate.

People need to stop posting tiny gifs "to represent" a game. I got tired of that shit back in "lets post Killzone 2 gifs everywhere". Games look different i fullscreen, tiny gifs make fucking Atari Jaguar games look good.

 

[Kurt]

You haven't played real PS1 hardware in a while have you? The textures are filtered in those gifs (the PS1 couldn't blur textures like that) and the framerate looks too high. CTR was horrendous at times regarding framerate.

Jep, why comparing crash which is a linear game vs all the open world games anyway?
To mee it looked back then a huge step back of what mario 64 was.

 

[dark10x]

did the N64 stream world data from the cart, or was everything loaded into main memory? Just wondering whether the storage choice made N64 better at 'open world' games than PS1?

Well, again, it's not really about storage.

What made larger world games difficult on PSX is likely the result of texturing deficiencies. As was noted earlier, in order to side-step texture warping problems large flat surfaces needed to be sub-divided into a multitude of triangles. Larger pieces of geometry with a texture slapped on the surface would appear completely distorted. Just look at the wire frame images posted on the last page. You can use far fewer triangles on N64 to create open areas but those same areas required a lot more geometry on PSX. So, yes, you could argue PSX was pushing more triangles and be correct but the number of triangles required to pull off some of the larger stuff on N64 would have killed performance or run into other restrictions. If you used a similar setup as N64 and attempted to use textures it would be completely warped to hell.

On N64 you could spread a texture across a massive area and rely on bilinear filtering to essentially "blur" the texture into a smooth colorful surface. On PSX it would be pixelated and warping giving the impression that you're not actually standing on solid ground.

All three systems were so fascinating as a result of the three very different approaches required to create games for them. It must have been a nightmare for teams working on multi-platform releases.

You haven't played real PS1 hardware in a while have you? The textures are filtered in those gifs (the PS1 couldn't blur textures like that) and the framerate looks too high. CTR was horrendous at times regarding framerate.

While he specifies that he's using an emulator and is incorrect about filtering (as you say, it's clearly there) it could still realistically originate from PS2 hardware. The PS2 used real PS1 hardware but had the added benefit of filtering textures when the option was selected. It was still 99% accurate to actual PSX hardware in terms of performance and visual quality - just with texture filtering as an option.

People need to stop posting tiny gifs "to represent" a game. I got tired of that shit back in "lets post Killzone 2 gifs everywhere". Games look different i fullscreen, tiny gifs make fucking Atari Jaguar games look good.

Whoa now, in this case, tiny gifs actually do represent the output resolution of these games.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Saturn looked better than both of them but it took until 97 for it to happen and then Sega quit.

You wish.

 

[ResidentDante]

Whoa now, in this case, tiny gifs actually do represent the output resolution of these games.

Yeah, but not the actual size of the picture. I'm guessing very few here are showing those gifs in fullscreen and still thinking it looks awesome.

 

[Shengar]

Well, again, it's not really about storage.

What made larger world games difficult on PSX is likely the result of texturing deficiencies. As was noted earlier, in order to side-step texture warping problems large flat surfaces needed to be sub-divided into a multitude of triangles. Larger pieces of geometry with a texture slapped on the surface would appear completely distorted. Just look at the wire frame images posted on the last page. You can use far fewer triangles on N64 to create open areas but those same areas required a lot more geometry on PSX. So, yes, you could argue PSX was pushing more triangles and be correct but the number of triangles required to pull off some of the larger stuff on N64 would have killed performance or run into other restrictions. If you used a similar setup as N64 and attempted to use textures it would be completely warped to hell.

On N64 you could spread a texture across a massive area and rely on bilinear filtering to essentially "blur" the texture into a smooth colorful surface. On PSX it would be pixelated and warping giving the impression that you're not actually standing on solid ground.

All three systems were so fascinating as a result of the three very different approaches required to create games for them. It must have been a nightmare for teams working on multi-platform releases.


While he specifies that he's using an emulator and is incorrect about filtering (as you say, it's clearly there) it could still realistically originate from PS2 hardware. The PS2 used real PS1 hardware but had the added benefit of filtering textures when the option was selected. It was still 99% accurate to actual PSX hardware in terms of performance and visual quality - just with texture filtering as an option.


Whoa now, in this case, tiny gifs actually do represent the output resolution of these games.

These techies stuff is interesting. More of this please, and less console war ranting.
Thank you for those who have shared the tech stuffs to us.

 

[dark10x]

Yeah, but not the actual size of the picture. I'm guessing very few here are showing those gifs in fullscreen and still thinking it looks awesome.

That holds true for anything that runs in low resolution.

Whether it looks good or not depends on HOW you blow it up. Those gifs definitely represent the actual resolution the games ran at, however. Any larger and you'd be scaling the image.