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

BradleyLove

Member
Oct 18, 2008
1,417
7
660
People complain about sub-HD resolutions today but it has always been commonplace with consoles. Resolutions vary all the time.

PS2 games were especially notorious of this with an insanely wide variety of resolutions used in different games.
I didn't think PS1 could output a progressive signal? IIRC component cables don't work on PS1 so your only option is composite, s-video, RF or RGB SCART. None of these support progressive signals.
 

dark10x

Digital Foundry pixel pusher
Jun 9, 2004
51,526
1,317
1,515
www.eurogamer.net
I didn't think PS1 could output a progressive signal? IIRC component cables don't work on PS1 so your only option is composite, s-video, RF or RGB SCART. None of these support progressive signals.
I think you're getting confused with 480p and "progressive scan" being thrown around as a term. 240p is a very real thing that has been around for ages. You can output 240p over any old connection.

Any standard definition TV should be support this mode.
 

BradleyLove

Member
Oct 18, 2008
1,417
7
660
I think you're getting confused with 480p and "progressive scan" being thrown around as a term. 240p is a very real thing that has been around for ages. You can output 240p over any old connection.

Any standard definition TV should be support this mode.
Ok but I'm not convinced these consoles rendered a progressive signal.

From Wikipedia:

Older video game console and home computers generated a nonstandard NTSC or PAL signal which placed both fields on top of each other.[1][2] This is equivalent to 240p and 288p respectively. Conversely, the FCC forbade TV stations from broadcasting in this format. The Video CD format was introduced on such a console (CD-i), and it likewise uses a progressive LDTV signal (352 × 240 or 352 × 288), which is half the vertical resolution of SDTV.
 

dark10x

Digital Foundry pixel pusher
Jun 9, 2004
51,526
1,317
1,515
www.eurogamer.net
C'mon son indeed





Pointless comparisons
I heard it wasnt
It's really hard to make a real like for like comparison.

I would agree that N64 hardware was more capable of attractive 3D but it had other limitations that the PSX did not (the 4kb of texture memory was particularly bad).

Comparing Turok 2 to Metal Gear Solid is a bit odd, however, as the two games achieve very different things. MGS actually does deliver surprisingly rich environments with great texturing for the system that I suspect N64 would not be able to duplicate. It also runs at 30 fps most of the time.

Turok 2, however, features more detailed models but suffers from large, boxy environments and a VERY VERY poor framerate. I can't stress enough how choppy Turok 2 is. The framerate is bad to the point where they should probably have cut detail back in order to maintain a smoother clip.
 

jmdajr

Member
Dec 12, 2006
59,024
0
0
Not powerful enough for me to stop playing PlayStation. Just loved the library of games.
 

KalBalboa

Banned
Feb 2, 2012
13,276
0
0
Waltham, MA
It's really hard to make a real like for like comparison.

I would agree that N64 hardware was more capable of attractive 3D but it had other limitations that the PSX did not (the 4kb of texture memory was particularly bad).

Comparing Turok 2 to Metal Gear Solid is a bit odd, however, as the two games achieve very different things. MGS actually does deliver surprisingly rich environments with great texturing for the system that I suspect N64 would not be able to duplicate. It also runs at 30 fps most of the time.

Turok 2, however, features more detailed models but suffers from large, boxy environments and a VERY VERY poor framerate. I can't stress enough how choppy Turok 2 is. The framerate is bad to the point where they should probably have cut detail back in order to maintain a smoother clip.
Pretty much. I think this thread boils down to an "apples and oranges" agreement, but we all understand that the PSone and N64 each had strengths the other did not.
 

MYE

Banned
Jul 20, 2009
16,499
0
0
It's really hard to make a real like for like comparison.

I would agree that N64 hardware was more capable of attractive 3D but it had other limitations that the PSX did not (the 4kb of texture memory was particularly bad).

Comparing Turok 2 to Metal Gear Solid is a bit odd, however, as the two games achieve very different things. MGS actually does deliver surprisingly rich environments with great texturing for the system that I suspect N64 would not be able to duplicate. It also runs at 30 fps most of the time.

Turok 2, however, features more detailed models but suffers from large, boxy environments and a VERY VERY poor framerate. I can't stress enough how choppy Turok 2 is. The framerate is bad to the point where they should probably have cut detail back in order to maintain a smoother clip.
I actually own both games. And the point of my post was that its worthless to compare different games like this.

And I dont see why the N64 couldnt duplicate MGS's environments if it tried. If not exactly, it would at least 1up the PSX version in character model detail.
 

KalBalboa

Banned
Feb 2, 2012
13,276
0
0
Waltham, MA
I actually own both games. And the point of my post was that its worthless to compare different games like this.

And I dont see why the N64 couldnt duplicate MGS's environments if it tried. If not exactly, it would at least 1up the PSX version in character model detail.
The sheer volume of textures and audio alone make an argument against the N64's weaknesses. I mean, it was already a 2 CD game.
 

jett

D-Member
Jun 6, 2004
98,879
2
1,575
Wipeout 3 definitely doesn't run in high resolution (it's 320x240) unless there is some extra mode you can turn on.
Nopes, Wipeout 3 ran at 512x256. WE3:Special Edition had a a widescreen mode, meaning you don't get a stretched image(if you have a widescreen TV).



The HUD is stretched though. :p
 

davepoobond

you can't put a price on sparks
Apr 26, 2006
44,563
180
1,275
California
www.squackle.com
a lot of the later N64 games looked "better" usually, but i think the PlayStation games usually had a better diversity of textures and "that playstation look" actually appealed to me more than the "smooth" n64 look that all games used to have.

they were practically the same quality of texture resolution, really. its just how smooth they looked with the polygons.
 
Jun 11, 2006
9,238
0
0
N64 vs PS is a comparison in tradeoffs.

The N64 was a stronger piece of hardware in general. It had more base memory (4 meg vs 2.5, I think) and it could push polys with effects better.

What the PS had going for it, more than just it's generous head start, was that it made a really interesting trade-off.

It gave off the fast cartridges for slow, but cheap and capacitive CDs.

CDs had a two major deficiencies:

The drive was expensive.
The data transfer speed was slow (hello load times!).

One interesting improvement:

The space was large.

and two MASSIVE improvements:

The media was cheap, and fast to manufacture.

...

That last one is what really won the war for Sony.

Nintendo's business model involved paying about $12-$20 in media and $8 in license per cartridge, and you might have to wait 6 months for remanufacture.

Sony made it easier. You paid for the media - $1 per disc with manual/case. You paid the $8 license fee when your product sold. If you ran out, you could manufacture quickly.

This flatly simplified the whole process for publishers. There was no longer so much risk in manufacturing too many or too few copies. If they didn't sell - they only cost you a buck a piece. If you manufactured too few, you could replenish stock in a week or two.

...

The CD changed the business model, and that's why Sony buried Nintendo for two generations straight.
 
Sep 2, 2007
17,992
1
0
The sheer volume of textures and audio alone make an argument against the N64's weaknesses. I mean, it was already a 2 CD game.
MGS had a great amount of voice acting recorded, but its not as N64 was incapable of them seeing that Conkers Bad Fur Day is also voice acted completly (of course not so much audio but a lot nontheless, and it has better textures, better models, bigger enviroments and effects MGS would have dreamed of having).
 

Yoshichan

And they made him a Lord of Cinder. Not for virtue, but for might. Such is a lord, I suppose. But here I ask. Do we have a sodding chance?
Sep 1, 2006
58,595
26
1,285
-

DungeonO

Member
May 5, 2009
381
0
0
Ok but I'm not convinced these consoles rendered a progressive signal.

From Wikipedia:
Aren't scan lines a direct result of a low resolution progressive signal? If so, all you need to do is boot up your N64 or PSX on a CRT.

Modern LCDs and whatnot upscale it to 480i, which is where most people get confused.
 

dark10x

Digital Foundry pixel pusher
Jun 9, 2004
51,526
1,317
1,515
www.eurogamer.net
I actually own both games. And the point of my post was that its worthless to compare different games like this.

And I dont see why the N64 couldnt duplicate MGS's environments if it tried. If not exactly, it would at least 1up the PSX version in character model detail.
I think N64 could easily duplicate the base geometry, but MGS uses textures that are higher in resolution than what you'd find on N64 (which is just a limit of its texture memory). In the end, I suspect it could actually look BETTER on N64, but I don't think the game as it was released could have existed on N64.

I own both games as well.

I dont think the game was spread over 2 discs over its detailed textures.
All of the voice data and movie files (not that there were many) along with who knows what else.

RE2 worked as it was simply compressing static imagery, but when you start dealing with sound too much compression can really become noticeable. I'm sure it could have worked in the end, but it would have sounded like shit which would have spoiled the experience. Keep in mind that MGS has *A LOT* of dialog. I mean, doing voice on N64 was certainly possible, but when you have HOURS of speech in your game I'd think it would become more difficult.
 

brumx

Member
Jan 21, 2006
811
0
0
the differences are mute today tho one might notice a difference playing Saturn games cause they had a odd look. I think Saturn games look better cause it can do 480i
 

dark10x

Digital Foundry pixel pusher
Jun 9, 2004
51,526
1,317
1,515
www.eurogamer.net
the differences are mute today tho one might notice a difference playing Saturn games cause they had a odd look. I think Saturn games look better cause it can do 480i
Very few Saturn games DO actually run in 480i, however. The overwhelming majority are 240p just like PSX and N64.

Nopes, Wipeout 3 ran at 512x256. WE3:Special Edition had a a widescreen mode, meaning you don't get a stretched image(if you have a widescreen TV).
Not by default. The default is definitely running in 240p.
 

KageMaru

Member
Oct 6, 2010
9,910
1
0
I played it a few months after it came out - I was young and had only seen screenshots of the game.

When I realised that I could literally jump into the river and swim under the bridge, no invisible walls, I was dumbfounded. When I first approached a painting and it shimmered like a wall of water, I felt that in this mere ten minutes, there was nothing like this in gaming - it was an advancement of exploration into 3D the likes of which the console industry had never seen.

At the time, describing myself as being "impressed" would be a dramatic understatement. It was revolutionary, in visuals, 3D control and design, and in opportunities for exploration.
Yeah, I didn't play it at first either because it was sold out everywhere. I did get to play it around a month after launch and was also playing Tomb Raider at the time as well. With the freedom given and complexity of the environments in Tomb Raider, Mario wasn't nearly as impressive for me. It was cleaner, but also simpler

Sorry, misread about Shenmue (I was thinking Soul Calibur...), but for a PS1 version of that, look at the original, unreleased Saturn version; the PS1 could have done something like that, I'm sure.

Anyway though, you're right that looking at exclusives is best, but as I said, many of its exclusives aren't much of a step over 5th gen either, apart for those three categories. Speed Devils, TrickStyle, Red Dog, Pod 2, etc? Good games, but in terms of geometry, are they much above 5th gen levels?
Well, Sonic Adventure wasn't particularly high in polys and IIRC that went up to 300k polys a second in some scenes, which is far above what's possible on the previous generation. I remember the other games you listed and yeah they weren't extremely high in geometry, mostly in the environments but there are aspects with most of those games where the geometry is higher than what's possible on the previous generation. The cars in Speed Devils and vehicle in Red Dog are higher in complexity than what's seen on the PS1/N64/Saturn. Pod was always an ugly game IMO and Trick Style looks amazing to me at launch, but that was mostly down to the texture work and not the poly count.

So I can definitely see some of these games working if you shave off some polys here and there. Only catch is most of them are launch or near launch titles. I think it took time for devs to get up to speed on their tools and such since they were still so invested into developing on the prior gen. It didn't take long for more impressive DC games to come out though. Sega GT, Shenmue, MDK2, D2, 2K sports line, RE:CV, HoTD2, and more all had geometry above PS1/N64 levels.

Yes, the SS is pretty much the same as the PS1 on that score.
I thought the use of quads could help texture distortion, no?
 

LeleSocho

Member
Jun 13, 2011
16,025
1
560
No way guys, N64 games even with lower res textures looked way much better than PS1 ones, way too cleaner than the jaggy mess of PS1
Even only the fact that N64 have perspective correction put it above Sony's.
 

Izayoi

Banned
Jul 25, 2010
18,065
0
0
PS1 had horrendous warping that ruined anything with 3D environments (may pre-rendered BGs rest in peace). It's something that the N64 handled much better. Each had their own individual strengths. I owned and played the shit out of both, and I think that on the whole the N64 was visually superior. The PS1 definitely had its moments (Final Fantasy summons in particular), but the N64 was far more consistent.
 

WillyFive

Member
Sep 17, 2009
28,622
0
0
No way guys, N64 games even with lower res textures looked way much better than PS1 ones, way too cleaner than the jaggy mess of PS1
Even only the fact that N64 have perspective correction put it above it.
It's a matter of preference.

But it is true that the N64 graphics include things we have come to expect from graphics today, like solid objects even when the camera moves, smooth textures (as low-res they may be), and even anti-aliasing. By comparison, the PS1/Saturn graphics feel incomplete, like the software mode of early PC games that didn't have Direct3D enabled. N64 was a prototype of modern graphics, as opposed as an extension of the early experimental 3D graphics of the early 90's, late 80's.
 

Tain

Member
Jun 13, 2004
24,280
3
1,365
horizonvanguard.com
It would be nice if everyone made sure to post native-resolution shots while using emulator shots.

Maybe even scale images that you want to compare to a shared larger 4:3 resolution, if you aren't using the shots to directly demonstrate the game's original resolution.
 

dark10x

Digital Foundry pixel pusher
Jun 9, 2004
51,526
1,317
1,515
www.eurogamer.net
Anyone try Forsaken on PSX? Unlike the N64 version it runs almost entirely at 60 fps on PSX while delivering the same levels as the PC version (which the 64 game does not).

Also, Quake 2 on PSX is an impressive piece of work. It runs at a higher framerate, contains more detail, and features much smoother animation than the N64 game. Plus it managed to combat texture warping beautifully.

Quake 2 PSX used a custom engine unrelated to the Quake engine while the N64 game used the same engine that was designed to run Quake 64. So while they were basically the same games, the end results were vastly different.

Look at dat textures!




I thought the use of quads could help texture distortion, no?
It does change the appearance of the distortion but there is still distortion nonetheless.
 

jett

D-Member
Jun 6, 2004
98,879
2
1,575
I uploaded some more pics of WE3, cuz that game is just damn pretty.









Very few Saturn games DO actually run in 480i, however. The overwhelming majority are 240p just like PSX and N64.


Not by default. The default is definitely running in 240p.
No, Special Edition always runs at 512x256, wether widescreen correction is on or off.


(Widescreen off, image will be stretched to 4:3 to correct aspect ratio)


(Widescreen on, aspect ratio is fine)
 

Magicpaint

Member
May 19, 2005
12,889
2
1,145
United Kingdom
Multiplatform games usually looked a lot better on N64, but games like Soul Reaver on PS1 were so insanely impressive to me back then. PS1 could definitely hold its own, though the best of N64 still usually had the edge.
 

Yoshichan

And they made him a Lord of Cinder. Not for virtue, but for might. Such is a lord, I suppose. But here I ask. Do we have a sodding chance?
Sep 1, 2006
58,595
26
1,285
-
Dat foliage. Naughty Dogs were Gods even back then.
 

Jamix012

Member
Jun 6, 2012
5,419
0
0
I've been playing PS1 games on the Vita and honestly to me, I can barely look at them. I'm not someone who usually cares about graphics, I set the bar pretty low but just from an immersion perspective FF7 removes me from the experience quite a bit by having some awful character models over pre-rendered pictures.

The N64 is surely a much more powerful beast, especially if we take the expansion pack into account. Majora's Mask is a pretty game, even today, in my eyes atleast.
 

brumx

Member
Jan 21, 2006
811
0
0
If you use Bleemcast it puts PSX almost at N64 level even better at times. It's hard to count N64 ports since the enhanced so much.

 

jett

D-Member
Jun 6, 2004
98,879
2
1,575
ahuahuahua guys lets see your playstation do this:



totally real shot taken from my n64
pffft not even using the game's original textures, are you that embarrassed about OOT's actual assets? :O

At least my two pictures were on equal grounds. :p Just a small resolution bump to 640x480 for both games!
 

omonimo

Banned
Jun 6, 2012
7,572
0
0
Well honestly I always though from psx to n64 there was a generation. The general IQ on n64 is something we can't come back. I'm passed to n64 to psone & even polycounts is quite in favour to n64 to my eyes, looked to spyro or crash character, are really poor in poly compared to mario or a Banjo. About texture isn't it a limit of the cartridge? It seems quite strange n64 can handle worst texture to psx.
 

Darkarium

Neo Member
May 29, 2009
38
0
0
So many bullshots in this thread. N64 shots taken from an emulator and low res JPEGs for PSX. Consensus at the time was PSX looked better, the graphics look messy now looking back, but the difference in texture detail alone in most games is what makes the PSX better. SM64 is an attractive game from a style point of view, but to claim that the graphics are better than MGS1 is just nonsense, by the same logic I can say that Super Mario World has better graphics than SM64 because the sprites and backgrounds look pretty.
 

Yoshichan

And they made him a Lord of Cinder. Not for virtue, but for might. Such is a lord, I suppose. But here I ask. Do we have a sodding chance?
Sep 1, 2006
58,595
26
1,285
-
If you use Bleemcast it puts PSX almost at N64 level even better at times. It's hard to count N64 ports since the enhanced so much.

Why are they lying on that advertisement? That's not the #1 PSX game of all time!