Eh, there really wasn't anything about the PS1's sound processor that the N64 couldn't do. Actually it should be better because the CPU and co-processor that handled sound where more powerful (N64).
Perhaps it was heavy compression or complete removal of some audio that could give the impression PS1 was better but it was far from being technical.
In what way?
It's funny that when you think about it, Nintendo pretty much gave Sony the 32 bit era. Would have loved to see the Nintendo Playstation.
Yep, I owned the Saturn version. The n64 version was censored. My little self was looking at teetays in the Saturn version. Shakeitbaby
In what way?
This doesn't make sense. PS1 had only 3mb of ram whereas N64 had 4mb (8mb if you include expansion pak). In addition, N64 had better texture compression abilities whereas PS1 textures where saved as low depth. Textures are bound to be better on N64 and they are.Eh, not much powerful at all. The only thing the N64 had over the PS1 was superior image quality thanks to perspective correction, texture filtering and edge anti-aliasing. Texture quality on N64 was hideous and the machine was polystarved.
I haven't seen one PS1 game that looks as good as Mario 64 and that's a lunch title
http://www.thesixthaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/mario1.jpg
Need not look further than the N64's launch then
And yet I revisit the top few games in my N64 library more often than my entire PS1 collection combined. No denying the N64 had some awful droughts, but at the end of the day I'd still give its library the nod based on the insane longevity of its flagship titles.
You're right that N64 games usually have fewer polygons than PS1games, but I wouldn't call that "struggling", because it's not much of a problem, I think, as I say above.The big thing the N64 struggled with (compared with the PS1) is the number of polygons, I believe. I don't think I ever read about the N64 having trouble with particles, especially from game experience.
Right. I assume people who prefer PS1 graphics are used to that, or something, and don't mind it? I certainly do...The PS1 was incapable of providing perspective correction for the 3D graphics it showed on screen. So whenever the camera moved, you could see all the polygons warp and change form.
Agreed.It definitely was back in the day, especially when everything back then looked like a beefed-up SuperFX game; compared to that, the N64's texture filtering, Z-buffering, and anti-aliasing made what you see on the screen look like a blurry boxy version of reality, as opposed to barely nothing resembling it.
Yeah, the Saturn does have better 3d hardware than it's usually given credit for. I mean, the system really only had Western developer support from mid 1995 - late 1997, and Japanese from late 1994 - late 1998. Comparing PS1 to Saturn games from that time frame alone, the Saturn doesn't come off too badly. Sure, PS1 graphics are better in most cases, but it's not usually by all that much. Most 3d Saturn games look similar to, and just a little worse than, their PS1 counterparts. It's not some huge difference. And the Saturn had a LOT of rarely-tapped power, too, because of how hard it was to program for. A huge number of Saturn games only ever use one of the two CPUs, for instance, because programmers had no idea how to deal with dual-core processors yet.I still love you, Saturn.
Remember, you still had the best console ports of Duke Nukem Forever and Quake, with real-time coloured moving light sources and an unshakable framerate that Nintendo and Sony owners could only ever dream of. You also had multicoloured transparencies in Sonic R that Mario Kart 64 was never able to match.
.No bullshit, the Saturn was a weak 3D machine compared to the Playstation and N64, but Traveller's Tales and Lobotomy Software pulled off some goddamn miracles with Sonic R, Duke Nukem and Quake
Yeah, the Saturn, and the NVidia NV1 video card for the PC (and also the 3DO, I think?), use quadrilaterals instead of triangles. Triangles won out because they're more versatile overall, but some systems tried out quads instead, before triangles became the standard.So I learned just recently that the Saturn used rectangles for polygons?
The N64 can do FMV and prerendered backgrounds, though... it requires more work than the PS1, but RE2 of course shows off very impressive use of FMV, and Ogre Battle 64's prerendered backgrounds look pretty nice, among some others.Well I never said one was better than the other, rather there were games on the PSone that held up, and many of those games were helped by FMVs and prerendered backgrounds. You sound a bit insecure, don't worry I am not dogging the N64.
Excepting the Dreamcast, which had powerful sound hardware in it for some reason, has any console since the N64 had a dedicated sound chip? Don't they all work like the N64 did now? I know that dedicated sound hardware is better, because it gets that off the CPU, but just putting it on the CPU is quite common these days, that's for sure.N64 sound was a step back from even the SNES. The n64 had no dedicated sound chip. Sound processing was done by the main CPU, and it ended up being balancing act between sound and game code (game code being far more important, so sound suffered). Same thing happened to the GBA. The PS1's sound chip was a better version of the SNES sound chip. Not just from a sound processing point of view, but also from the actual sound it outputs. Far more dynamic range, especially really low bass (just like the SNES).
Texture quality on N64 was hideous and the machine was polystarved.
Please, let's not get crazy. The Dreamcast is leaps and bounds ahead of the PS1 and the N64. Even early Dreamcast games blew N64 games out of the water. There was literally years that separated the two machines.Lots of late N64 games looked like dreamcast games to me back in the day.
Eh, there really wasn't anything about the PS1's sound processor that the N64 couldn't do. Actually it should be better because the CPU and co-processor that handled sound where more powerful (N64).
Perhaps it was heavy compression or complete removal of some audio that could give the impression PS1 was better but it was far from being technical.
This doesn't make sense. PS1 had only 3mb of ram whereas N64 had 4mb (8mb if you include expansion pak). In addition, N64 had better texture compression abilities whereas PS1 textures where saved as low depth. Textures are bound to be better on N64 and they are.
And the poly starve comment is completely wrong.
I don't see why this matters. Modern consoles don't use dedicated sound processors but are no doubt superior at it.N64 sound was a step back from even the SNES. The n64 had no dedicated sound chip. Sound processing was done by the main CPU, and it ended up being balancing act between sound and game code (game code being far more important, so sound suffered). Same thing happened to the GBA. The PS1's sound chip was a better version of the SNES sound chip. Not just from a sound processing point of view, but also from the actual sound it outputs. Far more dynamic range, especially really low bass (just like the SNES).
I don't see why this matters. Modern consoles don't use dedicated sound processors but are no doubt superior at it.
The simplified math of triangles (they are always flat!) just makes everything easier. 2 triangles >>>>> quadrilaterals.Yeah, the Saturn, and the NVidia NV1 video card for the PC (and also the 3DO, I think?), use quadrilaterals instead of triangles. Triangles won out because they're more versatile overall, but some systems tried out quads instead, before triangles became the standard.
This doesn't make sense. PS1 had only 3mb of ram whereas N64 had 4mb (8mb if you include expansion pak). In addition, N64 had better texture compression abilities whereas PS1 textures where saved as low depth. Textures are bound to be better on N64 and they are.
And the poly starve comment is completely wrong.
I imagine the cartridge medium is what really crippled the N64s textures. It did allow them to have next to no loading times, though. Tough decision to make back then.
CD piracy was huge on the PS1 so in reality the decision wasn't tough at all for Nintendo.
Oh wow. You have to be lying to yourself if you think PS1 games were as clean and presentable as this.
I don't see why this matters. Modern consoles don't use dedicated sound processors but are no doubt superior at it.
In the way that a lot of Dreamcast were barely-enhanced N64 ports, I guess.
CD piracy was huge on the PS1 so in reality the decision wasn't tough at all for Nintendo.
so what I'm getting is that on paper the N64 had more memory , faster processors and could quite simply do far more then the playstation but it was more difficult to access this added power, requiring the use of tons of custom micro code and more importantly since they went with cartridges everything had to be insanely compressed to fit on the tiny cart size on offer.
I don't see why this matters. Modern consoles don't use dedicated sound processors but are no doubt superior at it.
It's 2012 and we're still doing N64 vs PSX?
Can someone explain why the lack of z-buffer made PS1 games look weird?
Idk but perfect dark and conker sits at the top of any psx game.
Of course. We're still fighting over SNES vs Mega Drive.
No z-buffer = no polygon/pixel sorting.Can someone explain why the lack of z-buffer made PS1 games look weird?
None of my programming knowledge has anything to do with graphics.
Idk but perfect dark and conker sits at the top of any psx game.
Well, no, SNES won that one.
Well, no, SNES won that one.
Well, no, SNES won that one.
I don't see why this matters. Modern consoles don't use dedicated sound processors but are no doubt superior at it.
No, if you cut the resolution to 640x480 interlaced (as opposed to progressive scan like the Dreamcast could do, but not any consoles before it), chop the framerate to 20-30 instead of the 60 that most DC games run at, and drop the texture resolutions down to N64 levels, I think that most Dreamcast games would run just fine on the N64 with minimal other modification. Even most Dreamcast exclusives don't show much of the extra power of the system beyond those three categories I just mentioned, I've always thought... DC graphics have never impressed me that much beyond the N64, they really do look like high-def N64 graphics to me.Please, let's not get crazy. The Dreamcast is leaps and bounds ahead of the PS1 and the N64. Even early Dreamcast games blew N64 games out of the water. There was literally years that separated the two machines.
Most people put the biggest blame on the 4KB texture cache.I imagine the cartridge medium is what really crippled the N64s textures. It did allow them to have next to no loading times, though. Tough decision to make back then.
No, the N64 did pretty well without dedicated sound hardware.Yeah... things were a bit different back then.
Yeah, there are a few circumstances where quads are better, but they are very few.The simplified math of triangles (they are always flat!) just makes everything easier. 2 triangles >>>>> quadrilaterals.
Yeah, Acclaim definitely pulled off some of the N64's best graphics. They were right up there with Rare, on their top end... Acclaim's one failing was that they were maybe a bit too okay with reducing framerates in the name of better graphics (see Turok 2 in hi-res mode, most notably), but still, they did some very impressive visuals.Shadowman had great graphics. This video compares the DC, Playstation, and N64 versions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woJ1GUmL0Xw
Many N64 games have great music.:lol what
Sound quality on the N64 was nothing less than putrid. Even ignoring redbook audio, sequenced music on the PS1 absolutely trounced the hideous crap that the N64 produced.
I've never noticed characters to be noticeably blockier, but anyway, that's not a real advantage for the PS1, just that the N64 was harder to program for. As for textures, as I said in my last post, I can't understand how people can criticize the textures so much, but completely ignore how PS1 visuals are unbelievably aliased, jaggy, pop all over the place, etc... how is THAT better than blurry textures??Owning both machines and having played nearly hundreds of games on both of them I simply call it as I see it. Textures on the vast majority of N64 games were a blurry and messy soup. Characters on the games were noticeably blockier to me as well, scenery too.
Well, no, SNES won that one.
You've never been to a Sega fan forum, have you. Try Sega-16, you'll find quite a few people who would strongly disagree with your belief here...I feel like as years have gone on, it's generally accepted that SNES won that gen. Can't really use BLAST PROCESSING and MORTAL KOMBAT HAS BLOOD as a part of your argument anymore.
PS1 vs. N64, on the other hand... that war is still ongoing.
Well, I'd say that the N64 has some built-in advantages. That hardware Z-buffer, anti-aliasing, and triple buffering really make a huge difference -- even in otherwise ugly games, you won't have any texture warping, perspective issues, or jaggies! In contrast, even the otherwise best looking PS1 or Saturn games have those issues because of the hardware.so what I'm getting is that on paper the N64 had more memory , faster processors and could quite simply do far more then the playstation but it was more difficult to access this added power, requiring the use of tons of custom micro code and more importantly since they went with cartridges everything had to be insanely compressed to fit on the tiny cart size on offer.
Yeah, Nintendo started out with 8MB as the only size option. 16MB was added in late '97, 32MB in late '98, and 40MB and 64MB in 1999. That's how it always works with cartridge systems, with smaller sizes at first and larger ones later on, but it was a drawback for earlier N64 games, sure. Now, you can fit a great N64 game into 8MB, but it's certainly better if you have larger options available.A single Cd rom could hold 650 megabytes versus the launch carts on n64 holding a tiny 8 megabytes. By the end of it's life there existed a couple of 64 megabyte carts but even still, look at say a multi disc final fantasy game on playstation and cut out the movies - I think the game is still nearly 100 megabytes. Kind of makes it all the more impressive that resident evil 2 even had a port to the n64 at all.