*cough* Boss Game Studios *cough* Factor5 *cough*
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
How much more powerful was the N64 compared to the PlayStation anyway?
- Thread starter Snakeyes
- Start date
Tekken 3 is 60fps. And ran in one of the PS1's high resolution modes. However, in my opinion it's not even the best looking fighter on the console.
I'm mentioning Tobal 2 again god damnit!
Also 60fps, also high resolution, cleaner image quality and the use of mostly gourad shading on the characters went a long way in making it age really well. The animation is also, of course, incredible. Not graphically related, but it did full 3D movement before Soul Calibur(and did it better too).
This thread is starting to teeter on the edge of insanity. ALL games ran interlaced on the N64 and PS1(and Saturn). And 99% of PS2 games.
I'm mentioning Tobal 2 again god damnit!
Also 60fps, also high resolution, cleaner image quality and the use of mostly gourad shading on the characters went a long way in making it age really well. The animation is also, of course, incredible. Not graphically related, but it did full 3D movement before Soul Calibur(and did it better too).
This thread is starting to teeter on the edge of insanity. ALL games ran interlaced on the N64 and PS1(and Saturn). And 99% of PS2 games.
MightyHedgehog
Member
Well, I thought it was a nice-looking game for the time of release, but whatever...it's just art and not a limitation of the system.
Yeah, in just about every metric it was the fastest. Had hardware suppurt for just about all the gfx goodies of the day, particularly anti aliasing which was used with gudsto and hence the 64s trademark blur. From what I recall Nintendo released poor development libraries causing 3rd parties to either go with or write thier own libs. Few did.
No true. They ran at 240p which is indeed progressive.
A select few games supported higher resolutions which were interlaced but the vast majority of games were not.
Tekken 3 is 320x240 progressive at 60 fps. VF2 runs at a higher interlaced resolution.
Most PS2 games were interlaced (which is where the jaggies complaints stem from).
One of the better looking racing game on N64 with WDC and BAR.
ss_lemonade
Member
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the Saturn originally designed to be a powerhouse 2d machine because Sega didn't take 3d seriously or something? Then they saw the Playstation and rushed to make it capable of 3d graphics
My T3 run @60fps for sure. Still have the game. Jp version. I once saw T3 runs @30fps when I travelled to middle east back in 1999. Maybe PAL version runs slower than jp or ntsc version.
MightyHedgehog
Member
Tekken 3 was progressive? I remember noticing how much the interlace effect was present during a lot of movement. Maybe my memory of it is off. VF2, like LB and AitN, still looked cleaner than anything on PS1, save for the Tobals and DOA.
All three Tekken games on the PS1 run at 60fps.
That is simply sad.
Really? I figured they were all interlaced since the machines aren't capable(obviously) of outputting in progressive scan...it's still nonsense to put down Tekken 3's framerate just because it ran interlaced, though(if it indeed did). However, I'm fairly certain Tekken 3 runs at a resolution higher than 320x240, but I'm gonna have to get you back on that.
That is simply sad.
Really? I figured they were all interlaced since the machines aren't capable(obviously) of outputting in progressive scan...it's still nonsense to put down Tekken 3's framerate just because it ran interlaced, though(if it indeed did). However, I'm fairly certain Tekken 3 runs at a resolution higher than 320x240, but I'm gonna have to get you back on that.
Combichristoffersen
Combovers don't work when there is no hair
That's basically what happened, yeah.
Older consoles were capable of outputting progressive scan signals and usually did, just not 480p. Tekken 3 looks like a 240p title to me, I could be wrong, but stuff like Tobal looks noticeably sharper.
ProtomanNeo
Member
Space was the only issue that the 64 ever really ran up against. Had the 64 been CD based the entire landscape of the videogame world would be different.
Emulation shots are neither here nor there I guess but I found these and I just want to share how crazy the textuework in DewPrism was.
For a PS1 game it's bonkers.
Well I have been corrected about the whole interlacing business. Maybe I'm wrong about T3's resolution, I'll check what resolution T3 outputs in an emulator in a little while.
For a PS1 game it's bonkers.
Well I have been corrected about the whole interlacing business. Maybe I'm wrong about T3's resolution, I'll check what resolution T3 outputs in an emulator in a little while.
Relaxed Muscle
Member
WDC is really up there with GT in some parts, in the graphics department.
And it was a really good game.
And it was a really good game.
well to u and the rest, as i said its subjective, aint it. Yea the ps had more games but cmon we all know that its quality over quantity. Its certainly no ps2. N64 has a number of stone cold classics that hold up today, psone stuff I think does not fair as well.
Absolutely.
Standard def monitors could support what is considered "LDTV" which is actually a low resolution progressive image. That doesn't meant the resolution is always 320x240, rather, it simply uses the 240p mode. SNES, for instance, runs everything at 256x224 progressive.
3DO is the one odd exception in that it uses 480i despite only displaying 320x240 imagery. This results in a muddy, flickery mess of an image.
Keep in mind that, with 240p games, you will still see very visible black scan lines running through the image. 240p doesn't actually vary the lines, however, as the image is displayed with every line being drawn in the same location on the screen as the electron beam draws the image. 480i alternates rapidly between odd and even scanlines resulting in flicker.
Cleaner? Those games used 480i so, while the resolution was higher, the image flickered. Tekken 3 at 240p on a proper CRT produces a more stable image than the higher resolution fighters.
To me the N64 always came off better at handling a moving-3D camera, but that didn't stop the PlayStation from delivering these visuals:
The PlayStation 1's best games were usually more conservative with their graphical approach (pre-rendered backgrounds, that sort of thing). Games like Resident Evil and Final Fantasy frankly have aged much better than Goldeneye or Conker's Bad Furday, if you ask me thanks to how much texture detail CD-ROMS afforded games. 3D really wasn't concrete enough until the Dreamcast/PS2 days began anyway, and N64 3D games came with the burden of fog or incredibly flat (or sometimes non-existent, as was the case in Mario 64) textures.
I've also always though that Mario 64, while easily one of my favorite games, belonged in the same graphical category as some of the PSX Crash games, not to mention Spyro.
-3-thumb.jpg)
-8.jpg)
(Here's some Conker gameplay again, for good measure)
The PlayStation 1's best games were usually more conservative with their graphical approach (pre-rendered backgrounds, that sort of thing). Games like Resident Evil and Final Fantasy frankly have aged much better than Goldeneye or Conker's Bad Furday, if you ask me thanks to how much texture detail CD-ROMS afforded games. 3D really wasn't concrete enough until the Dreamcast/PS2 days began anyway, and N64 3D games came with the burden of fog or incredibly flat (or sometimes non-existent, as was the case in Mario 64) textures.
I've also always though that Mario 64, while easily one of my favorite games, belonged in the same graphical category as some of the PSX Crash games, not to mention Spyro.
(Here's some Conker gameplay again, for good measure)
Combichristoffersen
Combovers don't work when there is no hair
Personally I think the PS1 had both quality and quantity. Unless you were a fan of Nintendo's first-party games, the N64 had slim pickings compared to the PS1. No Final Fantasies, no Metal Gear Solid, no Tekken, no Silent Hill, no Resident Evil (although it did get a late port of Resident Evil 2) etc. I'll give you that the PS1 is no PS2 though, as the PS2 has arguably the best library of any console ever released.
Also, I remember wanting Threads of Fate so badly, but it never got an official PAL release
What would be the easiest way to get a PSN card/PSN code to get it off the US store?biggersmaller
Banned
The best looking 3D N64 game vs the best looking 3D PSX game will favor the N64. This reflects the more powerful hardware, and the original point of this thread.
However, I had way more fun with the PSX as it had way more games worth playing at the time.
However, I had way more fun with the PSX as it had way more games worth playing at the time.
Nah, it's been covered in the thread that the maximum size for any given N64 texture is 4kb, a limitation that has nothing to do with storage.
No. It was the limited texture memory available to the system (just 4kb).
The vaseline filter you speak of isn't necessarily the result of the textures, however.
Well all right. BTW, here's a direct feed image of Tekken 3, untouched!
It did run at a higher resolution than 320x240.
Xdrive05
Member
Thanks. It sounds like that was part of the design. Maybe the thought was, "Yo, we stickin' with carts! So let's limit it to 4k. Pass the bowl!"
Hmmm, surprising.Well all right. BTW, here's a direct feed image of Tekken 3, untouched!
It did run at a higher resolution than 320x240.
It has been a while since I've played the game. If you ignore those black bars they it seems like they're using 320x480 instead.
I'll have to load it up on my CRT again for a comparison.
Still, 99% of the games on PSX and N64 ran at 240p using a variety of resolution that were 320x240 or lower.
zephervack
Member
I absolutely love reading stuff like this.
Another funny thing: A screenshot of Super Mario World saved as a BMP file is bigger than the entire ROM of Super Mario World, which includes the music, art, gameplay code etc.
I know its a silly comparison but I find it amazing to be honest, Im sure the music in SNES games wasnt stored but actually generated on the fly by programming functions.
Why is it that every time we have one of these threads we get people posting shots comparing a game running on an emulator at a higher resolution than the original system was capable of to some blurry 1990s screen capture taken from Gamespot?
If you are going to post up-rezzed emulator screens, do it for both systems. If you want to use native resolution screen captures, do it for both systems. Plenty of images in this thread that I know for a fact are a lot clearer than anything I was seeing on either console in the 90s.
If you are going to post up-rezzed emulator screens, do it for both systems. If you want to use native resolution screen captures, do it for both systems. Plenty of images in this thread that I know for a fact are a lot clearer than anything I was seeing on either console in the 90s.
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.
Lots of wonky resolutions were used on the PS1. Tobal 2 runs at 512x512, Crash at 512x384, etc.
Mama Robotnik
Member
Awful lot of upscaled emulated images entering this thread recently. It just muddies the waters rather than enabling discussion.
Yeah, but the console makers never used resolution as a bullet point until this generation. So I feel like it's more of a false advertising complaint. Obviously there are some people who would be counting pixels anyway, but it wouldn't be such an issue if Sony and Microsoft hadn't made such bold claims about their consoles' abilities.
It was carts combined with the tiny 4kB texture buffer and AA on everything that crippled it. Especially the texture buffer. Mostly what they did was to simply just stretch out a 4kB texture over an object, so it gets blurry as hell. Some developers were a bit smarter and put several textures next to each other on objects to get less stretching, but that introduced other problems with performance and whatnot. Earlier games like SM64 used more gouraud shading on many objects so they didn't have to use textures at all, so it's not a big problem in these games. But as soon as games started using more and more textures it became pretty apparent.
Edit: eh beaten. but this thread is too big to read through it all
Well all right. BTW, here's a direct feed image of Tekken 3, untouched!
It did run at a higher resolution than 320x240.
I went ahead an booted up Tekken 3 and noticed the interlace flicker right away, but couldn't understand why the game looked kind of chunky still. This explains it.
Yeah that flickering is a dead giveaway for games with a vertical resolution of 480 or higher. That's how I knew T3 was a "high-res" game back in the day.
When people show this:
I feel compelled to post this:
This is pretty much why I felt the need to chime in after seeing Conker & Goldeneye "screens" being posted with some in-game Gran Turismo, Spyro, and Oddworld shots. Certain PSone Wipeout games, believe it or not, actually had modes that let them run at double the resolution (640x480), hence my posting of that shot in particular. That Nemesis shot looks like a PSone game, to me, possibly doubled in res, but the geometry and textures look the same.
N64 bigest advantage over PS1 was perspective correction. Yes n64 had bilinear filtering, but at such a low resolution it just made things worse in my opinion. All n64 games were blurry mess in my eyes. Another reasons why n64 graphic look like that is because textures were made to look great as PIXEL ART.
PS1 was better used thanks to huge support from developers. On end N64 did not have anything that beats Gran Turismo 2, Tekken 3 or Sould Blade, Crash Bandicoot 3, Soul Reaver, Wipeout XL/3 and so much more it is not even funny. Also PS1 had amazing sound, and thanks to use of CDs more music and FMW. 2
Anyways, am not trying to convince anyone. Fanboys will stay fanboys.
To answer OP, N64 was indeed more powerfull but in same time it badly crippled by cartridges.
PS1 was better used thanks to huge support from developers. On end N64 did not have anything that beats Gran Turismo 2, Tekken 3 or Sould Blade, Crash Bandicoot 3, Soul Reaver, Wipeout XL/3 and so much more it is not even funny. Also PS1 had amazing sound, and thanks to use of CDs more music and FMW. 2
Anyways, am not trying to convince anyone. Fanboys will stay fanboys.
To answer OP, N64 was indeed more powerfull but in same time it badly crippled by cartridges.
Wipeout 3 and maaaybe XL, but I could be wrong. A few other PSone games did it too.
The PS1 didn't have mipmapping or bilinear filtering, but the texture warp/jiggle was caused by its lack of a proper perspective divide (it only did affine texture mapping.) This is the same reason Ultima Underworld looks different from Quake et al; Quake does a perspective divide every 16 texels which pretty much eliminates visible warp.
Wipeout 3 definitely doesn't run in high resolution (it's 320x240) unless there is some extra mode you can turn on.
