• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

I hated PS1 visuals

Dithering is the uglilest graphical effect of all time, particularly at 320 x 224. Most people didn't seem to notice it however.
 
Saturn used quads IIRC to it didn't have as much problems with textures swimming etc.

Depends. I think Tobal 2 obliterates both.

A beat em up? To each his own and all but they don't exactly have the most detailed environments.
 
The PS1 version looks hideous next to the N64 version

Yeah it does, I remember giggling like a little kid at the increasing counter on the ship prisoners for the N64 version and years later when i wanted to relive those memories I bought the PS1 version off PSN and I was just baffled because it looked worse than even the power nostalgia goggles have.

The PS1 is woefully underpowered compared to the n64. At least it sold 100 million though!
 
I think it's quite amazing what they acomplished with the system. Chrono Cross
Crash3, RE3, DinoCrisis, brave fencer musashi, all games that looked amazing for their era of existence.

Now the HD aspect of the games kind of makes everything sterile, with a few exceptions... (waiting for rhyme, that looked unique and beautiful)...
 
Absolutely nothing on the PS1 compares to Mario or Banjo visually

Mario? Really?

The Banjo games looked great, but I thought the Crash and Spyro games looked better than Mario 64. In Crash's case it's not really a fair comparison, since it takes advantage of having linear closed-in levels.

It's been a long time since I've played MK64, but I seem to recall CTR being more impressive. Could be wrong, though.
 
It was worse at 2d. What are you talking about?

Symphony of the Night has aged decently. Some things I'll admit aren't that good, but for a game that size, I'd say it looks pretty good

Yeah it does, I remember giggling like a little kid at the increasing counter on the ship prisoners for the N64 version and years later when i wanted to relive those memories I bought the PS1 version off PSN and I was just baffled because it looked worse than even the power nostalgia goggles have.

The PS1 is woefully underpowered compared to the n64. At least it sold 100 million though!

PS2 was also less powerful than the GC, I'd say Sony knew how to sell their stuff
 
The only reason PS1 games are held back is because of the awful Polygon warping that happened in most games. If you could scale those polygons up and keep them from warping, PS1 games would be wonderful nowadays.
 
Fighting games can't really be compared to other types of games.

I'm actually inclined to agree. Tekken Tag was a launch PS2 game.
tekken-tag-tournament.1143367.jpg

OT, Tekken 3 on PS1
 
Yeah I did, I just hated block/shimmery/jittery textures. It was torture for my eyeballs. I remember thinking Id rather play SNES games after looking at the first PS1 titles.

I ended up playing a few of the major PS1 titles on my PS2, so I didn't miss out on much. I hated tank controls and JRPGs, so there was only a handful of titles I had to check out.
Yeah, I felt that way about a lot of the games and preferred the N64 visuals for the most part. PSX though at least had some very nice 2d titles, and some companies were able to handle the tech better than others. I remember some of the 3d fighters looking really nice, and I thought those which used pre-rendered backgrounds looked good too. Those cds though gave the system some serious advantages in the sound dept and they could do some cool things with fmv and cg. The lack of rpgs on N64 was pretty upsetting as a teen who'd fallen in love with the genre.
 
Back then I kind of thought they were ugly but these days there's a retro-nostalgic charm about low-res, low-poly characters and unfiltered textures.

Fortunately, unlike N64, there are a respectable number of 2D games (same with Saturn). These are the games that have held up over the years.

There are certain titles which still managed to appear somewhat nice even in 3D, however.

Tobal 2 springs to mind with its higher resolution and use of gourad shaded rather than fully textured characters.

1897430-tobal2_h1.png

Dat Tobal 2.

iOk2FUYDwfD1t.gif
iy5gcnX8Frl0R.gif
FrWpfj8.gif


These are some gifs I made a while ago, too bad making proper 50/60fps gifs is such a pain. The cleanest looking 3D game of its generation, still looks good today. This thing was ahead of its time in pretty much every aspect.
 
Jeez, imagine what people will say in 20 years.

"Am I the only one who just can't stand 1080p?! It was such trash."

Seriously, for the late 90's, that shit was awesome.
 
That whole era of 3D console gaming was just awful. Visual-wise, I mean. There were some highlights, but generally, almost everything has aged pretty poorly.
 
of course mario games looked good, they always do (drawn cartoons are easier to make great) and some (by)Rare games were good too but I'd like to see some comparisons of

metal gear solid 2
gran turismo 2
tekken 3
chrono cross
driver
soul reaver
mega man x4
Castlevania SON
FF tactics
FF IX
Front mission 3

against the same games or their equivalent on N64 just to see what the apples for apples was like.... the mortal kombat example was interesting though.
 
I love the PS1 visuals to this day. Sure there are games that haven't aged well, but that goes for every system. The shading and light sourcing the system used wasn't photo-realistic but I feel is more akin to a diorama. Almost every scene in MGS looks like an awesome action figure playset. And I heart it. So. Much.
 
The PS1 never had proper z-buffer implementation, which is reponsible for the depth rendering. Obivously this is quite problematic when you have three dimensions. This resulted in pretty much every 3D object jittering around because the calculations were off.
 
There's nothing wrong with hating the ps1 graphics.

it was what we lived with at the time, and there's some charm to them now if you are that kind of retro person.
 
When up close, I agree. Those faces still haunt me.
6877-468x-Metal%20Gear%20Solid%20-%20Snake%20and%20Meryl.JPG

Metal Gear Solid looks great and is a great game to study in regards to getting the most out of what a hardware give you. MGS4 has been the only misstep made by Kojima's team and that was because they thought the PS3 was more powerful than what they got.
 
I personally thought the jittery pixelated PSX graphics made horror games more creepy. You have this black fog like 20 feet in front of you, you hear footsteps coming at you, and suddenly this pixelated catastrophe emerges. Tomb Raider's Atlantis level is a fine example. There were so many games back in that era where I was too afraid to go around the corner because I didn't know what was there. Haven't had that feeling in a while
 
I wonder how N64 games would have looked if it had a CD drive. Weren't the blurry textures due to stretching out small textures in order to fit all the data onto a cart? Was there any hardware issues that would have prevented better textures if they had CD?

It had something godawful like a 4KB texture cache, so unless you used some serious tricks, that's all the space you had for the textures that were to be used in the current frame. Even the fact that the games were on carts was minor overall compared to that texture cache, and that's why so many games had stretched out, blurry textures (the lack of storage space on carts didn't help either, but it was definitely made worse by the texture cache).
 
I remember when the PS1 seemed like a fucking beast, and it was compared to my Mega Drive.

Back in 1997 FFVII was widely regarded at being one of the most spectacular looking games ever released on any format, particularly due to the FMVs and Summon sequences. No one noticed the low polygon characters.

As a PS1 owner I remember initially being shocked with how crap and empty Mario 64 looked after all the hype I had heard about the game and how much more powerful the N64 was supposed to be. Games such as Spyro 3 and Crash 3 looked better to me at the time.

In fact I thought the same about Super Mario World too, I was shocked with how basic it looked when I eventually got to play it after years of playing games such as Sonic 2, Aladdin and Dynamite Headdy on the Mega Drive.
 
It had something godawful like a 4KB texture cache, so unless you used some serious tricks, that's all the space you had for the textures that were to be used in the current frame. Even the fact that the games were on carts was minor overall compared to that texture cache, and that's why so many games had stretched out, blurry textures (the lack of storage space on carts didn't help either, but it was definitely made worse by the texture cache).

Yeah, the texture cache really hurt the N64. With a bigger cache it could have really blown the other systems out of the water, especially since it would have allowed more games to use full mipmapping with trilinear filtering(something even Dreamcast and PS2 couldn't really do properly).
 
The PS1's lack of both perspective correct texture mapping and sub pixel polygon accuracy made the games on the console really fucking ugly, only a few games (e.g Crash and Spyro) look close to bearable.
 
Yeah, the texture cache really hurt the N64. With a bigger cache it could have really blown the other systems out of the water, especially since it would have allowed more games to use full mipmapping with trilinear filtering(something even Dreamcast and PS2 couldn't really do properly).

Exactly so. Even a 64 KB cache would have been really helpful, and I'm surprised by the graphics quality that Rare and Nintendo managed to pull off even within the limitations. Even with the cart limitation, a larger texture cache would have drastically reduced or eliminated one of my two major problems with the system (the other, the terrible frame rates, was going to be an issue no matter what).

Both systems were pretty damn good for the time, having coming from consoles that supported 2D graphics with 2-4MB of total storage space. I can't play either system anymore unless they're in an emulator, though - both of them are just far too hard on the eyes.
 
Don't understand this thread,

you are bashing a PSX a 20 year old console for having shitty graphics??

Back then it was the best on the market, and I am pretty sure most of you thought the same way when it was in its prime.

I have tons of fond memories of a new game coming out and me drooling over the graphics.

2 years later the N64 came out, with Goldeneye,,, does NOT hold up very well,, but back then was the best evar.
 
3D games on that era were ugly in you think on how clean looked 2d games in comparision. This is from an art perspective.

The thing was, that that sacrifice was worthy for all the new experiences that opened 3d.

In that sense, even though 2d games look more beautiful on psx or saturn, the 3d ones gave you something new.

Now, this must be something from consoles only, since almost the model 2 games look awesome to me even in this day. Virtua Fighter 2 is impressive
 
Don't understand this thread,

you are bashing a PSX a 20 year old console for having shitty graphics??

Back then it was the best on the market, and I am pretty sure most of you thought the same way when it was in its prime.

I have tons of fond memories of a new game coming out and me drooling over the graphics.

2 years later the N64 came out, with Goldeneye,,, does NOT hold up very well,, but back then was the best evar.

I'm saying that even at the time I hated the PS1 visuals. 3D was cool on paper but PS1's 3D games looked like shit to me, even at the time.
 
Model 2 was king and still holds up great.

PSX still looks pretty good on a standard definition CRT.



What's wrong with the single-player? That honestly seems like the main reason I'd want to play it.

if I remeber correctly, it was boring and perhaps just way too hard. It was some sort of bare bones rpgish type thing. it was a long time ago. It seems peopel liked it, but I couldnt get very far in it iirc, maybe because it was in Japanese. It was defintly a cool idea though.
 
Top Bottom