Support NeoGAF

[Arthas]

Why am I bringing this up?

Well, I just browsed over this in wikipedia:

Indiana Jones and the Infernal Machine N64 port:
A limited release of this game was made for the Nintendo 64 system in 2000, and the game was only available to purchase directly through LucasArts (the Nintendo 64 version was not available for sale to the mass market). The Nintendo 64 version featured better graphics and player controls than the PC version, with the controls based on the configurations of the Nintendo 64 controller.

1996----->2000 the n64 had kept up with PC graphics. It had some serious limitations, but the last few games truly squeezed every ounce out of the hardware, to the point where it could still compete with the ever changing pc hardware 4 years later.

For 1996 it truly was years beyond it's time. Up until 1998 what pc games could (aside from resolution-wise) really pull ahead of the n64? It had the first programmable gpu, allowing for effects in hardware the video cards of the pc's couldn't even do until the geforce 256 showed up. I remember the vertex shader metal effect in mario 64 back in 1996, that was something to behold.

Now the dreamcast also saw release in 1999 (only in japan in that year) however it was graphically obliterated very quickly. The n64's hardware stayed relevant right up until the first truly programmable pc video cards years later, because up until then only the n64 could do some of the exclusive special effects.

Nowadays, a console is graphically out of the pc's league 1 year after release. Could this be due to the advent of pc graphics cards, which are constantly improved?

I understand that from 1996-2000 pc hardware gpu's were just starting to become mainstream. I remember running half-life in software back in 1998.

Anyway, shame about the n64's cartridge space limitations. It never saw it's potential. It was an unbalanced system.

Now that my rant is over, do you have any other examples of mainstream consoles YEARS beyond their time? I know the dreamcast was, but not for long, at least not as long as the n64, which is why I focused on it first.

Now those $1000-$2000 home arcade monstrosities of the early 1990's don't really count because they could never have hoped to hit the mainstream, and accordingly never did due to their price.

 

[Wollan]

Low framerates and a blurry image is a trademark of the console imo.

 

[MikeHaggar]

if nintendo would have packed more ram into the n64 (the 4mb expansion pack was built-in for instance) and allowed developers to unlock the 'super' mode (which allowed the n64 to push approx. the same number of polys as the psx), there's a good chance things would've turned out differently for them that gen...

 

[Arthas]

Low framerates and a blurry image is a trademark of the console imo.

Blurriness due to cartridge space limitations thus low-res textures, nothing to do with the hardware, but everything to do with the medium game was delivered on.

Rare/factor 5 etc solved this problem. Conker has excellent textures. Thus only another example of failed potential.

Low framerates were a different issue, resulting from rares absolute pushing of the system. Perfect dark/goldeneye had some of the most gemoetrically complex games at the time, hence the low framerates. Mario 64 and conker along wtih banjo ran smoothly. (not banjo tooie however).

 

[drohne]

uh, the 3dfx voodoo 1 came out in '96, and it put pc games well past n64

by '97 we were playing quake 2 on voodoo 2s

 

[Arthas]

if nintendo would have packed more ram into the n64 (the 4mb expansion pack was built-in for instance) and allowed developers to unlock the 'super' mode (which allowed the n64 to push approx. the same number of polys as the psx), there's a good chance things would've turned out differently for them that gen...

I think the cartridges advantages were far outweighed by their principal disadvantage-space, thus imho it was the cartridge that killed the n64.

 

[camineet]

uh, the 3dfx voodoo 1 came out in '96, and it was considerably more powerful than n64

True, and the 3DO M2 (also completed and shown in '96) was somewhat more powerful than both N64 and Voodoo Graphics, even though M2 never came out in console form.

M2's BDA (Bulldog ASIC) > N64's RCP (Reality CoProcessor)

IMSA Racing @ 30fps with trilinear filtering

M2's 'Zelda Killer' Power Crystal @ 60fps (Zelda OoT was ~20fps)

 

[carlosp]

 

[Arthas]

uh, the 3dfx voodoo 1 came out in '96, and it was considerably more powerful than n64

But it was not programmable, thus couldn't do any of the hardware based graphical effects the n64 did. THe additional stuff could not be emulated in cpu's either since they were too slow at the time, so the n64 could still produce fancier graphics stemming from these effects.

 

[polyh3dron]

Joke Thread?

 

[Arthas]

Joke Thread?

No, lets weed out the ignorant morons thread.

 

[Shogmaster]

Blurriness due to cartridge space limitations thus low-res textures, nothing to do with the hardware, but everything to do with the medium game was delivered on.

Rare/factor 5 etc solved this problem. Conker has excellent textures. Thus only another example of failed potential.

Low framerates were a different issue, resulting from rares absolute pushing of the system. Perfect dark/goldeneye had some of the most gemoetrically complex games at the time, hence the low framerates. Mario 64 and conker along wtih banjo ran smoothly. (not banjo tooie however).

N64 was a shame perpetrated by SGI on Nintendo. TRILINEARMIPMAPINTERPOLATION!! OMG! STFU and get me some Dramamine®.

 

[camineet]

"[Nintendo Ultra 64] 1994? Silicon Graphics Tech Demos"
http://youtube.com/watch?v=eKlbx5niBu8

 

[Chris R]

how far into the game is that? I never got past the rings of doom :lol

 

[Arthas]

Heres another commendable effort:

World Driver Championship is an automobile racing video game. It was developed by Boss Game Studios and published for the Nintendo 64 by Midway Games.

One of the last racing simulations to be released for Nintendo 64, this graphically intensive title used custom microcode optimization and high polygon count modelling. The development team was able to optimize the usage of the various processors within the N64 to allow far draw distance (reducing the need for fog or pop-up), high detail texturing and models, MP3 music, Doppler effect audio, and advanced lighting and fog effects for realistic weather conditions. Impressively the game has a high resolution 640x480 mode that does not require the add-on N64 RAM Expansion Pak. Additionally, unlike many other games of its type on the platform, the game runs high resolution at a sufficiently playable pace, undoubtedly due to the use of a reduced screen area letterbox mode that lessens the number of pixels needing to be displayed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzrUfImsBV0 (youtube video doesn't run at full fps due to crappy webcam)

 

[Bildi]

The cartridge was obviously a mistake, but damn the lack of loadtimes was nice.

I think we're stuck with loadtimes until we figure something out other than optical media. Because access and read times might jump, but so will the amount of data that has to be read. Which kinda sucks.

 

[camineet]

The cartridge was obviously a mistake, but damn the lack of loadtimes was nice.

I think we're stuck with loadtimes until we figure something out other than optical media. Because access and read times might jump, but so will the amount of data that has to be read. Which kinda sucks.

I agree 1000000000000000000000%

 

[SpokkX]

Actually this isn´t true. The n64 wasn´t that powerful to begin with

The N64 could actually display less polygons than the PSX. The only real advantage it had was better textures filters etc.

Also as early as 97-98 it was possible to emulate N64 in full speed on a PC (P2400) running voodoo2. Don´t remember the name of the emulator, only that Nintendo managed to shut it down

 

[Arthas]

http://www.videogamecritic.net/images/n64/superman.jpg

PS1's mario64 killer:

:lol

 

[Z3F]

3DFX had good 3d graphics. N64 had shitty 3d graphics. PSX had shittier 3d graphics. Saturn had shittiest 3d graphics. End of story.

 

[nightez]

if nintendo would have packed more ram into the n64 (the 4mb expansion pack was built-in for instance) and allowed developers to unlock the 'super' mode (which allowed the n64 to push approx. the same number of polys as the psx), there's a good chance things would've turned out differently for them that gen...

It could already push twice the number of polys (600,000/sec) as the PSX.

 

[Arthas]

Actually this isn´t true. The n64 wasn´t that powerful to begin with

The N64 could actually display less polygons than the PSX. The only real advantage it had was better textures filters etc.

Also as early as 97-98 it was possible to emulate N64 in full speed on a PC (P2400) running voodoo2. Don´t remember the name of the emulator, only that Nintendo managed to shut it down

Figures on paper does not equal reality. There is no ps1 game in real time that looks better than the best looking n64 game.

 

[FightyF]

Figures on paper does not equal reality. There is no ps1 game in real time that looks better than the best looking n64 game.

Ridge Racer...ONE

 

[Sinatar]

The correct answer is of course the PC. An ever evolving platform that always stomps whatever consoles are kicking around into the dust usually within a year of any consoles release.

N64 time period PC graphics:

 

[stilgar]

No loading time, a very good resolution with ram pak...a loved my n64 especially on its later days, paradoxically.

 

[Undubbed]

To be honest it's really the textures that made N64 titles look better than PSX titles. If the PSX had the same smoothed out textures that N64 had than I'd think they'd be equal in graphical looks. Unfortunetly the PSX had extremely pixelated textures, but N64 had a crap load of games that are blocky as hell.

 

[Wollan]

Figures on paper does not equal reality. There is no ps1 game in real time that looks better than the best looking n64 game.

MGS, Gran Turismo, Vagrant Story, Final Fantasy..etc.
I would say these games had a clearly better audiovisual punch than anything on the N64.

 

[duk]

m2 was better

 

[Arthas]

To be honest it's really the textures that made N64 titles look better than PSX titles. If the PSX had the same smoothed out textures that N64 had than I'd think they'd be equal in graphical looks. Unfortunetly the PSX had extremely pixelated textures, but N64 had a crap load of games that are blocky as hell.

The n64 had hardware Anti-aliasing, the ps1 didn't.

 

[Arthas]

The correct answer is of course the PC. An ever evolving platform that always stomps whatever consoles are kicking around into the dust usually within a year of any consoles release.

N64 time period PC graphics:

All I'm seeing there is good texturing and good resolution, anything else the n64 could do, plus more in terms of hardware effects. It did better lighting than that in DK64. Also, it could do reflective texturing like were seeing in that scene.

 

[Bildi]

To be honest it's really the textures that made N64 titles look better than PSX titles. If the PSX had the same smoothed out textures that N64 had than I'd think they'd be equal in graphical looks. Unfortunetly the PSX had extremely pixelated textures, but N64 had a crap load of games that are blocky as hell.

I agree, the PSX was only really different in the pixellated textures and the way textures or walls or whatever 'jumped' back and forth (no idea what the term for this is or why it happened - I'd be interested if a techy person can explain what the phenomenon is though).

 

[Liabe Brave]

The Nintendo 64 version featured better graphics and player controls than the PC version, with the controls based on the configurations of the Nintendo 64 controller.

Take what wikipedia says with much salt, since articles are usually written by enthusiasts. Personally, I don't think that this:

N64 version

Looks better than this:

PC version

 

[camineet]

It could already push twice the number of polys (600,000/sec) as the PSX.

realworld polygon figures were more like:

PS1: 180,000/sec texture mapped, lit, gouraud shaded
N64: 160,000/sec with more effects than PS1

PS1 games tended to have smoother framerates, N64 games had smoother surfaces.

framerate wins.

 

[ZealousD]

1996----->2000 the n64 had kept up with PC graphics.

What? No!

Quake II, and then later Unreal both outstripped the N64 by comfortable margins. UT put the nail in the coffin in 1999.

All I'm seeing there is good texturing and good resolution, anything else the n64 could do

Did you just completely write off resolution and texturing? You're silly.

 

[nightez]

3DFX had good 3d graphics. N64 had shitty 3d graphics. PSX had shittier 3d graphics. Saturn had shittiest 3d graphics. End of story.

Voodoo came a full year after the N64. Even then N64 games were still competitive taking into account the low res and limited cartridge storage. I think WDC compares favourably to the Voodoo powered arcade game SF Rush.

 

[Arthas]

Take what wikipedia says with much salt, since articles are usually written by enthusiasts. Personally, I don't think that this:

N64 version

Looks better than this:

PC version

The screenshots are taken in different areas. The walls in the n64 version look gighly detailed. I"m not seeing any huge discrepancies, minus the resolution obviously. Also you're not seeing the added dynamic lighting in the n64 due to still screenshot.

 

[Z3F]

To be honest it's really the textures that made N64 titles look better than PSX titles. If the PSX had the same smoothed out textures that N64 had than I'd think they'd be equal in graphical looks. Unfortunetly the PSX had extremely pixelated textures, but N64 had a crap load of games that are blocky as hell.

With the ram pack, there were a couple of N64 Star Wars games that came close to 3dfx quality. Of course, the framerates were lower than they were on a 3dfx videocard but the image quality of those titles were stunning for a console. There might have been a couple of non-Star Wars high res N64 games as well although I can't remember. Those late N64 games really blew away anything on the PSX or Saturn.

 

[A Black Falcon]

Why am I bringing this up?

Well, I just browsed over this in wikipedia:



1996----->2000 the n64 had kept up with PC graphics. It had some serious limitations, but the last few games truly squeezed every ounce out of the hardware, to the point where it could still compete with the ever changing pc hardware 4 years later.

For 1996 it truly was years beyond it's time. Up until 1998 what pc games could (aside from resolution-wise) really pull ahead of the n64? It had the first programmable gpu, allowing for effects in hardware the video cards of the pc's couldn't even do until the geforce 256 showed up. I remember the vertex shader metal effect in mario 64 back in 1996, that was something to behold.

Now the dreamcast also saw release in 1999 (only in japan in that year) however it was graphically obliterated very quickly. The n64's hardware stayed relevant right up until the first truly programmable pc video cards years later, because up until then only the n64 could do some of the exclusive special effects.

Nowadays, a console is graphically out of the pc's league 1 year after release. Could this be due to the advent of pc graphics cards, which are constantly improved?

I understand that from 1996-2000 pc hardware gpu's were just starting to become mainstream. I remember running half-life in software back in 1998.

Anyway, shame about the n64's cartridge space limitations. It never saw it's potential. It was an unbalanced system.

Now that my rant is over, do you have any other examples of mainstream consoles YEARS beyond their time? I know the dreamcast was, but not for long, at least not as long as the n64, which is why I focused on it first.

Now those $1000-$2000 home arcade monstrosities of the early 1990's don't really count because they could never have hoped to hit the mainstream, and accordingly never did due to their price.

Now, I love the N64, and in fact it's my favorite console, but this just isn't true. Play the N64 versions of Rogue Squadron, Battle for Naboo, Rayman 2, and Episode I Racer and then play the PC versions... the PC versions definitely look better.

I got my N64 in Sept. 1999. I'd gotten a Voodoo2 card in Nov. 1998, finally pulling myself out of S3 ViRGE horror (anyone who had one would know exactly what I mean... )... that PC (233Mhz) could do better graphics than my N64.

Now, N64 was unquestionably better than PSX or Saturn, but... no, it wasn't up to 1998-2000 PC standards. As for Indy, that was better because the port was done by Factor 5, who did an incredible job, but the original game had been by an internal Lucasarts team who wasn't as good... the PC version of course can do higher resolutions, but other than that it is true that the N64 version is better. But that's more an exception than a rule...

Now, the N64 versions of those four games I mentioned don't look dramatically better than the PC versions, really. The main differences are CD audio, higher texture resolutions (sometimes), and higher resolution support (this is the biggest graphical difference, and is very noticable). I've got Rogue Squadron for both platforms for instance, and it definitely looks better on PC... it looks fantastic on N64, but even better on PC.

Ridge Racer...ONE

Yeah... right. :lol

 

[FightyF]

All I'm seeing there is good texturing and good resolution, anything else the n64 could do, plus more in terms of hardware effects. It did better lighting than that in DK64. Also, it could do reflective texturing like were seeing in that scene.

I don't think it could have done that sort of polycount and particles (I think the reflection is geometry itself).

Those Indy shots show a lower texture res on the N64, lower polycount, and lower screen resolution.

 

[FightyF]

Double double your refreshment...

 

[Arthas]

Now, I love the N64, and in fact it's my favorite console, but this just isn't true. Play the N64 versions of Rogue Squadron, Battle for Naboo, Rayman 2, and Episode I Racer and then play the PC versions... the PC versions definitely look better.

I got my N64 in Sept. 1999. I'd gotten a Voodoo2 card in Nov. 1998, finally pulling myself out of S3 ViRGE horror (anyone who had one would know exactly what I mean... )... that PC (233Mhz) could do better graphics than my N64.

Now, N64 was unquestionably better than PSX or Saturn, but... no, it wasn't up to 1998-2000 PC standards. As for Indy, that was better because the port was done by Factor 5, who did an incredible job, but the original game had been by an internal Lucasarts team who wasn't as good... the PC version of course can do higher resolutions, but other than that it is true that the N64 version is better. But that's more an exception than a rule...

Now, the N64 versions of those four games I mentioned don't look dramatically better than the PC versions, really. The main differences are CD audio, higher texture resolutions (sometimes), and higher resolution support (this is the biggest graphical difference, and is very noticable). I've got Rogue Squadron for both platforms for instance, and it definitely looks better on PC... it looks fantastic on N64, but even better on PC.



Yeah... right. :lol

Ok I agree with every you say but one point, which was the centre of my claim.

Up until the dreamcast and the 1999 gpu's started to appear, the n64 could do things in hardware the pc's and other consoles could not.

Here is an example of such a (relatively simple by todays standards) effect, realized back in 1996:

Now I know pc's were more 'powerful', but when it came to advanced graphical 'tricks', the n64 was ahead for years, owing to one thing, it's programmable gpu.

 

[Arthas]

I don't think it could have done that sort of polycount and particles (I think the reflection is geometry itself).

Those Indy shots show a lower texture res on the N64, lower polycount, and lower screen resolution.

But you're not seeing the instant load times, the better lighting and a few other bells and whistles a screenshot doesn't show.

However the environments are very different I'm not too sure of the textures, judging by the walls in the n64 version, the textures are ace. Find the same environment and then do a side by side.

 

[herod]

Blurriness due to cartridge space limitations thus low-res textures, nothing to do with the hardware, but everything to do with the medium game was delivered on.

Guess you never saw a PAL unit

 

[camineet]

N64 had been surpassed on PC around the time of release. Voodoo Graphics came out mid 1996, PowerVR PCX-1 late 1996, both chips were more powerful than N64 in nearly every way. You didn't need Voodoo2 from 1998 to beat N64.

 

[Arthas]

Guess you never saw a PAL unit

I own one. The frame rate suffers for obvious reasons, courtesy of PAL.

 

[Liabe Brave]

The screenshots are taken in different areas. The walls in the n64 version look just as well textured. I'm not seeing any huge discrepancies, minus the resolution obviously. Also you're not seeing the added dynamic lighting in the n64 due to still screenshot.

So in other words, N64 is a graphical BEAST because you don't think resolution or textures or AA counts, and even if they did there's really no difference, and even if there is a difference it's because N64's true specialty isn't shown.

Look, Nintendo made a pretty darn good machine, especially given the cost, but you can claim almost any console was a graphics powerhouse with this sort of special pleading.

However the environments are very different I'm not too sure of the textures, judging by the walls in the n64 version, the textures are ace. Find the same environment and then do a side by side.

These were the closest I could come up with. I would think the burden of proof for this very extraordinary claim--that a home console was more powerful than PCs made years later--would be on you, actually.

 

[Arthas]

N64 had been surpassed on PC around the time of release. Voodoo Graphics came out mid 1996, PowerVR PCX-1 late 1996, both chips were more powerful than N64 in nearly every way. You didn't need Voodoo2 from 1998 to beat N64.

More powerful yes, but not programmable. Thus why you never saw the metal mario effect in a pc game of that time. The n64 gpu was more flexible, allowing for effects that pc video cards simply couldn't pull off at the time.

Of course they were more powerful.

 

[PolyGone]

M2's 'Zelda Killer' Power Crystal @ 60fps (Zelda OoT was ~20fps)

I wish we had gotten Power Crystal instead of Zelda OoT

:lol

 

[herod]

I own one. The frame rate suffers for obvious reasons, courtesy of PAL.

PAL video output was blurry as hell.

 

[A Black Falcon]

Ok I agree with every you say but one point, which was the centre of my claim.

Up until the dreamcast and the 1999 gpu's started to appear, the n64 could do things in hardware the pc's and other consoles could not.

Here is an example of such a (relatively simple by todays standards) effect, realized back in 1996:

Now I know pc's were more 'powerful', but when it came to advanced graphical 'tricks', the n64 was ahead for years, owing to one thing, it's programmable gpu.

1996-1998, yeah, probably N64 was ahead of PC in most ways. But from the release of the Voodoo2 on? Then the PC passed the N64. N64 probably had more built-in hardware effects, but even so, the Voodoo2 could definitely do better graphics than N64 could, overall...

The N64 could actually display less polygons than the PSX. The only real advantage it had was better textures filters etc.

I think this might be true, but I'm not sure. Of course, the N64 had a bunch of hardware features that the N64 didn't like filtering, which made a huge, huge difference, and negated the 'advantage'. And I'm sure that the best N64 games push more polys than anything on the PSX... but getting that kind of performance out of the N64 was pretty hard, so most games don't manage to get even close to maxing out the hardware.

I think the PSX does have the higher theoretical polygon pushing power, though... but try to make them look nice, and you cut that number down massively... and those polys, even if there are a few more of them, will never look as good as N64 polygons thanks to the lack of filtering and all that polygon waving that comes from not having a Z-Buffer, etc...

Blurriness due to cartridge space limitations thus low-res textures, nothing to do with the hardware, but everything to do with the medium game was delivered on.

Rare/factor 5 etc solved this problem. Conker has excellent textures. Thus only another example of failed potential.

Low framerates were a different issue, resulting from rares absolute pushing of the system. Perfect dark/goldeneye had some of the most gemoetrically complex games at the time, hence the low framerates. Mario 64 and conker along wtih banjo ran smoothly. (not banjo tooie however).

Acclaim had the same problem with focusing heavily on graphics over framerate. Extreme-G 2, Turok 2... bad framerates, but absolutely beautiful games... but yeah, Conker did have some of the best textures on the system. Too bad the framerate was so low... (why couldn't they have supported the expansion pack in Conker and B-T to help with framerates?) XG2... that had a PC version too, and I have it (Turok 2 was also on PC, but I haven't played that version). It's similar to the Lucasarts N64/PC titles in results, kind of, though there, graphically it's identical on the two platforms on all regards except for resolution. The main differences are that that the PC version has no multiplayer, but has a much better quality (and awesome) CD audio soundtrack that far outpaces the N64 version's cart music. The graphical difference is bigger in Racer or Rogue Squadron, I think, but XG2 has a bigger audio difference... Lucasarts and Factor 5 did amazing work at getting good music and lots of speech out of the N64. Only a few other studios, like Rare, could match them...

On that note, carts... technically, they were absolutely the right choice. I like carts, and think that Nintendo did the right thing... no load times is great. However, the cart decision was probably the key decision that lost them the console war that gen, particularly in Japan where it caused all the RPG developers, and then all the gamers, to go to Sony, but even so... I think the cart decision was a good one.