-
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.
The N64 was a graphical BEAST, any other graphical beasts throughout console history?
- Thread starter Arthas
- Start date
- Status
QFTsegasonic said:
and I'm huge defender of nintendo tech. PSX still did better in some areas both effects and overall polys than n64 so it wasn't a beast there. Neither of the console let alone a saturn card could take on any of the glide games in quality so lay off the pipe. By 98 pc's had clearly taken off on consoles and pretty much have since with a few blip of console games here and there doing better than the pc in between it's cycles of gpu generations.
Nuclear Muffin
Banned
WTF how can people say that the PS1 had better graphics than the N64, are you all totally blind or something?!
N64 destroyed the PS1, no contest!
Late PS1 games
Final Fantasy IX (Single digits framerate might I add)
Non bullshot image (These are hard to come by in decent quality and I know it's not the most flattering shot but it's the best I could find)
Bullshot emulated image
BTW the background is prerendered as a texture in a box, it is not modelled.
Metal Gear Solid (Solid 30FPS)
Non Bullshot
Can't find a bullshot!
Chrono Cross (Relatively solid 30FPS)
Non Bullshots
Now let's compare them to the N64!
Early N64
Waverace 64 (Solid 24 FPS) Sorry for the small size, non bullshots screens are almost impossible to find!
Bullshots
Mid N64
Banjo Kazooie (Solid 30FPS)
Non Bullshot
Bullshot (Not a very good one though, but it shows off it's superior texturing quite well)
Late N64 Conker's Bad Fur day (Relatively solid 30FPS)
Can't find any bullshots but here's a video of the best looking part of the game (Check out the lighting, PS1 could never hope to do this!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMNOCY5DJxY&feature=related
Oh and not to mention that all the good looking PS1 games are very limited in terms of environment size whereas N64 games have much much larger environments with much more going on.
So a big FUCK YOU to anyone who is stupid enough to say the PS1 had better graphics than N64!
Oh and if anyone could show me a game that looked better than CBFD on PC before 2001 I would be much obliged!
N64 destroyed the PS1, no contest!
Late PS1 games
Final Fantasy IX (Single digits framerate might I add)
Non bullshot image (These are hard to come by in decent quality and I know it's not the most flattering shot but it's the best I could find)
Bullshot emulated image
BTW the background is prerendered as a texture in a box, it is not modelled.
Metal Gear Solid (Solid 30FPS)
Non Bullshot
Can't find a bullshot!
Chrono Cross (Relatively solid 30FPS)
Non Bullshots
Now let's compare them to the N64!
Early N64
Waverace 64 (Solid 24 FPS) Sorry for the small size, non bullshots screens are almost impossible to find!
Bullshots
Mid N64
Banjo Kazooie (Solid 30FPS)
Non Bullshot
Bullshot (Not a very good one though, but it shows off it's superior texturing quite well)
Late N64 Conker's Bad Fur day (Relatively solid 30FPS)
Can't find any bullshots but here's a video of the best looking part of the game (Check out the lighting, PS1 could never hope to do this!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMNOCY5DJxY&feature=related
Oh and not to mention that all the good looking PS1 games are very limited in terms of environment size whereas N64 games have much much larger environments with much more going on.
So a big FUCK YOU to anyone who is stupid enough to say the PS1 had better graphics than N64!
Oh and if anyone could show me a game that looked better than CBFD on PC before 2001 I would be much obliged!
TreasureHunterG
Banned
LOL at the N64 graphics bashers. They're assuming the OP said it could run PS2 like graphics :lol
[This is a reply to Nuclear Muffin]
So why are your PS shots blown up by a factor of 4 while your N64 shots remain at the original resolution.
FWIW I agree that N64 had an advantage over PS1 in terms of 3D rendering, but the cartridges made it more or less moot (depending on genre).
Both can't compare to PCs -- as it always was and always will be.
So why are your PS shots blown up by a factor of 4 while your N64 shots remain at the original resolution.
FWIW I agree that N64 had an advantage over PS1 in terms of 3D rendering, but the cartridges made it more or less moot (depending on genre).
Both can't compare to PCs -- as it always was and always will be.
Nuclear Muffin
Banned
Durante said:
Those are the only shots I could find and from personal experience the output quality of those games from the actual consoles on an SDTV (PS1 RGB and N64 Composite to make it even more unfair for N64!) is more or less the same as those screens.
Not to mention that PS1 games suffered from wobbly textures, the worst graphical shortcoming of the PS1 and one that doesn't show up in screens (Far worse than even the lack of texture filtering and one that still cannot be fixed through emulation, DS doesn't suffer from this BTW so it should age very gracefully through emulation like the N64
)BTW sorry for getting so worked up, I keep seeing people make stupid claims like this and it just pisses me off to keep seeing it over and over again!
D.Lo
Member
I remember the argument being all about the price - a PC could beat out an N64 in 1998, but it would cost you $1000 minimum. Goldeneye looked a lot better then Half-Life running on software, but throw two Voodoo 2 cards and more RAM in and it obviously looked far better.
I actually thought N64 games looked worse as the system went along, as devs pushed it too hard resulting in higher polys but lower framerates. Rogue Squadron, Sin and Punishment and Rayman 2 were the exceptions, because they played to the system's strengths well.
But lol at anyone claiming PS1 games looked better then the N64s best. There were a lot of bad looking N64 games, and probably only 15 or so that truly looked amazing, and there were some artistically great PS1 games too. But Goldeneye, Turok 2, Banjo, Zeldas, Rayman 2, 1080, Wave Race - these games slaughtered anything on the PS1 graphically.
The Gran Turrismo was lauded for 'amazing' graphics, and it did have decent track and car modeling and the flashy fake reflection effect. But it ran in stupidly low resolution, at a poor framerate, had terrible texture integrity and the whole game was a collection of texture seams.
I actually thought N64 games looked worse as the system went along, as devs pushed it too hard resulting in higher polys but lower framerates. Rogue Squadron, Sin and Punishment and Rayman 2 were the exceptions, because they played to the system's strengths well.
But lol at anyone claiming PS1 games looked better then the N64s best. There were a lot of bad looking N64 games, and probably only 15 or so that truly looked amazing, and there were some artistically great PS1 games too. But Goldeneye, Turok 2, Banjo, Zeldas, Rayman 2, 1080, Wave Race - these games slaughtered anything on the PS1 graphically.
The Gran Turrismo was lauded for 'amazing' graphics, and it did have decent track and car modeling and the flashy fake reflection effect. But it ran in stupidly low resolution, at a poor framerate, had terrible texture integrity and the whole game was a collection of texture seams.
TheGuardian
Member
Arthas said:
Here you go:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-8awFyDlB8
Seriously, the N64 was a nice machine, but it was *not* better than a PC, get over it
Acclaim's studio's had some really awesome games in 99-2000 via the forge, turok, and vista engines.
Forsaken
Turok: Rage Wars
Shadowman
Great graphics, framerate, and solid audio.
Factor 5 of course had 2 great 99-2000 games as well.
Indiana Jones and Star Wars Naboo Fighter.
Angel Studios had the definitive release of
Resident Evil 2
Forsaken
Turok: Rage Wars
Shadowman
Great graphics, framerate, and solid audio.
Factor 5 of course had 2 great 99-2000 games as well.
Indiana Jones and Star Wars Naboo Fighter.
Angel Studios had the definitive release of
Resident Evil 2
TheDrowningMan
Member
N64 was CLEARLY more powerful overall. However, its image quality problems really did hinder it and some of the great looking games didn't shine as they should have done. I really like the fact that N64 games on the Virtual Console boast increased resolutions - It's just a shame they didn't perform in such a way on the original console.
BTW those Turok shots I posted are original shots of the game no emulator bullshit. The game was a fantastic graphical showpiece and those shots truly don't even do the game justice as some of the levels looked even better. Iguana use to be the best at texture rendering back in 98.
Nuclear Muffin
Banned
Oh and here's a nice bullshotted image of Banjo Tooie, just because I love the game so much!
monkeylite
Member
Arthas said:
Doesn't matter. It still looks awful.
So you are just throwing numbers and technical jargon around much like Sony fanboys today throw around numbers to hype up the PS3? All those technical stuff won't matter if the graphics being output on the telly looks like shit - which the majority of N64 games were.
As for MGS, I took the screenshot from Wikipedia. I did play the PS1 version recently on my PSP. On the original setting, the game looks similar to the screenshots I posted, albeit at 320x240 resolution with some aliased. Still looks very nice.
But I have to agree with some here. As far as 3D performance, both PS1 and N64 weren't even close to PC.
TreasureHunterG
Banned
Shaheed79 said:
"The fuck I'm Lil Dice! Now, my fucking name is Lil Ze!"
You really have no idea what you're talking about, right? I realized that while my G400 could do FSAA, even the TNT2 that was released earlier could do it. I still have both cards lying around somewhere btw. But I see now that you're not at all interested in rational debate (not acknowledging the IQ impact of resolution over that of AA, especially at the low level we're talking about here, makes it obvious) so I'm out of here. Have fun!Arthas said:
But I still have to wonder: how is it possible to become so emotionally invested in a piece of hardware?
TheGuardian said:Here you go:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-8awFyDlB8
Seriously, the N64 was a nice machine, but it was *not* better than a PC, get over it
Ok, but you realise you've resorted to demoscene examples? These guys spend weeks perfecting their 5 minute presentation.
I've seen amazing demoscene things on commodore 64 hardware too, but never in playable games and always written in assembly code to take full advantage of the hardware. Not even close.
Not to mention the voodoo 2 on which this is running came out in 1998, and never utilized this technique in any games, because whatever the demoscene tricks this fellow pulled off, it simply wasn't feasible in a game.
I didn't mind the wobbly textures, the jaggies however were terrible.Nuclear Muffin said:Those are the only shots I could find and from personal experience the output quality of those games from the actual consoles on an SDTV (PS1 RGB and N64 Composite to make it even more unfair for N64!) is more or less the same as those screens.
Not to mention that PS1 games suffered from wobbly textures, the worst graphical shortcoming of the PS1 and one that doesn't show up in screens (Far worse than even the lack of texture filtering and one that still cannot be fixed through emulation, DS doesn't suffer from this BTW so it should age very gracefully through emulation like the N64
But then again, it's not like the blurry AA effect you saw in N64 games was a huge improvement. Like some else already mentioned, PSX still did better in some areas (like overall polys, amount of textures) and it could play those fantastic squaresoft FMV's.
Both were a distant second because PC graphics = EPIC WIN.
Well this thread seems to be only about fanboys fighting a ten year old war. Which is ridiculous because both ps1 and n64 games have aged horribly and both looked pretty bad 2 years after they were released compared to pc games. Console games always look inferior to pc games a certain time after they are released but it was especially bad in the ps1/n64 era due to the bad image quality of both the n64 and the ps1. It's really the only era of games which are hard to play know just because they look so shitty now.
I seriously don't give a shit if the N64 had some effects or shaders implemented that couldn't be replicated on PC (although I doubt that, probably had more to do with the priorities of the developers), Pc games through 98 looked so much better than anything else on consoles, it just doesn't matter if the N64 could do one or two novelty tricks.
I seriously don't give a shit if the N64 had some effects or shaders implemented that couldn't be replicated on PC (although I doubt that, probably had more to do with the priorities of the developers), Pc games through 98 looked so much better than anything else on consoles, it just doesn't matter if the N64 could do one or two novelty tricks.
monkeylite said:
Thats where I stopped reading, since it proved that you have never played n64 games on a telly, but have only judged them from messy screenshots on the internet.
As for the pc, of course the n64 wasn't even close, but in terms of specific gpu features and overall gpu flexibility, it was ahead in a few areas, such as antialiasing and environmental mapping and some other tricks. Ahead by years.
monkeylite
Member
Arthas said:
I have when I was in uni, though I don't own one. But I was too deep into PC gaming to care.
M°°nblade said:
1) The theoretical bullshit rate was never achieved, ps1 games in real-time always had fewer polys than n64 games.
2) Texture variety and quality is a game per game thing, no ps1 game has as many and as good textures as conkers bad fur day for example, or turok 2: seeds of evil.
3) As for full motion videos, resident evil 2 showed that it was possible on the n64. What's more, the graphics were even improved, thanks to the antialiasing and better texturing of the n64m but was rare due to expensive cartridges and their space limitation (space was only limited by cost).
TheGuardian
Member
Arthas said:
Well, you said a PC could not do that effect, I showed you it could. Simple as that. There were some games that used it, yes, just not in the "metal mario" way. On of those, which the name I can't recall right now, used it to simulate underwater caustics effects. And it was much less of a trick than the N64 implementation of your metal mario.
I used demoscene videos because, like I said, it isn't easy to find videos of pre-2000 PC games on youtube.
TreasureHunterG
Banned
Another great effort on N64 hardware:
jakershaker
Member
Arthas said:
Despite what tricks the N64 might have had the fact still remains that when playing the game it was a blocky blurry mess. Except for some Nintendo games the majority just looked like plain shit compared to other consoles and PC.
For me, if the game wasn't AAA I could never play it on the N64, I'd rather deal with pixelations then the blurriness of N64.
Mario64, Mariokart and some other somehow wasn't so badly affected by this due to their colorful graphics.
TreasureHunterG
Banned
segasonic said:
Fixed.
monkeylite
Member
Back in 96, it wasn't that spectacular as we just had a new family PC. Playing Tomb Raider on it was spectacular though.
But I was wowed more by the SNES before with its beautiful 2D sprite-based games.
But I was wowed more by the SNES before with its beautiful 2D sprite-based games.
Arthas said:
If he's referring to environment bump mapping that is some matrox introduced nintendo was just smart and had it built in to the n64 as well. segasonic various people mentioned 3dfx which both arcade and pc owned anything in console land. Arthas you tryin got argue this point is retarded. There was a not a single fucking title on SF rush level arcade in console level ever this thread is done.
Yes n64 had great looking games some of the best for the time possible yes, the best no.
Prime crotch
Banned
Never liked the N64's graphics, blurry textures just didn't do much to me, even Zelda was blurry as hell and the pre-rendered backgrounds were awful. I remember when Quake came out for both the N64 and Saturn, talk about blurry mess.
MGS1 still looks great to this day. Rock solide frame-rate beatiful graphics and art direction.
MGS1 still looks great to this day. Rock solide frame-rate beatiful graphics and art direction.
Arthas said:
Let me rephrase.
On paper, the N64 was indeed able to show better graphics than the PS1. Late 1998/1999, this was proven by some clever N64 devs used tricks to play FMV's, improve geometry or show detailed textures (Conker = heavily-clamped small texture pieces) but most devs didn't have the time to get around the major flaws of the N64 system like fillrate, limited texture cache, storage capacity, etc...
That's why on average, most PS1 games had more polys and more textures. And almost every one of them had FMV's. The N64 didn't.
LCGeek said:
I didn't say the best I just said that the n64 could keep up with the best. And it could.
Much money and effort for little gain. :lol
I'm not pulling a $3000 pc meme out of my arse, but this is such a shitty and bothersome setup it's not funny.
Nedless to say, the n64 later mopped the floor with the vodoo 1 with titles such as turok 2 and conker. :lol
TheRagnCajun
Member
One PC port is inferior to its console counterpart, is that what you're basing this thread on?
TreasureHunterG
Banned
M°°nblade said:
Man, PS1 graphics isn't better than N64 by any means. Yes, had FMV, but in-game graphics never match N64 quality. Stop trying to say what isn't true or you'll get hurt. Yes, I have all 32/64 consoles: N64, PS1 and Saturn. If there's something PS1 isn't better than N64 is it's graphics. Deal with it.
- Status