-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Who had the best graphics: DS or Ps1?
- Thread starter BDGAME
- Start date
Sapphire Dreams
Member
the DS is more powerful, it's between the PS1 and N64.
Not really. The biggest difference was that it didn't have hardware trillinear filtering like the N64. That means the textures weren't smoothed out when you came closer so you could see the pixels, the Saturn and PS1 also didn't have texture filtering.truly101 said:
Could be me allergic to nearest-neighbor interpolation (no texture filtering) and loving flashy light effects, but I think Perfect Dark really showed how far ahead the N64 was. In my eyes the PS1 and DS had "old" 3D graphics set to high while the N64 has "new" (current) 3D graphics set to very low.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Htown said:
Chinatown Wars is a significantly better game than C.O.P.
JimboJones
Member
Zee-Row said:
Better compression tech for thing like fmv today aswell, still blocky lowbitrate mess but then so was ps1 fmvs but they could eat up a good portion of the disks for the same thing.
Unknown One
Member
I doubt that. CD will still be cheaper and Sony had great 3rd party support.Zee-Row said:
Yeah but the reason 3rd partys left were mainly Cart limitations. With a DS card you could have the best of both worlds and have a pretty big game with almost zero loading times.Crakatak187 said:
Also have you guys seen Mortal Kombat Trilogy for 64 vs Ultimate Mortal Kombat on DS? The DS is a prefect port while the N64 version had missing frames , horrible music and weird glitches.
People seem to forget that many of the best looking PS1 games mad significant concessions: low framerate, pre-rendered backdrops, constrained scenes. Vagrant Story is such one example: the cutscenes feel more like watching a play. The characters were extremely blocky as well: it's just that they were tweaked over and over again until the devs got something good out of so few polygons.
Here's a DS game that uses tricks similar to Vagrant Story, like compact scenes, multiple LODs and smart camera angles during cutscenes: Dragon Ball Origins 2.
Here's a DS game that uses tricks similar to Vagrant Story, like compact scenes, multiple LODs and smart camera angles during cutscenes: Dragon Ball Origins 2.
The discs were the same size for everyone, though. With carts, a bigger game will cost more per unit.Zee-Row said:
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Zee-Row said:
... and if Sony had the PSP's 1.8 gigabyte discs, they would have mopped the floor with Nintendo even harder
PSone games look wonderful on ePSXe if you use the right plug-in and settings. In fact they are far easier on the eyes than N64 games on an emulator which look painfully basic.
But yes, id have to go with the PSX here, it had an incredible port of Quake 2 (better than MGS or GT2, which i thought looked worse than RRT4), and games like FFIX and Chrono Cross looked great in battles with beautiful 2D backdrops on the field.
But yes, id have to go with the PSX here, it had an incredible port of Quake 2 (better than MGS or GT2, which i thought looked worse than RRT4), and games like FFIX and Chrono Cross looked great in battles with beautiful 2D backdrops on the field.
Unknown One
Member
Cost to the consumers is what really matters. N64 games were expensive while PS1 games were much cheaper.Zee-Row said:
No, N64 problem was that it was released too late ( and for the sake to have the better hardware at a "cheap" cost ) when PS1 had the time to build it's momentum among developers and publishers and overall PS1 had a far better ecosystem from which third-party publishers could turn a profit.Zee-Row said:
Nintendo earned handsomely on N64 but it was the only company to do so.
Vagrant Story, Omega Boost, Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy 9, Gran Turismo 2, Threads of Fate, One, Crash Team Racing, Crash Bandicoot 3, and Spyro the Dragon all stand above most DS games (with one or two exceptions), in my opinion.
The DS is likely substantially more powerful than the PSX but that's not the impression that I get when I play DS games.
The DS is likely substantially more powerful than the PSX but that's not the impression that I get when I play DS games.
Think it was mostly just those super expensive carts. To my knowledge the PS1 didn't have that much momentum in 1996, many were waiting for the N64 and had it gotten 3. party support with CDs or something I think it would have competed against the PS1 like the SNES against the Genesis.Celine said:
I'll go with the DS just for the framerate. Most full 3D games (this is, with no 2D pre-rendered backdrops) in the PSX struggle to go over 20 fps, have eye-bleeding janky textures and a whole lot of them dip into single digits framerate more often than not.
Games like FF or RE are another story: they have the whole power just to render the character and a some enemies/NPCs so it's obvious they look much better to the naked eye, but comparing them to full 3D DS games like I've seen in this thread is coming as a complete uninformed moron.
Games like FF or RE are another story: they have the whole power just to render the character and a some enemies/NPCs so it's obvious they look much better to the naked eye, but comparing them to full 3D DS games like I've seen in this thread is coming as a complete uninformed moron.
ThatObviousUser
ὠαἴÏÏιÏÏÎ¿Ï Ïαá¿Ï εἶ
Wow, C.O.P. looks as good as Crazy Taxi for GameCube. Which was a Dreamcast port, but still.
NintendoFan
Neo Member
Zee-Row said:
Not entirely. Licensing fees compared to Sony and the difficulty of development on the N64 compared to the PS1 also had a lot to do with it.
I gotta say I don't like looking at 3d games on either PS1 or DS, they are fuggin ugly. More than anything I hate the pixelated look so many of them, it's like 3d is unnatural to these consoles. I'm glad the 3ds is significantly more graphically capable than the DS, it's such a relief to play 3d games on a handheld that actually look really nice.
I think the worst PS1 games look far worse than anything the DS has produced, (there was some absolute garbage back in the day) while the best PS1 games look better, although that might have a great deal to do with the amount of money poured into them. Then again the DS has another 10 years worth of tricks and technological advancement.
Out of the PS1 games I've played semi recently I've been most impressed with Final Fantasy IX, Spyro and Crash. They were graphical showpieces for their time.
I think the worst PS1 games look far worse than anything the DS has produced, (there was some absolute garbage back in the day) while the best PS1 games look better, although that might have a great deal to do with the amount of money poured into them. Then again the DS has another 10 years worth of tricks and technological advancement.
Out of the PS1 games I've played semi recently I've been most impressed with Final Fantasy IX, Spyro and Crash. They were graphical showpieces for their time.
I did not expect this to turn into a C.O.P. thread.
Anyways, is there any game on PS1 that comes close to the character models in the Dragon Ball Origins games? Even in MGS everyone looks like they are made out of blocks.
Anyways, is there any game on PS1 that comes close to the character models in the Dragon Ball Origins games? Even in MGS everyone looks like they are made out of blocks.
SiriusTexra
Banned
Uh...Silent Hill 1? Easily the most visually impressive PS1 game.
A Black Falcon
Member
Indeed, I agree. N64 > DS > PSX. The DS's lack of texture filtering and z-buffering (that is, no jaggy smoothing) really ruins its image quality in 3d. DS graphics look like perspective-corrected PS1 graphics, pretty much, with a lot of that same terrible blocky jaggy look the PS1 had, but the N64 didn't thanks to the smoothing and z-buffering. "But it's a small screen so those things aren't needed" is a ridiculous excuse, because they're very noticeably absent and certainly matter, even on a small screen.Ty4on said:
That's quite crazy, how is PS1 3d better than DS 3d in any way, much less N64?345triangle said:
And anyway, PS1 vs DS says little about PS1 vs. N64. But as for that, the N64 is the more powerful console technologically. That is a fact. It has a faster CPU, more hardware features, etc, etc. It's the more powerful system. It's okay for people do dislike its graphical style, but I find it annoying how many people insist that PS1 (or even Saturn) 3d is better looking than N64 3d, considering the gulf in power between the systems... it always just gets back to people ignoring the N64's strengths and focusing strongly on its weaknesses, I think. As if their criticism of its weaknesses sometimes makes its many strengths irrelevant, somehow. Yes, things like perspective correction, z-buffering, and trilinear filtering matter, when comparing the PSX, N64, and Saturn...
Of course though, given that the N64 came out a good year and a half after the PSX and Saturn, you'd expect it to have better visuals. And it does.
That's true, but you say why in the first part of your post, MKT had severe space limitations. It was an early N64 game, so all they had to work with was 8MB... it's not easy fitting a whole game from that generation into 8MB.Zee-Row said:
No, Nintendo wasn't the only company that did well on the N64. Acclaim and Midway for instance both did pretty well on the system, through to 2000 at least (the N64 market faded fast in 2001, after the PS2's release). I think at one point in 1998 or so Midway said the N64 was the system they made the most money from, consolewise.Celine said:
Yeah, that's true. In North America, the PSX had a very slow start, and the N64 had a fast one. The N64 faded after that, and the Playstation picked up, so the N64never quite managed to take first place, but it did do well here -- in fact, almost 2/3rds of all N64s sold worldwide (20 million of 32 million) were sold in North America.ty4on said:
And yes, the slow release schedule on the N64 definitely hurt it, both early on and through its life. I do think that the high quality of the games it did get matters more than the low volume, but many people thought otherwise and it did have a thin release list. Between the somewhat tough to develop for hardware, the higher costs, and the stronger first-party competition, you can see why so many third parties went with Sony instead... it is hard to see how the N64 as is could have kept them, honestly. Oh well, I don't mind that it was second, I love it anyway and don't think (design or gameplay-wise) a CD drive would have made it better...
On the 64DD note though, yeah that was really stupid. That should have either been released back in 1998 or so, with Ocarina of Time as an exclusive to sell it, or canned around that time and never released. I can see what they were thinking (lots of space for custom content, without a hard drive? Not a bad idea...), but it was expensive, relatively small (the disks are just 64MB, despite their size), and more. It's easy to see why it failed, and hard to see why it was even released, Nintendo's stubbornness to release the thing anyway even if it was doomed aside.
A very good point indeed. Whether you're talking PSX or N64 (or Saturn), 3d games that gen usually had bad framerates. The exceptions are more notable for being exceptions than they are for anything else. However, the DS is framerate-locked, if I remember right, so 3d games have good framerates on that system. So, even if the 3d is kind of ugly) and it is, at least the framerates are good... and yes, I agree that it definitely helps the system quite a bit.beje said:
Death Dealer
Member
wsippel said:
The C.O.P. video looks great for a DS.
That youtube video is gorgeous. Amazing. Developer gods.