Support NeoGAF

[Romulus]

What you see in the image is exactly how it looks on TV. Note that the N64 looks better in still images than the PS1, but in motion, it's night and day.

Nintendo fans argue that their games are more complex. I don't care; they're ugly games.

Did you actually play these games? Panzer and Star Fox were both 20fps with dips. I guarantee you actually don't know the metrics for all these games, you're just saying words like "smoother" for an argument when if we had actual framerates, the difference would be minimal. Especially considering games that went for higher fps, just meant bigger drops. Fighting games being way simpler sure.

Of the nearly 7,900 PS1 titles, fewer than 5% aimed for 60 fps, and even those dipped often bigger dropoffs. Most "30 fps" games weren't true 30 either, usually hovering in the 20s, meaning stable performance on the system was more illusion than reality.

So this idea that N64 was some crazy shit performer compared to that is wild. I'll bet anything that if we took the average of all PS1/N64 games, dips and everything included, the difference would be less than 10%, but lets just use that as some huge "advantage"

 

[Ellis]

N64 and PS1 on CRT. PS1 looks better the majority of the time. Especially anything 2D based. N64 also had pretty shit video output. This is even more noticeable on a modern display. Paired with the filtering, you get something ugly.

 

[RetroGamingUK]

Nintendo's very own Virtua Fighter;

Love the look of this, especially the animation, lighting and bold colours.

 

[crackajack]

The whole 3D transition was just rough and probably a bit too early, like RT now is. DKC/Rare set the bar very high for 2D and early 3D looked especially in hindsight just miserable. Even on PC where playable AA on 800x600 was the beginning of today's baseline. I agree though that the artstyle of the best N64 frontrunners was kinda charming. Sony tried too early to be "mature", while Nintendo embraced their "toys for kids" philosophy. PS stuff looked only okayish starting with some PS2 games, while even much of early PS360 looked rather weird again.

 

[ResurrectedContrarian]

good quick overview of the wobbly/jittery problems of the PS1, which was very apparent back in the day -- this was why the N64's 3D felt more stable and impressive.

 

[nkarafo]

Did you actually play this games? Panzer and Star Fox were both 20fps with dips.

Pretty sure Panzer and Starfox 64 are 30fps (with dips). I'm sure about Starfox but i need to check Panzer again.

 

[Romulus]

Pretty sure Panzer and Starfox 64 are 30fps (with dips). I'm sure about Starfox but i need to check Panzer again.

@ 10:35

There were people on forums saying it was a lock 30fps before that video. lol

 

[NeverYouMind]

Nintendo's very own Virtua Fighter;

It plays worse than Virtua Fighter on the 32X. If you were to randomly pick a 3D fighter on PS1 or Saturn you would 90% of the time land on a better game than Fighter's Destiny.

 

[Gp1]

Nintendo's very own Virtua Fighter;

 

[Geometric-Crusher]

It plays worse than Virtua Fighter on the 32X. If you were to randomly pick a 3D fighter on PS1 or Saturn you would 90% of the time land on a better game than Fighter's Destiny.

there is nothing on the N64 that looks like DOA.

 

[nkarafo]

@ 10:35

There were people on forums saying it was a lock 30fps before that video. lol

Thanks for the clarification. I got confused with the sequel, which was indeed 30fps.

I remember the same confusion with the Saturn's port of Wipeout. All Sega fans i talked to would claim it's 30fps. But of course it's 20. Then they would say the sequel is 30fps. Even some magazines at the time claimed that in their reviews. But again, that's also 20.

On the other hand, everyone and their mother knows WaveRace and Zelda are 20fps games. Because everyone is so eager to point out only the bad aspects of every N64 game. For some reason the N64 gets the most hate compared to every other console on that regard. Even things like the Jaguar don't have such dedicated and loud haters. It's almost as if there's some amount of butthurt from the Sega side because it didn't fail like the Saturn and some envy from the Sony side because it managed to release some classic games they could never replicate.

It plays worse than Virtua Fighter on the 32X. If you were to randomly pick a 3D fighter on PS1 or Saturn you would 90% of the time land on a better game than Fighter's Destiny.

Speaking of dedicated haters....

there is nothing on the N64 that looks like DOA.

Why did you edit the post? You said "Saturn's DOA" first. What, you aren't very confident about it?

So what DOA are we going to compare to now, the arcade version?

Is it because the Saturn port has completely empty arenas, 2D backgrounds and a complete lack of lighting/gourad shading?

Not arguing DOA is the better game and the N64 lacks good fighting games but come on. At least Soul Edge was a far more convincing example.

 

[Geometric-Crusher]

Nights has some of the worst pop-up ever seen in a video game. But it's sharp.
Panzer Dragoon has some of the most basic visuals and props, only the main character look good. But it's sharp.
Soul Edge indeed looks great but you don't care about that, you just posted it because it looks sharp.

It's like the only metric in your book is image sharpness. As long as it's sharp it doesn't matter if it looks like garbage or not.

You are comparing Conker with Nights. Nights is completely on-rails, has very little freedom of movement and the 3D arenas are still completely covered by a very short distance pop-up. This is a game that proves how weak the Saturn is, not how much better is than the N64. You got it the other way around.

Before I compared Conker to Tobal 2
see again
the lowest res vs one of the highest res
15-30fps vs 60fps

 

[Feather049]

nostalgia is one hell of a drug

Lol I guess kinda, but in a way you can appreciate some N64 games as their own art-style. Kinda. I mean, I enjoy the cartoony and goggly models of BK and SM64.

 

[Romulus]

Thanks for the clarification. I got confused with the sequel, which was indeed 30fps.

I remember the same confusion with the Saturn's port of Wipeout. All Sega fans i talked to would claim it's 30fps. But of course it's 20. Then they would say the sequel is 30fps. Even some magazines at the time claimed that in their reviews. But again, that's also 20.

On the other hand, everyone and their mother knows WaveRace and Zelda are 20fps games. Because everyone is so eager to point out only the bad aspects of every N64 game. For some reason the N64 gets the most hate compared to every other console on that regard. Even things like the Jaguar don't have such dedicated and loud haters. It's almost as if there's some amount of butthurt from the Sega side because it didn't fail like the Saturn and some envy from the Sony side because it managed to release some classic games they could never replicate.



Speaking of dedicated haters....



Why did you edit the post? You said "Saturn's DOA" first. What, you aren't very confident about it?

So what DOA are we going to compare to now, the arcade version?

Is it because the Saturn port has completely empty arenas, 2D backgrounds and a complete lack of lighting/gourad shading?

Not arguing DOA is the better game and the N64 lacks good fighting games but come on. At least Soul Edge was a far more convincing example.

I'm actually not sure about Star Fox. I mentioned it was 20fps and other sources say 30fps. It's really difficult to find actual metrics, that's why I don't believe anyone in this thread claiming numbers because consistency of the framerate is more important than the target.

Either way, you can be rest assured Star Fox has dips at 30fps. I would bet the same for that Panzer sequel.

It's just crazy, the fan propaganda that the N64 was some 15fps slough and ps1 was a blazing fast 60fps monster is simply revisionist. It's a clever way to balance the scales because we can't prove 98% of these claims and they know it.

 

[nkarafo]

Before I compared Conker to Tobal 2
see again
the lowest gen resolution vs one of the highest resolutions
15-30fps vs 60fps

Again, you are comparing two completely different games, of different genres, doing completely different things.

Why don't you compare Conker or Banjo or Mario 64 with Spyro or Croc?

Technically, the best looking fighter on the N64 is Mace. Which is great but it's a western made game. Japan made the best fighting games and the N64 had some of the worst Japanese third party support. Had it been more successful in Japan and they cared more about it there, you don't think there would be something by Namco or Tecmo, etc, that would compete?

 

[Romulus]

I remember the end of the 5th gen N64 had several games that really flexed its muscle. This is a good example. Much better clarity and fps. The environments almost look a full gen better.

 

[kunonabi]

Love the look of this, especially the animation, lighting and bold colours.

It's damn good game to be honest. I still play the sequel regularly.

 

[cireza]

All Sega fans i talked to would claim it's 30fps. But of course it's 20. Then they would say the sequel is 30fps. Even some magazines at the time claimed that in their reviews. But again, that's also 20.

The first Panzer is 20fps and Zwei is 30fps. Anyone with a Saturn who actually played the games can tell you that it is obvious that Zwei is much smoother.

 

[nkarafo]

The first Panzer is 20fps and Zwei is 30fps.

Yes but the part you quoted is about the Wipeout games.

 

[cireza]

Yes but the part you quoted is about the Wipeout games.

Oh right, got confused reading the page.

 

[cireza]

Conker has massive areas with unlimited draw distance

This is a 2001 game, so hopefully it looks better than 1996 Nights.

it's still blurrier on original hardware so it looks like shit to you

This remains a valid argument though. The console can push the best thing possible, if the end result is a blurry picture, or a super shitty picture like the PS2, then what's the point to push the best thing possible to begin with ? This is almost as if the guys who made the hardware missed the point on the most basic aspects.

 

[nkarafo]

This is a 2001 game, so hopefully it looks better than 1996 Nights.

Well, the same thing applies for Banjo and that's a 1997 game. IMO that game is better looking than Conker because it has still slightly better texturing, bigger environments, better art direction and more stable frame-rate. It's the most balanced N64 game technically in the whole library and the poster child for what the console can do without regressions, of all released games.

Conker does better lighting and geometry, plus it has that fancy shadow effect no other 5th gen game had, but i feel like those didn't worth the frame rate regressions. Same applies for Banjo-Tooie.

This remains a valid argument though. The console can push the best thing possible, if the end result is a blurry picture, or a super shitty picture like the PS2, then what's the point to push the best thing possible to begin with ? This is almost as if the guys who made the hardware missed the point on the most basic aspects.

If blurriness ruins the visuals for someone, that's fine. That would be the end of the discussion, even though there are ways to disable the VI on the console.

But it seems like people argue about other technical aspects too, hence my contributions in this topic.

In the end though, if every game looked like Banjo-Kazooie or, let alone, Return to Yoshi's Island, we would never had such discussions.

 

[Midway-AGNC-]

Only Banjo looks good in terms of textures. Yoshi looks good in terms of art design.

This is your opinion.

What you see in the image is exactly how it looks on TV. Note that the N64 looks better in still images than the PS1, but in motion, it's night and day.

Nintendo fans argue that their games are more complex. I don't care; they're ugly games.

Are you seriously trying to compare Star Fox 64 to Panzer Dragoon and Conker to Nights? Your retarded side of the force grows stronger post after post. I'm surprised there's still people trying to take you seriously.

 

[RetroGamingUK]

The first Panzer is 20fps and Zwei is 30fps. Anyone with a Saturn who actually played the games can tell you that it is obvious that Zwei is much smoother.

Apart from level 3 having ugly pixelated trees when close to the camera PDZ is a great example of art using badly designed old tech.

 

[Badlucktroll]

What about enhancing the graphics of n64 in UltraHLE or ps1 in Bleem

 

[nkarafo]

What about enhancing the graphics of n64 in UltraHLE or ps1 in Bleem

These emulators are more retro than the N64 itself.

 

[cireza]

badly designed old tech

I don't find the Saturn badly designed though, but rather it was designed to the best of the possibilities from back then considering the target was to support both 2D and 3D in hardware at a home-console price point.

 

[beanoboy7]

I've always wondered what the N64 were truly capable of if it used CD's as the storage medium. The compression killed what it was truly capable of.

 

[BlackTron]

This is your opinion.


Are you seriously trying to compare Star Fox 64 to Panzer Dragoon and Conker to Nights? Your retarded side of the force grows stronger post after post. I'm surprised there's still people trying to take you seriously.

There is a fair chance he knows how disingenuous it is and will be even more happy when the people he knows know better, deconstruct it.

Or he is just retarded and will be happy when people try to deconstruct it.

 

[nkarafo]

I've always wondered what the N64 were truly capable of if it used CD's as the storage medium. The compression killed what it was truly capable of.

Graphically not much of a difference. More or less the same stuff you saw in bigger 32 and 64MB carts, just more frequently. I don't think you would see better textures than Banjo because the carts weren't the bottleneck for that anyway. Banjo is the peak of what the N64 could do texture wise, other than Return to Yoshi's Island maybe.

Audio wise though you would see a bigger difference. More voice acting, FMVs and 44khz quality music. All audio in N64 carts was 32khz or lower.

But also there would be more loading and some games would be completely different (in a worse way) because they would not be able to stream directly from the faster roms anymore.

So some good and some bad. It would sell better though and would have better third party support.

 

[Sportler]

I remember the end of the 5th gen N64 had several games that really flexed its muscle. This is a good example. Much better clarity and fps. The environments almost look a full gen better.

The N64 version looks really great. I think the PS1 got a bad port from another developer studio. There are also examples where the PS1 was clearly ahead of the N64:

 

[TNT Sheep]

Though I must say I was shocked how great Rayman 2 held up on N64.

I think this is a game where the N64 version is clearly graphically superior to the PS1 version. I much prefer the music of the Playstation version though and I think the voice acting had its charm.

 

[Drell]

Audio wise though you would see a bigger difference. More voice acting, FMVs and 44khz quality music. All audio in N64 carts was 32khz or lower.

The N64 not having any dedicated sound CPU was also lesser known problem. Games like Mario Kart which is full billboarded sprites can't keep the music running in 4 players because it's too taxing.

On PS1 and Saturn, arcade style games such as Daytona USA, Virtua Fighter, Ridge Racer, Tekken and even Grand Turismo had full redbook audio music. That's not only better quality music but it would also free up some ressources in the case of a CD N64 that would still not have a dedicated audio subsystem.

 

[Drell]

I think this is a game where the N64 version is clearly graphically superior to the PS1 version. I much prefer the music of the Playstation version though and I think the voice acting had its charm.

I remember the PS1 is the only version where they changed that last fight against razorbeard's robot where in all version, it was a small arena where you had to fly and manoeuvre to shoot missiles on him while on the PS1 it was just some kind of railshooter stuff.

 

[Romulus]

The N64 version looks really great. I think the PS1 got a bad port from another developer studio. There are also examples where the PS1 was clearly ahead of the N64:

Yeah there are several examples were ps1 got the edge. It was much easier to develop for.
Towards the end of the generation though you saw some games that just looked night and day better on n64 like that 007. Like that environment in the side by sides, we never saw anything like that on ps1.

 

[Geometric-Crusher]

Nights has some of the worst pop-up ever seen in a video game. But it's sharp.
Panzer Dragoon has some of the most basic visuals and props, only the main character look good. But it's sharp.
Soul Edge indeed looks great but you don't care about that, you just posted it because it looks sharp.

It's like the only metric in your book is image sharpness. As long as it's sharp it doesn't matter if it looks like garbage or not.

I get why you like Nights visuals more but sometimes you need to appreciate what's going on under the hood and not completely ignore it because "it's blurrier". You would say the same thing for Kaze's Return to Yoshi's Island. It doesn't matter how his game almost has 6th gen levels of geometry and much nicer textures at high frame rates, it's still blurrier on original hardware so it looks like shit to you.

I don't make the rules, I just follow them. The point of this thread is that the N64 graphics are ''gorgeous''. N64 fans don't like the N64 hardware, they like Nintendo. I think you'd love a timeline where the N64 uses the Sega Saturn hardware; imagine Super Mario 2.5D as Pandemonium using Nights' sharp technology. Imagine a new Super Metroid using the Astal engine or Yoshi Story at 60fps like Clockworknight. Maybe Killer Instinct Gold would have high-resolution graphics like VF2. The Sega Saturn hardware that you despise today would be defended if it were in Nintendo's hands.

 

[nkarafo]

I don't make the rules, I just follow them. The point of this thread is that the N64 graphics are ''gorgeous''. N64 fans don't like the N64 hardware, they like Nintendo. I think you'd love a timeline where the N64 uses the Sega Saturn hardware; imagine Super Mario 2.5D as Pandemonium using Nights' sharp technology. Imagine a new Super Metroid using the Astal engine or Yoshi Story at 60fps like Clockworknight. Maybe Killer Instinct Gold would have high-resolution graphics like VF2. The Sega Saturn hardware that you despise today would be defended if it were in Nintendo's hands.

Α Ν64 with Saturn hardware would not have 3D games as advanced as Mario 64, Banjo, DOOM 64, Goldeneye, Ocarina of Time, Wave Race, Shadowman, WDC, etc.

So if i had to pick my poison i would still pick the blurry but superior 3D graphics and engines.

 

[Romulus]

The Sega Saturn hardware that you despise today would be defended if it were in Nintendo's hands.

Same goes for Sega fans if they got the N64 or whatever. There are diehards on every side. PS1 is my favorite console of all time but no one is telling me the N64 wasn't the superior console in terms of power, and it showed. I wished it had 8,000 games and we would have seen that more.

 

[Alexios]

I mean, having texture filtering is technically, objectively, superior, only textures made before filtering was a thing (like the Quake example and similar stuff) looked better without it because it was made like pixel art. Otherwise it could be very rough to play something like Colin McRae on PC with all the bells and whistles and then go back to the still impressive for its hardware PS version or similar without much of it. The rest of the image quality not being so great is a separate thing altogether. As are games using fog for distance culling etc. (definitely nicer than abrupt pop in or no-fog but darkness a la Tenchu or something too). It seems people are mixing up all kinds of different things in one "omg it's blurry so that's bad" deal. On the other hand dissing systems without it and/or their games to elevate this one further is often being just as stupid. Business as usual for certain folk.

 

[Nihilum]

 

[Geometric-Crusher]

So if i had to pick my poison i would still pick the blurry but superior 3D graphics and engines.

If these games were different you would like them the same way, believe me I know.
See you soon, I'll end my participation here.

 

[Xtib81]

You might want to double check the definition of gorgeous OP.

 

[nkarafo]

If these games were different you would like them the same way, believe me I know.

How do you know? You don't know me and what i like.

 

[soulbait]

Is this a time warp or something? Brining me back to my playground days on debating N64 vs PSX.

I was a Nintendo fan boy back then, and would argue all the time how N64 was better. But as an adult, I see how this is a ridiculous and silly argument.

Both machines have strengths and weaknesses. In some ways N64 excels over PSX. It handled 3D better (for the most part), loading times were not an issue, its texture filtering limited jaggies and so forth. PSX excels over N64 through other ways. For me, most notably was the sound/music. PSX's additional storage space and better sound processor enabled it to have way better music. I never forget playing a demo of MediEvil that blew away because of the soundtrack. Now the sound may not have been great, but in the demo at that Baggages, it sounded better than what I have heard on my N64. PSX handled pre-rendered backgrounds a lot better and also FMVs due to its storage.

So looking at 3D games, N64, IMO usually wins, especially when they are games that are not attempting to use pre-rendered backgrounds for the textures. On PSX though, as soon as you get into those pre-rendered BG games, like Resident Evil games, PSX really shines brighter than N64. But looking at 3D platformer like games, N64 usually wins (example Crash Bandicoot vs Mario 64).

At this stage, why are we even debating this? Why not just celebrate these games and what they were able to accomplish at this time? Both machines were great, IMO. Who cares which one had better graphics in the year of 2025?

The OP was trying to celebrate how he feels the N64 games look great today. Why are we debating PSX vs N64 like we are kids again? Sure we can disagree if these games still look great today. I personally feel SNES games held up overall better than most N64 games. There are a handful of N64 games that still look great today IMO, but even the ones that did not age well in the looks department, can still be fun to play.

Not everything has to be a debate ya'll.

 

[nkarafo]

I personally feel SNES games held up overall better than most N64 games.

This is true and only natural.

The SNES was a 4th generation 2D graphics system. By then, 2D graphics had matured enough. The N64 is more like a 3rd generation 3D system. 1st generation being the wireframe 3D and 2nd being the filled polygons without textures.

So in terms of maturity, the N64 is more like the NES of 3D graphics.

The DC/PS2/GC/XBOX brought 3D graphics at the same level of maturity as the SNES did for 2D graphics and this is why so many games of that era have aged well.

 

[Romulus]

Why are we debating PSX vs N64 like we are kids again? Sure we can disagree if these games still look great today.

Because PS1 was a dominating sales force in the 5th gen, you're going to have a lot more fans that lean to the furthest extreme that show up to trash N64. But it was superior in 3D graphics despite being the loser.

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

I'm really enjoying the system wars between N64 and everything else in this thread.

Not being sarcastic - this is actually a fun debate (even though the N64 is obviously kind of a turd console).

 

[asdasdasdbb]

I pretty much avoided PSX because of how lousy low res the 3D looked. The filtering and AA that the N64 had made things much better.

That the N64 was the last console (until this gen) with good load times was a bonus.

 

[Romulus]

I pretty much avoided PSX because of how lousy low res the 3D looked. The filtering and AA that the N64 had made things much better.

That the N64 was the last console (until this gen) with good load times was a bonus.

My problem was how environments looked like they were in the middle of an earthquake with any movement. Constant wobbly textures. Never saw that on N64. My eyes are trained for movement, and I was always confused what was moving, but it was really just an entire building shaking.

 

[RetroGamingUK]

Because PS1 was a dominating sales force in the 5th gen, you're going to have a lot more fans that lean to the furthest extreme that show up to trash N64. But it was superior in 3D graphics despite being the loser.

This was even more pronounced in the Uk, N63 was salted til March 1997

Those kids in the meme video shouting "NINTENDO SIXTY FOUUR" on Christmas morning…


…in the UK they'd have been unwrapping a PS1 with Crash Bandicoot.