If you're going to stick to that logic, then it has to be applied consistently. By your reasoning, we shouldn't even compare the Genesis and the Super Nintendo, since they launched years apart. Same with the PS2 versus the GameCube and original Xbox — all of which came later and were technically more capable, but still competed in the same market. That's the point: consoles do overlap, even if they don't launch on the exact same day. Players compared them back then, and history compares them now. Brushing that off with "release dates" feels less like analysis and more like contortionism to defend a particular narrative.
The N64 had a set of built-in fullscreen filters that are known as "VI filters".
As I stated, they were on the market at the same time. That's just how things happened back then. You could play Tomb Raider IV on PS1... or Dreamcast. You could play Revolt on PS1, N64... or Dreamcast. You not wanting to compare these games is fine, you do as you like, but back then people/magazines were making these comparisons, obviously.
We never compare the consoles, we compare their games. Especially in this discussion which is about visuals, and not, comparing the whole libraries for example. In that sense, comparing consoles makes little sense, and how generations are defined is totally arbitrary and doesn't mean anything. We put MegaDrive and SNES in the same gen and N64 and Dreamcast in separate gens ? Why ? Each time they have 2 years difference. It does shine a better light for Nintendo than having SNES losing half of the Western Market share to a last gen console, or than having N64 technically kicked in the nuts by a same gen console. Feels exactly like this :
If you are going to compare visuals, just pick games that were released in the same time frame. Common sense.
Because SNES and Megadrive are comparable machines that belong to the same gen. The N64 is a 5th gen machine that got delayed at least a year. Dreamcast is a 6th gen machine.
You are ignoring though the SNES/MegaDrive and N64/Dreamcast have the exactly 2 years that separate them, yet you put the two first in the same gen, and the two later in a separate gen. This never made any sense.
As stated, it is not that I need to, it's simply that people playing these consoles back then compared them. They were around at the same time with the same games. Generations is something that was created much later, back then, there was no notion of generations. We would look at "bits" until they didn't make any sense anymore. Which was largely the case with the introduction of 64 bits consoles and Dreamcast not being "128 bits" anyway. Otherwise, the N64 was a whole generation ahead of PS1/Saturn, which were "only" 32 bits. So what generation is N64 ? 1 ahead of PS1/Saturn ? But Dreamcast is not 128 bits, so it has to be the same gen as N64, right ?
You are right, carry on with whatever comparisons you like to make, I am out.
The N64 had a set of built-in fullscreen filters that are known as "VI filters".
These include a de-dithering filter and an anti-aliasing filter. These two in particular, combined with N64's low resolution are what cause most of the blurring. And 90-95% of N64 games had those enabled with no way to disable them in-game.
Some games had those disabled like DOOM 64 while some others had an option to do so, such as Quake. In most other games you can still disable them via game shark cheat codes.
Here is the ON/OFF difference:
Filtering is nice and all but only when the resolution is high enough. Which is why the higher resolution games and modes didn't look nearly as blurry, even with the filters.
The N64 also does texture filtering, that also adds to the overall blurriness because the textures themselves are also low resolution, even more so than the average PS1 or Saturn game. Lastly, the video output of the N64 wasn't as good as the PS1 or Saturn and you could only do S-Video at best. This only adds a very small amount of blurriness but because you already have all those other factors it adds up.
Basically, the N64 was too low resolution for anti-aliasing and it's individual textures are too low resolution for filtering. IMO, at least the fullscreen VI filters should have been optional in all games, with an option to turn them OFF like the pictures above. Most people would prefer that and you even gain an extra couple fps of performance this way.
The Dreamcast has a higher internal resolution output and uses higher resolution textures that can handle filtering and also has one of the most crisp video outputs compared to even later consoles.
So switch 2 games shouldn't be compared to PS5 and XSeries, since switch 2 is one generation ahead?
You can compare whatever you want as long as it serves whatever topic you are into.
But see, this is exactly where your argument bends over itself. You say we should "only compare games, not consoles," but the reality is you can't separate the two. Games are always tied to the hardware they run on — the strengths, the bottlenecks, the design choices are all shaped by the machine. Comparing games is inherently comparing hardware, whether you like it or not. And here's where the inconsistency shows: you're trying to lump N64 and Dreamcast into the same frame of comparison while ignoring the enormous generational leap between them. That's like pretending the Genesis and SNES weren't directly comparable just because they launched two years apart, yet somehow suggesting N64 and Dreamcast are "fair game" despite the fact that the gap between their technical capabilities is massive.
cireza
was doing the same thing in the N64 vs Saturn thread a while back
That's actually a position for you to take, not me. I am perfectly fine comparing games from MD/SNES (consoles which have 2 years of difference), and games from N64/Dreamcast (consoles which also have 2 years that separate them). Because the games in question have been released the same years/months, and as I already said, because these were the comparisons being made at their time of release. And people have not been shy on saying that N64 is largely more advanced in 3D and rendering than PS1 and Saturn, so it has to be a pretty big leap right ?
Ok, so here we go again with the usual out of context, personal attacks and bad faith arguments. Cherry picking a totally unrelated topic and trying to use it here.
But that's exactly the inconsistency in your logic. Nobody in their right mind would ever argue the Dreamcast wasn't far ahead of PS1, N64, or Saturn — it's an undeniable fact. But using that as a basis for comparison completely misses the point of this discussion. It's like trying to compare SNES with the Neo Geo. Sure, they're roughly from the same "era," but technically the Neo Geo was miles ahead of both SNES and Mega Drive. That doesn't suddenly make SNES vs Neo Geo the core rivalry of that generation.
But I am not even making this point. I am just talking about games available in 1999. Games available in 2000. That's it.
Not really though, as the Neo Geo was not competing for the same market. While PS1, N64 and Dreamcast were competing for the same mass market of "affordable" home consoles. So again, people/magazines were comparing their games. Shops had them at the same time available to buy.
So you are excluding an actual competitor it REALLY had, because you are framing this N64 against only the older consoles PS1/Saturn. Sure you can, if you want, no issue with this. But you can't deny that Dreamcast was available the same years as N64 and was a competitor that shared many games. Comparing, let's say, a N64 NBA game to a Saturn game released 2 years prior, while pretty much no development was ongoing anymore on Saturn, and while a brand new NBA game was released at the exact same time on Dreamcast... yeah, that's ridiculous and pointless.
Okay, by your reasoning, then it's fair to compare NES and Master System games from around 1990–92 with SNES and Mega Drive games from the same period.
Of course it was. Neo Geo games were mostly arcade ports, which was also very common for both SNES and Mega Drive. They were competing for the same market and audience.
Except N64 vs. PS1 and Saturn isn't, strictly speaking, a generational leap the way N64 vs. Dreamcast is. There are pros and cons between them — some excel in certain areas and vice versa — but it's not like the Dreamcast, which is in a completely different league of hardware. Sorry, but you're not only diving into a warped comparison, you're also derailing the thread with this nonsense.
Absolutely. It's even super interesting !
Yeah, I tend to agree that the comparisons would be interesting, and were made anyway back then as well. That Fatal Fury Special port on SNES was fantastic.
I was out, stop answering to me if you want to carry on.
The controller is missing only a second analogue, far superior to the original psx one and I prefer the stick placement over the contorted thumbs of Sony pads.There are more N64s in landfills around the world today than Atari 2600 E.T. cartridges. Not only was it not contemporary technology at the time but it has not aged well in the least. A few developers were able to overcome its limitations with good art direction and clever use of low quality assets but most could not. It had very little third party support compared to its rivals and the controller is one of the worst in history. CollecoVision controller has aged better and it is a glorified phone dial with a joystick nub.
not only that, MK4 is more fun as a game in itself than any fighting game on the Sega Saturn.
I don't know why you bother . There threads always turn into shitting on the Saturn and telling the world how great the PS1 or PS2 iare.
I will always stand by MK4 being the first major misstep of its franchise. Irredeemable junk. Saturn has Virtua Fighter 2, Last Bronx, Fighting Vipers, Fighters Megamix, Goiken Muyou: Anarchy in the Nippon, Dead or Alive, and a metric ton of the best 2D fighters from that era.
except that Quake and Duke Nukem 64 are not mediocre ports, they are both 30fps games while the so-called more advanced games are low frame rate games that prioritize visuals over frame rate as you know.
I appreciate your initiative and do the same. but in the case of the Sega Saturn the console stopped in time in 1997, the most advanced Sega Saturn shooter is Duke Nukem 3d, many people agree , it is as good as Duke Nukem 64 in fact it is even better due to censorship in the N64 version.
I think the Sega Saturn would be a better console if it had had MK4 and fewer Sega games, unfortunately they were not inspired at that time, Shinobi X should be like Shinobi 2025 with the due proportions, the technology used in Astal would be perfect for a metroidvania game, the technology used in Golden Axe The Duel would be better used in an exclusive street fighter, Sony had Street Fighter ex plus right ? Sega could have a 2D SF using The Duel's technology. The Sega Saturn technology was perfect, the games were not.
The Saturn was discontinued in 2000 in Japan.
Saturn did not have Arika 2.5D junk, it had full on 3D fighters and 2D fighters that have stood the test of time.
Quake on the N64 had more simplified geometry on the maps compare to Saturn Quake. And also lacked the dynamic lights of the software PC version. Basically, it looked like the butt-ugly GL version.
