Oh so now you moved the goal post. Great.
Mischief Makers - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
"It is the first 2D side-scrolling game for the Nintendo 64"
Yoshi's Story - Wikipedia
"the game features vivid pre-rendered 3D graphics"
Mortal Kombat Trilogy is a 2D game
NBA Hangtime uses Sprites as its a 2D game
And so on...
There are only 5 3D 60 fps games on Nintendo 64.
There are others games running at 60 fps like The New Tetris. But its a 2D game.
Did you watch the Gamesack video i posted before? They say it in the beginning. Only 3D games. Not my fault you dont pay attention.
Bullshit. All these games are referenced as 60 fps games. Today and in its time. Not my problem you dont like that.
N64 FPS controls are so shit that graphically inferior Saturn ports put them to shame.
Of course you knew lol. The fact that the games were high res and super smooth was obvious. Everyone realized that Virtua Fighter 2 on Saturn looked absolutely insane at release. The difference between 30 and 60 was obvious for sure, and you could tell that Starfox of Saturn Doom were slideshows.
Im spanish so english is not my native language. Im sure you understood. These games are considered 60 fps games everywhere all over Internet.
It's a universal truth that N64 doesn't have 60FPS shmups.
Precision is awful due to the stick being over-sensitive and uncomfortable due to your hands being clumped together.
I said graphically.
Graphically N64 is potato mode 90% of the time.
First of all i don't care about your opinion. You already said you are biased against the console so your posts are irrelevent.
I said effects, effects like the steam effect, all of this is free on the Saturn due to vdp2 but would be done on the N64 using RCP resources.
This is half true, which, in debates like this, can become a complete lie. The N64 allowed up to 8,000 polygons per frame, and this was achieved in commercial games back then, such as Conker (whenever this occurs during a cutscene, the frame rate remains at 10 fps). This is a load of nonsense, however, the homebrew community managed, with great difficulty, to make a map for a game using Mario 64 characters render 8,000 polygons per frame at 30 fps, totaling 240,000 polygons per second. Well, Nintendo engineers knew the N64 could achieve such numbers but found the quality very poor. Overall, the Nintendo 64 is capable of rendering around 100,000 to 160,000 polygons with all hardware features enabled. (Nintendo quote). It's actually foolish to measure the N64's polygon count using Fast3D; it will always be around 100,000 polygons per second. The difference between the N64 and the Sega Saturn/PlayStation at the time is that the N64 could force some scenes with 4,000 or 5,000 polygons at the expense of the frame rate. Obviously, a game with 2,500 polygons per frame at 30fps will be visually inferior to one with 5,000 at 16fps.
Is this relevant to Wave Race 64? Nintendo fans often praise its visuals and physics while "forgetting" about the frame rate.
Fine, but calling an entire system a "failure" just because it doesn't match your personal taste is honestly ridiculous. By that same logic, if I don't like JRPGs and fighting games, I could just call the PS1 a failure too — and that would be equally stupid. I don't care much for the Xbox brand myself, but I'd never call it a failure either; it just doesn't suit me.
I think so because racing game less than 30fps is discouraging.
That and also the cartridge format: more expensive, with dramatically less storage capacity, shitty Nintendo conditions to third parties about royalties....
Why just match? I can name games with better graphics and physics!
Why just match? I can name games with better graphics and physics!
Wave Race - 320x240 at 20 fpsWave Race curb stomps both of these.
Rapid Racer could be 4k and 120fps and Wave Race 64 is still the better looking game. This is madness.
Don't fall for the provocation, I know this tactic, whenever there are two different games they will say "This game doesn't do this, nor this, nor this", obviously because if it did it would be the same game.
I can call N64 a failure all the times i want. Because that is exactly what i think about that system.
significantly more expensive to produce (cartridge cost + nintendo licensing fees), and ROM size constraints.
Why just match? I can name games with better graphics and physics!
They aimed for better-looking screenshots in gaming magazines. People had no idea whether those N64 games ran at 20 fps or 60 fps.
I was 20 years old when i was playing with Nintendo 64, Saturn and Playstation. I bought my Diamond Monster 3DFX in 1996 knowing perfectly what 60 fps and framerate were.
