Well, to be fair, the PSX was flexible as well. It worked similarly to the SNES, in fact, which makes sense considering Sony engineered both sound chips.
Most games actually shy away from using pre-recorded digital audio for music and using sequencing instead. The beautiful music of Chrono Cross, for instance, is created entirely from samples and run in realtime on the system. It's not pre-recorded audio and it uses just a fraction of the space that digitally stored files would require.
If Nintendo could have implemented something like this I think we would have seen much more impressive results but instead they completely omitted any sort of sound processor. You can certainly achieve some impressive results for the system but that doesn't change the fact that the audio aspect of Nintendo 64 was very poorly handled. Clearly pre-recorded audio was not necessary to achieve great sound.
Well, to be fair, the PSX was flexible as well. It worked similarly to the SNES, in fact, which makes sense considering Sony engineered both sound chips.
Yes you're right. It was also very flexible. Something which was rather apparent with the Final Fantasy games I think. The difference between FF7 and FF8 in sound quality is pretty big because they developed new techniques for sound output that simply sounded better.
Most games actually shy away from using pre-recorded digital audio for music and using sequencing instead. The beautiful music of Chrono Cross, for instance, is created entirely from samples and run in realtime on the system. It's not pre-recorded audio and it uses just a fraction of the space that digitally stored files would require.
I knew of that and it continues to blow my mind every time I hear that soundtrack, as well as the FF soundtracks. Had I not gotten a hold of the .psf files myself I would've never believed it. So yeah the PS1 also has better sounding sequenced music. I agree. I'm just saying the N64 usually got the short end of the stick in regards to sound quality because of the aforementioned performance loss so it's not really fair to say it's extremely poor based on that. I will however accept that in general it is very poor in comparison to the PS. They really should've put in a dedicated sound chip in there.
I'm not that well versed with the PS1 demoscene though so I'm sure there are more impressive ones out there. Also I saw in the comments for one demo from Farbrausch that it apparently used an Amiga .mod file for music, so I guess I was wrong there.
N64 is probably the only major system ive bought where the graphics sort of got worse as time went by.
It really started with a bang with mario 64 and wave race. Huge worlds with clean colorful graphics. It truly was beyond anything on psx(and saturn) at the time.
But then things started moving on psone. and when they tried to do things less simple and abstract on the n64. The graphics really hit a wall. Its like they always had to trade their new graphics enhancements with -5fps or something.
Another thing that sort of saved the psone was the lack of perspective correction on the texture. It forced alot of the devs to use prerendered backdrops or static, overhead or controlled camera. Which helped the psone graphics immensely.
Very few of the best looking/playing psone games have 360 degree cameras.
psone devs where sort of forced to work limitations of the psone.
But then things started moving on psone. and when they tried to do things less simple and abstract on the n64. The graphics really hit a wall. Its like they always had to trade their new graphics enhancements with -5fps or somethin
Yes, I've always felt this way. As N64 matured developers attempted to push the system harder and harder. The problem was, as their ambitious rose, the hardware could never really keep up.
Mario 64 relied on abstract textures and surfaces while using sharper textures in just the right spots. They also did a lot with very little geometry and the end results were impressive and smooth.
By the end, developers were often attempting to display much more detail within textures but were limited by the hardware. So rather than abstract dirt and grass you ended up with messy looking textures that tried to convey more detail than was possible.
Furthermore, and most significantly, all of this came at the cost of performance. Mario 64 ran at a reasonably steady 30 fps with dips in the busier areas, but later games often topped out at 20 fps with dips much lower.
Turok 1 was 30 fps with drops while Turok 2 spent most of ITS time in the teens. The upgrade in visuals wasn't worth it.
I really wish developers had embraced more abstract, stylish visuals and focused more on animation and framerate rather than detail. I'd be willing to bet that a smooth mostly flat shaded platformer running at 60 fps would hold up a lot better than one of Rare's later games.
n64 was good at drawing huge worlds where as psone did better at close locations with controlled camera.
It was capable of this, I'd imagine, as a result of a hardware z-buffer and better sorting. When PSX games attempted to push larger environments the geometry could begin to appear quite messy and distorted.
Hah! That's pretty awesome too. What do I have to google to find the ROM for that btw? I have an NES Powerpak so I'm dying to try it on the real thing.
Edit: Nevermind. "Rickroll nes" was enough to find it.
Yes, I've always felt this way. As N64 matured developers attempted to push the system harder and harder. The problem was, as their ambitious rose, the hardware could never really keep up.
Mario 64 relied on abstract textures and surfaces while using sharper textures in just the right spots. They also did a lot with very little geometry and the end results were impressive and smooth.
By the end, developers were often attempting to display much more detail within textures but were limited by the hardware. So rather than abstract dirt and grass you ended up with messy looking textures that tried to convey more detail than was possible.
Furthermore, and most significantly, all of this came at the cost of performance. Mario 64 ran at a reasonably steady 30 fps with dips in the busier areas, but later games often topped out at 20 fps with dips much lower.
Turok 1 was 30 fps with drops while Turok 2 spent most of ITS time in the teens. The upgrade in visuals wasn't worth it.
I really wish developers had embraced more abstract, stylish visuals and focused more on animation and framerate rather than detail. I'd be willing to bet that a smooth mostly flat shaded platformer running at 60 fps would hold up a lot better than one of Rare's later games.
It was capable of this, I'd imagine, as a result of a hardware z-buffer and better sorting. When PSX games attempted to push larger environments the geometry could begin to appear quite messy and distorted.
Its not just the lack of z buffer. I think psone has huge problems with draw distance as well.
it just wasnt very good at full 3d worlds so to speak.
but in hindsight it was sorta to its benefit. If it was easier to do full 360 degree camera work. we would have had alot of really ugly thrid and first person games with really sparse worlds and shitty texture. Im glad alot of the psone developers used its limited resorces to fill set frames rather than emtpy open vistas.
As impressive as quake 2 is on psone( probably hands down the engine on the system, goes completely against what the system is good at. and does it great) i much prefer the look of say vagrant story.
Is this your catchphrase or something? hahaha. Guys, guys, why are you arguing so vehemently about Ridge Racers? The time for that was like 15 years ago.
Is this your catchphrase or something? hahaha. Guys, guys, why are you arguing so vehemently about Ridge Racers? The time for that was like 15 years ago.
Super Mario 64 is a classic. Its up there and gonna stay up there. But as far as looks go, lets not forget that the original Banjo Kazooie was a fantastic looking game.
Really fucking gorgeous and the type of game I just couldnt see my PSone ever replicate at the time.
A really big difference when compared with the Syro games for example
Super Mario 64 is a classic. Its up there and gonna stay up there. But as far as looks go, lets not forget that the original Banjo Kazooie was a fantastic looking game.
Really fucking gorgeous and the type of game I just couldnt see my PSone ever replicate at the time.
A really big difference when compared with the Syro games for example
You're not wrong about the technology behind it, but man, I absolutely DETEST the art style.
Still, what they did with the game was a good fit for N64. They didn't push the hardware to the point of breakage so it holds up OK. The way they rendered the characters was a perfect fit for N64.
Banjo, Conker, and even Perfect Dark run pretty smoothly in smaller environments AND blow ps1 games out of the water in graphics. I don't see the point in knocking them for chugging when they show massive areas that the ps1 could never dream of considering what this thread is about. Of course Perfect Dark used the expansion pack so it isn't really fair to bring it into this thread.
Banjo, Conker, and even Perfect Dark run pretty smoothly in smaller environments AND blow ps1 games out of the water in graphics. I don't see the point in knocking them for chugging when they show massive areas that the ps1 could never dream of considering what this thread is about. Of course Perfect Dark used the expansion pack so it isn't really fair to bring it into this thread.
The PSX could have shown larger environments if the developers had found stupidly sluggish framerates somehow acceptable.
In best case, those games barely touch 30 fps. More often than not, however, they run slower than 20.
The problem I really have is wildly inconsistent they are. If you simply rotate the camera around your character the framerate jumps all over the place. Face a wall and you have 30 fps, turn to your left and its 15 fps while looking behind you results in 10. That kind of thing.
I would argue that the N64 COULD NOT handle those types of environments simply due to the poor performance.
The last think I'd say about Perfect Dark is that ran smoothly. A jerky soup in low-res, unplayable in high-res mode. Conker's framerate is also really low.
That's actually a really interesting point to bring. Lots of people in the thread have said that the PS1 could not handle those type of games...but the fact of the matter is that neither could the N64. :lol
Ridge Racer V is the last great arcade racer. I like Burnout Paradise and Ridge Racer 7 but nothing can compare to the satisfaction of pulling off a an awesome drift in V. Such fucking awesome visuals too. An RRVHD would be an instabuy for me.
The PSX could have shown larger environments if the developers had found stupidly sluggish framerates somehow acceptable.
In best case, those games barely touch 30 fps. More often than not, however, they run slower than 20.
The problem I really have is wildly inconsistent they are. If you simply rotate the camera around your character the framerate jumps all over the place. Face a wall and you have 30 fps, turn to your left and its 15 fps while looking behind you results in 10. That kind of thing.
I would argue that the N64 COULD NOT handle those types of environments simply due to the poor performance.
My main point was that the large environments that chug aren't really important to this discussion as the ps1 isn't having them running well either. And when you put one of the games that has that problem in a "ps1 like" environment, it looks better than them and plays smoothly.
I dont really see other 3D platformers that pull off a much better style back in those days.
Crash and Spyro are classic Poochie the dog style designs. Do these GAFers prefer that?
That's actually a really interesting point to bring. Lots of people in the thread have said that the PS1 could not handle those type of games...but the fact of the matter is that neither could the N64. :lol
I would put those at the top of my list of N64 games visually. Steady framerate, great IQ (for the time), and just great overall looking games. Way beyond the PSX.
Let me point out I'm not a huge of Crash or Spyro, but they are definitely easier on my eyes than Rare's stuff. Especially in motion, the animation in Crash and Spyro is superb for their age.
I'll take Crash and Spyro any day of the week. And in motion Crash is the character that looks like a Looney Tunes cartoon, with his constant stretching and contorting and exaggerated motions. Rare's characters animate like your average 3D model from the era.
The PSX could have shown larger environments if the developers had found stupidly sluggish framerates somehow acceptable.
In best case, those games barely touch 30 fps. More often than not, however, they run slower than 20.
The problem I really have is wildly inconsistent they are. If you simply rotate the camera around your character the framerate jumps all over the place. Face a wall and you have 30 fps, turn to your left and its 15 fps while looking behind you results in 10. That kind of thing.
I would argue that the N64 COULD NOT handle those types of environments simply due to the poor performance.
Let me point out I'm not a huge of Crash or Spyro, but they are definitely easier on my eyes than Rare's stuff. Especially in motion, the animation in Crash and Spyro is superb for their age.
I'll take Crash and Spyro any day of the week. And in motion Crash is the character that looks like a Looney Tunes cartoon, with his constant stretching and contorting and exaggerated motions. Rare's characters animate like your average 3D model from the era.
Destruction Derby 1 and 2 had 20 cars per race, but DD1's tracks were tiny and strangely designed. I don't recall them having any slopes and they didn't have draw distance since they were so tiny.
DD2 had som really cool tracks, 20 cars and damage to the vehicles. It was acutally impressive at the time, and it didn't dip in framerate. DD2 looked grainy though, but still good enough imo.
Destruction Derby 1 for PS1 doesn't impress me much (very ugly graphics, only okay gameplay), but I do like the second one. That series also saw one N64 entry, Destruction Derby 64 by Looking Glass (another one where the N64 one was done by a different team). It's somewhat interesting and fun, but has some serious flaws... but I explain all that in my review in my N64 reviews thread. Anyway though, on the "number of cars" issue, DD64 actually has fewer cars in each race than either of the first two PS1 games, oddly -- only twelve. It's definitely unfortunate. Oh, the graphics are far better than the PS1 games, but there are fewer cars...
That VB version looks pretty cool... no textures, but nice polygon work. Between the 32X and GBA though, yeah, I think there the 32X has the advantage.
If buttons are good enough for a computer, where they combine with the mouse to make the best by far control system for shooters, they're more than good enough for consoles too. I much prefer the feel of moving with buttons than with a stick, in the genre.
As good as you could expect from cartridges, which is more than enough. I can only think of a very few N64 games which I actually thought suffered for their lack of CD audio music... most are just as good. And sound effects certainly are just fine, as good as anything.
I know you're blind and all, but R4 features considerably more graphical detail and visual effects everywhere.
In the replays and car selection screen, maybe... in race, not so much. And whatever it does have is more than outweighed with the jaggies and polygon issues.
Okay!
Does it depress you, ABF? To know just how alone you really are?
So you quote only the people who agreed with you, and are trying to pretend that that's a representative sample of the thread? Do you seriously think that you're convincing anyone with that? :lol Here's a hint: It doesn't!
RR4 does look better than RR64. However, all that proves is that Namco did a lazy N64 version. The fact that Beetle Adventure Racing and San Francisco Rush 2049 look considerably better than either is far more relevant.
And outside of racing games there is nothing on PS1 that is close to the graphics on Perfect Dark.
I wouldn't go quite that far, but yeah, it is an average at best series for sure, almost all of the time. It certainly was massively overrated in the '90s.
I'm not a music fan. I have only limited interest in music. I am a videogame fan, and love videogames. There's a big difference there between the two.
I have to admit, I enjoy these Black Falcon discussions. Very few other posts actually respond to each and every point and it's fantastic. We may disagree heavily on things, but I enjoy the back and forth discourse.
Namco were pretty much giant Sony fans at that point, so they certainly weren't going to bother.
How can you actually claim this. The N64 audio quality was extremely poor. The system did not even feature a dedicated sound chip and producing sound had a surprisingly significant impact on system performance as a whole.
Whether you enjoyed the audio or not is irrelevant when it comes to judging quality.
Of course the N64 doesn't have CD audio, but it can do some pretty good music, and I've never had the slightest issue with its sound effects certainly. Why wouldn't it be fine? I mean, sure, I do like Extreme-G 2 for the PC more than I do for the N64 in part because of how great the CD audio version of the soundtrack is, but that's the only game I can think of where I actually thought that... and also, the PC version has a better framerate too.
And anyway, the N64 can do audio like that from PC XG2; you see voiced music in some N64 games, like Wipeout 64, the Tony Hawk games, Top Gear Overdrive and Hyper-Bike, and a few more. It just wasn't in that game.
But anyway, I like cart-game music a lot, whether it's the NES, SNES, N64, Genesis, what have you. CD music's great too, but I like the sound of cartridge music. My favorite systems for CD music are probably the earlier CD systems (Turbo CD, Sega CD, etc), when you have these games with cart game-like music, but at CD quality... cool stuff. Unfortunately that didn't last into the 5th gen, most of the time.
Falcon, what are your thoughts on successive Nintendo systems? While I dislike the Nintendo 64, I actually feel that the Gamecube and even the Wii were enormous improvements and stand up as great machines. The Wii gets a lot of shit but it has a wonderful lineup of software that far FAR exceeds the Nintendo 64 in my eyes.
I definitely prefer the N64 to the Gamecube. The GC's a great console, but the N64 is across the board better. Most series that appear on both the N64 and GC are better on N64 than GC, for instance. The N64 has a MUCH higher proportion of exclusives, too; lots of third party N64 games are N64 or N64/PC only, while most GC third party games are multiplatform ports. Similarly, the N64 has a much higher proportion of racing games with up to 4 player splitscreen, instead of just two; I've always assumed that the GC's problems here are a product of that it has far too many PS2 ports, and PS2 racing games virtually never have 4-player splitscreen modes. Seriously, I think there might be more 4+ player racing games on the PS1 than there are on the PS2... it's close, anyway.
Another thing is that the GC basically trades away most of the Western exclusive titles and developers that Nintendo had partnered with on the N64 for a group of Japanese developers instead, so the GC has a lot more Japanese exclusives of note than the N64 did. Overall this is about even though, because in the process Nintendo dropped most of its Western teams, including Rare, Left Field, etc, and while they did still have Silicon Knights and Factor 5 on the GC, those were gone by the end of that gen too. Retro was about all that was left, considering that NST's Wii game was canned unfortunately and all they've done is DS stuff for years now.
Also, the N64 has a better controller than the GC. The GC's controller falls right into whawt I was saying in my last post about Playstationization -- Nintendo started on an unfortunate road there. They had a better design with the N64, but ditched it to base something off of Sony's designs... they shouldn't have. Oh, the GC controller's perfectly decent, but it'll never be one of the great controllers like the N64's is. As I said, Sega did exactly the same thing that gen, and the DC controller is a pale imitation of the Saturn 3D Controller's greatness (though I still much prefer the DC pad to anything from Sony).
I also like the N64's console design more than the GC's. The curvy N64 design is much cooler looking than the boxy GC.
As for the Wii, it's a pretty good console, but the Classic Controller (or Pro) is just awful, Nintendo's worst controllers ever in some ways. Seriously, they even copied Sony's horrible "d-pad above analog" left side design? WHY? The Wiimote + Nunchuck is better, though, fortunately; it's what I use for Wii games. It does have more of a learning curve than most controllers, with how you have to point at the screen, but once I learned it I came to mostly like it. I think it works fairly well. It's hard to compare to normal gamepads, though, with how different it is. As for the games and graphics, graphics aren't much improved at all over GC, of course, which is somewhat disappointing. It's 50% more powerful than the GC, and yet only a miniscule number of games even look as good as the best looking GC games... weak. Still though, it has a very good overall library. Platformers in particular took a giant leap over the GC; the GC is certainly Nintendo's weakest system in that crucial genre, so it has been great to see Nintendo publishing a lot of good platformers again. But overall, do I like the N64's library as much as the N64's? ... I don't know. Probably not. Wii vs. GC is even tougher... maybe the Wii wins that, but I'm not sure.
On the note of giant PowerVR fans, on another forum I was recently having a debate with a guy insisting that the Dreamcast is more powerful than the Playstation 2, that the Dreamcast could have done fine versions of Resident Evil 4 and Doom 3, and that he prefers DC graphics to GC, Xbox, or PS2, too. Etc. Yeah. He also apparently hates the Gamecube, and was claiming that GC RE4 doesn't look better than the PS2 version...
I'll take Crash and Spyro any day of the week. And in motion Crash is the character that looks like a Looney Tunes cartoon, with his constant stretching and contorting and exaggerated motions. Rare's characters animate like your average 3D model from the era.
