Parazels
Member
Rapid Racer runs at high resolution and 60 fps + wave physics.
N64 graphics still look gorgeous almost 30 years later
- Thread starter RetroGamingUK
- Start date
nkarafo
Member
But it looks mediocre otherwise.
Let me explain.
DOOM 64 has none of the issues N64 is known for. It runs at 30fps and has the most complex level designs a DOOM engine had at the time, including a new lighting engine when the PS1 port of DOOM was still based on the simplified Jaguar version.
DOOM 64 is more advanced than DOOM 2 on PC while every other console port of DOOM struggled on every other console, even the PS!.
The game has also aged better than every other N64 FPS because games like Goldeneye/PD/Turok, etc, don't look as good now but DOOM 64 is still the best looking DOOM engine game out there.
Last edited:
Geometric-Crusher
"Nintendo games are like indies, and worth at most $19" 🤡
ps1 games don't have to please you subjectively, the issue here is technology and, unfortunately, the N64 is poorly designed.
Lionel Richie
Member
Imagine being a console warrior for hardware that came out 30 years ago.
NeverYouMind
Member
On a CRT Quake 2 on PS1 looks old as hell while Lifeforce Tenka looks like an early GameCube game.
Last edited:
Syphon Filter
Member
lmao lifeforce doesnt look nowhere near an early gc game, it looks like shit in fact.
nkarafo
Member
This Lifeforce Tenka?
Sorry man but i can't argue with something so strange. I mean, Tenka isn't even close in tech compared to most other PS1 games. It's using way to little geometry for it's tiny, simple looking corridors and rooms and even the textures are very low res. It's one of the less advanced early PS1 games.
NeverYouMind
Member
Have you played it on a CRT?
Geometric-Crusher
"Nintendo games are like indies, and worth at most $19" 🤡
Lifeforce Tenka is very advanced, excellent structuring and geometry.
the purpose of the topic is to show how N64 games have aged, comparing them to PS1 is foolish, I don't want to mention Tobal 2, Soul Blade, hell Tomb Raider, Spyro, Crash, Final Fantasy 9, Driver, Legend of Mana, Street Fighter Alpha 3 (2d can't according to their rules lol) Forsaken and more than 50.
the purpose of the topic is to show how N64 games have aged, comparing them to PS1 is foolish, I don't want to mention Tobal 2, Soul Blade, hell Tomb Raider, Spyro, Crash, Final Fantasy 9, Driver, Legend of Mana, Street Fighter Alpha 3 (2d can't according to their rules lol) Forsaken and more than 50.
Last edited:
LordOcidax
Member
Romulus
Member
What? These aren't even good ps1 comps much less something that would stack against n64 top tier.
nkarafo
Member
The N64 doesn't have any other decent 3D fighting exclusive other than Mace, which is more detailed than both Tomba and Soul Blade, but it's also jankier. I would still say the PS1 wins here.
Spyro and Crash are both beaten easily by Banjo-Kazooie. It's more advanced/complex than Spyro, with better looking LOD and the Crash games... well, they look great but they are also on-rails so it's easier for them to fine-tune and optimize each single moment on screen. N64 wins here.
There isn't a Driver equivalent on the N64 so can't compare. It's an impressive game in scope but the pop-up really brings it down a bit.
FF9 and Legend of Mana rely a lot on 2D graphics. As for SFA3, the N64 is actually more capable than the PS1 for an arcade perfect port, due to the larger RAM and faster cart that can easily stream animation frames in real time. Provided they would use a big enough cart (32 or 64MB) that is.
Forsaked PS1 beats the N64 port because it runs at 60fps. But the N64 beats the PS1 port for having perspective correct visuals. So both have their advantages, i would say it's a tie but i wouldn't argue either way.
Now, let's do Shadowman, World Driver Championship, Stunt Racer 64 and Conker.
Last edited:
Geometric-Crusher
"Nintendo games are like indies, and worth at most $19" 🤡
N64 doesn't have any racing game that even beats the Porsche game, racing games look better on the PS1.
Shadowman is ugly even on the Dreamcast. I consider Soul Reaver on ps1 more advanced. Conker, as I've already explained, runs at low resolution; I can't classify it as an advanced game.
The most impressive N64 game is NFLqb98, followed by F-Zero X and Banjo IMO.
Shadowman is ugly even on the Dreamcast. I consider Soul Reaver on ps1 more advanced. Conker, as I've already explained, runs at low resolution; I can't classify it as an advanced game.
The most impressive N64 game is NFLqb98, followed by F-Zero X and Banjo IMO.
DOOM 64 is an interesting one, it was better than it had any right to be in early 1997. It released not long after Turok and before Hexen if I recall. It's a very under rated take on Doom, which was pretty old hat by then for most gamers. I find it pretty impressive as I said it was in the early life of the N64 but they nailed it. All I remember is appreciating it more than Hexen or Forsaken, both not bad either. Doom 64 kind of gets forgotten with Golden eye coming out later.
GriffinCorp
Member
I love me some N64!
nkarafo
Member
World Driver Championship is far more advanced than Porsche.
Shadowman has unlimited view distance and can be played at high resolution without sacrificing frame rate. Soul Reaver has fog to hide pop-up. You may say Shadowman is ugly artistic wise but we are talking technology here, remember? And that game does more, that's why the PS1 port is so inferior in every way.
Ugh, Conker is far more advanced than any 3D platformer, including Banjo. The geometry is off the charts here and Conker himself has more polygons than other 3D models during that gen, just his face alone is more detailed than the whole body of Crash. And he also has a real time shadow that's casted on every surface, not only on the floor. The only other game i know of that does this is Jet Force Gemimi (but it's more limited) and Chicken Run on the PS1, but the effect looks worse and the game is more limited, visually.
Last edited:
Donald mac Ronald
Member
Pretty sure op snorted a huge line of coke, played some mario 64 (specially one of the bowser bosses)and thought this was a good idea
LordOcidax
Member
Nothing beats World Driver Championship from that era on consoles.
Last edited:
StreetsofBeige
Member
I had the game, but it was called Turbo Prop Racing. Looked slick and smooth. But the worst playing racing game ever on PS1. It was like smashing boats into concrete blocks. Funny thing some reason I always thought it was made by Namco until a few years ago I checked it out and it was actually made by Sony.
Midway-AGNC-
Member
A lot of the criticism thrown at the N64's graphics in this thread is honestly shallow and taken out of context. Comments like "blurry textures," "looked like garbage then and even worse today," or "fog and Vaseline screens" might sound witty, but they completely miss the historical and technical reality of the time. These games were never meant to be seen on today's flat 4K panels. They were designed for CRTs running at low resolution with scanlines, bloom, and natural blur that masked imperfections and made textures and polygons blend in. On the intended hardware, the so-called flaws weren't even noticeable — and, as some have pointed out, CRT shaders and real hardware today prove exactly that. Judging N64 visuals on modern displays without filters is like watching a VHS on an OLED and pretending that's what it originally looked like.
The claim that N64 was always "ugly" completely ignores how groundbreaking Super Mario 64 was in 1996. It wasn't just a graphical leap, it was a gameplay revolution that Saturn and PS1 couldn't match in the same way. Saying "it looked bad even back then" is hindsight bias — no one in 1996 stood in front of Mario 64 and thought it was some visual embarrassment. Another weak argument is comparing it unfavorably to PS1 "definition." The PS1 lacked hardware anti-aliasing, texture filtering, and z-buffering, which led to constant texture warping, jittery polygons, and perspective glitches. N64's filtering was a deliberate choice: it smoothed out visuals and made them look closer to the Model 2 arcade style. Complaining that the filter made things "blurry" is missing the point — that was a tradeoff to avoid the ugly warping the PS1 constantly showed. Later games even layered textures to create sharper results.
And please, holding up Superman 64 as if that represents the whole console is laughable. That's cherry-picking the absolute worst title and pretending it defines the library. By that logic, every PS1 game should be judged by Bubsy 3D. The truth is, the N64 produced some stunning results for the era: Wave Race 64, Star Fox 64, Majora's Mask, Conker's Bad Fur Day, Banjo-Tooie. These games squeezed the machine in ways no other 5th gen console matched. More importantly, the "aesthetic" of the N64 has aged into its own unique charm. That's why indie developers deliberately emulate its look today — because it's a recognizable, stylish era of 3D graphics with a character all its own. The chunky polygons, the filtered textures, the bold colors — they're part of an identity, not just technical compromises.
The biggest fallacy is treating these games as if they were released today and judging them against modern technical standards. It's absurd. Nobody calls black-and-white silent films "bad movies" because they don't look like 4K HDR blockbusters. They are judged within their own time and artistic framework. The same respect should be applied to the N64.
The claim that N64 was always "ugly" completely ignores how groundbreaking Super Mario 64 was in 1996. It wasn't just a graphical leap, it was a gameplay revolution that Saturn and PS1 couldn't match in the same way. Saying "it looked bad even back then" is hindsight bias — no one in 1996 stood in front of Mario 64 and thought it was some visual embarrassment. Another weak argument is comparing it unfavorably to PS1 "definition." The PS1 lacked hardware anti-aliasing, texture filtering, and z-buffering, which led to constant texture warping, jittery polygons, and perspective glitches. N64's filtering was a deliberate choice: it smoothed out visuals and made them look closer to the Model 2 arcade style. Complaining that the filter made things "blurry" is missing the point — that was a tradeoff to avoid the ugly warping the PS1 constantly showed. Later games even layered textures to create sharper results.
And please, holding up Superman 64 as if that represents the whole console is laughable. That's cherry-picking the absolute worst title and pretending it defines the library. By that logic, every PS1 game should be judged by Bubsy 3D. The truth is, the N64 produced some stunning results for the era: Wave Race 64, Star Fox 64, Majora's Mask, Conker's Bad Fur Day, Banjo-Tooie. These games squeezed the machine in ways no other 5th gen console matched. More importantly, the "aesthetic" of the N64 has aged into its own unique charm. That's why indie developers deliberately emulate its look today — because it's a recognizable, stylish era of 3D graphics with a character all its own. The chunky polygons, the filtered textures, the bold colors — they're part of an identity, not just technical compromises.
The biggest fallacy is treating these games as if they were released today and judging them against modern technical standards. It's absurd. Nobody calls black-and-white silent films "bad movies" because they don't look like 4K HDR blockbusters. They are judged within their own time and artistic framework. The same respect should be applied to the N64.
LordOcidax
Member
There's a bunch of people that their first console was a PS3, they are not going to understand.
NeverYouMind
Member
After looking deeper into it I mixed up versions of Rogue Spear. The PS1 received the botched port. Rogue Spear (PS1) < Perfect Dark (N64)
Delta Force: Urban Warfare > Perfect Dark
Last edited:
Midway-AGNC-
Member
They'll feel the same when someone, in 2040, says GTA 6 look like shit in a 20K screen.
Last edited:
Geometric-Crusher
"Nintendo games are like indies, and worth at most $19" 🤡
We agree to disagree. But look, Porsche is just one of the racing games, there are others. Crash Team Racing is also the best in its category.
Honestly, I consider Spyro the pinnacle of the genre in the 5th gen. Regarding polygons in the model, this is a necessity on the N64. Many games have more polygons in the models, the N64 wastes more polygons with models due to the limited texturing capabilities of the system. About the shadows, this is just a choice, consoles of that period were limited, an example is the particles in Millennium Soldier: Expendable or the motion blur in Terracon. There's no way to have all the effects at once. The N64 developers made a mistake here: they released a console 19 months after the PS1, and it didn't even manage to surpass the console. To be clear, there's always an asterisk, so to show superiority, they make 17fps or 214p games, or games with almost no color like WDC. I don't like the way Nintendo makes its products.
kevboard
Member
the issue the N64 has is that pixelated graphics became popular and a popular art style in modern games.
the PS1 had pixelated graphics due to its lack of basically any 3D rendering features.
the N64 meanwhile was technically far more advanced and far more powerful, but sadly the N64 look, which from a modern perspective looks blurry and less defined, didn't become a popular retro artstyle (unless you count Unreal Engine 5 games on console running at 720p)
so now the N64 games are seen as uglier, while at the time it was clearly far superior.
and the less pixelated style was 100% developer driven as well. the N64 can easily display unfiltered textures and run without Antialiasing, just like the PS1, and it would even save performance doing that... but developers at the time didn't go down that route.
the PS1 had pixelated graphics due to its lack of basically any 3D rendering features.
the N64 meanwhile was technically far more advanced and far more powerful, but sadly the N64 look, which from a modern perspective looks blurry and less defined, didn't become a popular retro artstyle (unless you count Unreal Engine 5 games on console running at 720p)
so now the N64 games are seen as uglier, while at the time it was clearly far superior.
and the less pixelated style was 100% developer driven as well. the N64 can easily display unfiltered textures and run without Antialiasing, just like the PS1, and it would even save performance doing that... but developers at the time didn't go down that route.
Last edited:
Romulus
Member
Did you watch the video or is this a troll? That fps looks like the machine is overheating.
kevboard
Member
PSbigfan
Member
Yes of course, I mean the 3D gamesPS1 and Saturn 2D games are gorgeous...
kevboard
Member
the ones that properly used the hardware like Mega Man Legends 2 are also still very nice visually.
by just accepting the lack of texture filtering and using the textures like a canvas for pixel art, games like MML and MML2 still look very nice imo.
Last edited:
FinalBossWithTheMostPower
Member
The level of mental gymnastics on display in thread is weird.
It's quite obvious who didn't live this shit.
N64 graphics were shit, throughout it's entire life cycle, especially so, when compared to late release ps1 games like:
- Tekken 3
- Driver 2
- RE 3
- FFVII - FFIX
- Wipeout XL
- Spyro 3
Geometric-Crusher
"Nintendo games are like indies, and worth at most $19" 🤡
TintoConCasera
I bought a sex doll, but I keep it inflated 100% of the time and use it like a regular wife
I appreciate the effort but I still disagree. Feel free to point out any specifics on that video that make it look better than PD, because I can't see any.
Last edited:
kevboard
Member
The level of mental gymnastics on display in thread is weird.
It's quite obvious who didn't live this shit.
N64 graphics were shit, throughout it's entire life cycle, especially so, when compared to late release ps1 games like:
Warning: this list is not exhaustive. Stop the cap
- Tekken 3
- Driver 2
- RE 3
- FFVII - FFIX
- Wipeout XL
- Spyro 3
the PS1 was literally my first console... and I played N64 near daily at my cousin's.
not a single PS1 game looks as good as Conker, Banjo, Perfect Dark or Majora's Mask.
also, as a Driver fanboy (I literally begged my mom to get a PS1 for Driver), Driver 2 didn't even look good for PS1 standards. yes it was impressive to have an open world, but that game was ugly as sin (and worse looking than the first game in many ways due to being maybe a bit overly ambitious)
Walliwallipaloo
Member
It's beautiful. It was an era where great things were made specifically due to the limitations developers had to work around. They did a lot with a little.
That method of texture filtering is amazing if you work with it (or around it, depending on your interpretation). Shadowgate 64, for example, looks and sounds absolutely phenomenal. It lets your imagination really build off of what you're seeing, in a way that modern games can't. Sometimes, N64 games - at least the ones going for a stylized photorealism - look more "real," at least to me, than modern photoreal games do, PBR and all, simply because the X-factor of imagination is just that important.
That and so many modern techniques produce a much blurrier and shittier image than what you see here. Temporal AA, for instance, looks infinitely shittier as a matter of fact, and shatters immersion. Sure, these games, like STALKER 2, look ""great"" in still shots, but the instant you start to move the camera, the pervasive, uneven blur caused by TAA makes me pine for the old days before UE5.
With the N64, blurriness is just part of the package, but it's also part of the artstyle - a limitation that developers built around and, later in the cycle, upon. They made some truly beautiful things with this particular sort of texture filtering in mind. I'd love to see that distinct visual style come back.
Screw the "PS1" aesthetic. This is where it's at.
That method of texture filtering is amazing if you work with it (or around it, depending on your interpretation). Shadowgate 64, for example, looks and sounds absolutely phenomenal. It lets your imagination really build off of what you're seeing, in a way that modern games can't. Sometimes, N64 games - at least the ones going for a stylized photorealism - look more "real," at least to me, than modern photoreal games do, PBR and all, simply because the X-factor of imagination is just that important.
That and so many modern techniques produce a much blurrier and shittier image than what you see here. Temporal AA, for instance, looks infinitely shittier as a matter of fact, and shatters immersion. Sure, these games, like STALKER 2, look ""great"" in still shots, but the instant you start to move the camera, the pervasive, uneven blur caused by TAA makes me pine for the old days before UE5.
With the N64, blurriness is just part of the package, but it's also part of the artstyle - a limitation that developers built around and, later in the cycle, upon. They made some truly beautiful things with this particular sort of texture filtering in mind. I'd love to see that distinct visual style come back.
Screw the "PS1" aesthetic. This is where it's at.
FinalBossWithTheMostPower
Member
kevboard
Member
I can tell.
even cheap license games like The World is not Enough look better than even the most technically impressive PS1 games.
there are some late gen N64 games, that if you ran them at 480p, would look better than some early PS2 games.
I just wanna ask tho, you are hopefully only talking subjectivity and aren't one of those completely demented people that think the PS1 had any hardware advantage over the N64 right?
Last edited:
Geometric-Crusher
"Nintendo games are like indies, and worth at most $19" 🤡
nkarafo
Member
It's actually the exact opposite. Because the N64 has perspective correction, it only needs a single polygon for each flat surface. Even if that surface is a big flat wall or floor, it's going to need a single perspective correct poly. The same flat surface on the PS1 will need plenty of smaller polygons though because they are not perspective correct so it's better to see smaller parts of the wall breaking instead of the whole thing at once.
So not only the N64 can render more polys (with microcodes), it's also more efficient when it comes to poly use. Conker's face uses more polys because of his many facial expressions and lip syncing. Doesn't have anything to do with textures, both Spyro and Crash also don't have a lot of texturing on their models. It's a common thing.
kevboard
Member
I mean, for a cross gen title that's remarkably close I'd say.
early PS2 titles could look like N64 games with a nicer texture pack installed.
kevboard
Member
the fuck? do we have opposite day?
have you ever looked at a PS1 game in a wireframe view?
the PS1 had to waste a ton of polygons just so the textures don't look completely broken
nkarafo
Member
N64 used more polygons for characters in it's games by average. Not only in big games like Conker but also in lesser games like EWJ3D
Though the game itself isn't at the same level visually as the better N64 3D platformers, Jim's model is one of the highest detailed 3D models of that era. He even has individual 3D fingers. From a fast google and AI search the number i find is 3.000 when the average number for models during that gen was 1/3 of that. Most 6th gen games use models with 10.000 polys on average btw.
By comparison, an early game such as Mario 64 uses 700ish polygons.
Though the game itself isn't at the same level visually as the better N64 3D platformers, Jim's model is one of the highest detailed 3D models of that era. He even has individual 3D fingers. From a fast google and AI search the number i find is 3.000 when the average number for models during that gen was 1/3 of that. Most 6th gen games use models with 10.000 polys on average btw.
By comparison, an early game such as Mario 64 uses 700ish polygons.
Last edited:
Geometric-Crusher
"Nintendo games are like indies, and worth at most $19" 🤡
Last edited:
ResurrectedContrarian
Suffers with mild autism
Really hard to convey with screenshots of emulators, but yes it could look amazing on real TVs, particularly something clean and smooth like Mario 64 or even the two Zelda games.
I prefer it 1000x more than PS1 visuals when it comes strictly to 3D rendering, because something about the horrific, geometrically incorrect warping effect on PS1 made 3D scenes look absolutely awful. Compare walking around in some dungeon in OOT or Majora's Mask to walking through any scenery on the PS1, and I can't stand the hideous jumpiness of every wall and surface in the later, feels unstable.
I prefer it 1000x more than PS1 visuals when it comes strictly to 3D rendering, because something about the horrific, geometrically incorrect warping effect on PS1 made 3D scenes look absolutely awful. Compare walking around in some dungeon in OOT or Majora's Mask to walking through any scenery on the PS1, and I can't stand the hideous jumpiness of every wall and surface in the later, feels unstable.