It honestly my favorite thing about them.
N64 graphics still look gorgeous almost 30 years later
- Thread starter RetroGamingUK
- Start date
NeverYouMind
Member
Dreamcast came out in 1999 in most of the world and in 1998 in Japan the week after Ocarina of Time released.
Last edited:
Romulus
Member
When PS1/Saturn/N64 were out. Those are 5th consoles. Sega jumped in early with a 6th console.
NeverYouMind
Member
Driver released in 1999...
P.S. It was genuinely an open world experience instead of small 3D levels with skyboxes. PS1 version by itself was mind blowing but PC version became the stuff of legends.
Last edited:
BlackTron
Member
So the answer is prerendered backgrounds and FMV? This thread takes me back to 1997
Romulus
Member
But we're all talking 5th consoles, I get we could have also gotten a Dreamcast or PC, but I'm talking about what other options did we have at the time on 5th gen consoles. That's been the entire discussion here. Your post I quoted was referring to ps1. That's what you were discussing.
Driver wasn't mind blowing to me at all after playing N64 and other PS1 games. The pop in was so extreme it took away from everything else.
NeverYouMind
Member
Then you must have been special because Driver did better most of what GTA3 was lauded for 2 years later. N64 was some kiddie shit but I guess it was pretty cool for a kindergartener.
Syphon Filter
Member
neveryoumind is clearly a fanboy, kind of weird to fanboy for a long gone console gen lol.
NeverYouMind
Member
Nah. I just loathe Nintendo and their brainrot fandom.
Romulus
Member
Why do I have to be special to have a valid opinion? It had to "blow me away" for a valid opinion? Maybe I really liked it, but wasn't a revolutionary moment? You seem extremely limited in your ability to process things.
Oh damn, didn't read your N64 line. You have some 90s resentment bottled up from your childhood. lmao. That's some serious anger. I was already out of highschool and enjoyed it more than PS1.
Last edited:
6502
Gold Member
Certainly posting like one. Understandable when an adolescent during the time, but one of the best things about growing up is revisiting the other platforms and enjoying them too.
There is a lot of sad revisionist stuff being perpetuated by kids today and those psx fanboys who never grew up.
N64 was by far the best fully 3d graphics of the major consoles at the time. That doesn't take anything away from the other two which had different strengths and larger diverse libraries.
NeverYouMind
Member
I had a close friend with an N64 and I felt bad for him for the longest time as he always wanted the experiences only other systems could offer. When we hung out at his place we would mostly do stuff outside and when we were at mine we would usually have fun playing on the PSX. I can still remember how happy he was to get a PlayStation as a birthday present. This Nintendofication of history is some bullshit. It wasn't good then and it isn't good now.
Last edited:
Geometric-Crusher
"Nintendo games are like indies, and worth at most $19" 🤡
What's wrong with Nintendo?
The 1990 SNES has a slower CPU than the 1988 Sega Genesis
1996 Inferior textures and audio on the N64, even entire game styles compared to 1994 consoles
2001 gamecube mini dvd, memory system and cpu
Nobody compares Dreamcast with N64 but PS1 and N64, PS2 and GC or SNES and Genesis There is no reason why later released consoles should raise doubts, but Nintendo's do. No Nintendo console after the NES has been cutting-edge, this company doesn't act according to the wealth it has
The 1990 SNES has a slower CPU than the 1988 Sega Genesis
1996 Inferior textures and audio on the N64, even entire game styles compared to 1994 consoles
2001 gamecube mini dvd, memory system and cpu
Nobody compares Dreamcast with N64 but PS1 and N64, PS2 and GC or SNES and Genesis There is no reason why later released consoles should raise doubts, but Nintendo's do. No Nintendo console after the NES has been cutting-edge, this company doesn't act according to the wealth it has
Last edited:
Romulus
Member
This is called anecdotal evidence. The vast majority loved n64. I was there day 1 for ps1. Loved it. Loves soul reaver, metal gear, ff7, had over 60 games. A ps1 fanboy to this day. N64 was an upgrade still, especially graphically.
The majority agree and that's why you label it as nintendofiction. But it's not.
Last edited:
NeverYouMind
Member
In SNES's defense, games on the system did have better audio and color palette 90% of the time. Genesis did have some boneheaded limitations even if it had some strengths.
6502
Gold Member
We can compare DC vs N64 but that was next gen and graphically it out performed it in every way outside of loading times. I had a few games on both, all were sharper with more detail and better framerates than N64. Though I must say I was shocked how great Rayman 2 held up on N64.
Geometric-Crusher
"Nintendo games are like indies, and worth at most $19" 🤡
Doesn't N64 also have some strengths ?
EverydayBeast
ChatGPT 0.001
N64 was the last real console each AAA game is excellent, you worry for the Zelda franchise now, you wonder if Rare will return to that n64 level, Star fox was flourishing, where did Nintendo n64 era go? Zelda was on the mountain top.
P:axMagellanic
Member
My n64 used to give me migraines as a kid. A blurry mess of a console. Turok 1 was probably the worst offender with all that fog.
Mobilemofo
Member
Christ.
My face when I read the OP. .
It has its charm, but doesn't look good
Your not wrong. I think the O.P. has been on the ketamine again. N64 graphics look like a hot mess these days, and only looked quite good back then because of how other systems games look.
roosnam1980
Member
hardware released earlier having limitations is understandable , but when launched 2-3 years later with certain deficiencies .....................
its pathetic
its pathetic
Last edited:
Romulus
Member
My post from years ago. https://www.neogaf.com/threads/playstation-3-game-sack.1617581/post-264518489
So yeah, I'm not "pretending" to like PS1 for the sake of argument. It's up there, either #1 or 2.
Still, I feel N64 was a beast of machine when looking at about 15 games, stuff that couldn't be done on PS1. Not even close.
nkarafo
Member
Damn... Nintendo must be somehow connected to some deep, unpleasant memories from your childhood.
Imagine being so angry about a console.
Von Hugh
Gold Member
Fast load times from the cartridges, anti-aliasing, pushing more polygons than PS1 at least.
Romulus
Member
3x CPU speed too and at least 2x the RAM, even more when using the add on. https://www.thegamer.com/n64-vs-ps1-console-more-powerful-tech-specs/
Last edited:
kevboard
Member
literally didn't matter in 99% of cases. people ported Sonic to the SNES recently, and it runs just fine for example.
in extreme cases devs just included the SA1 chip in the cart and essentially double the CPU power.
it didn't have inferior textures, just a different way devs used the hardware.
look how modern homebrew devs use the N64, and you'll see what that thing was actually capable of when utilised in ways that adhere to our modern sensibilities.
(the second video is on emulator, the first one is on real hardware, the game generally targets 30fps on real hardware at 240p, like most games that gen)
the CPU was fine... the only actual issue were the Mini DVDs, as it led to compression artifacts in some ports.
Mobilemofo
Member
You look at axelay on the snes. That thing was absolutely gorgeous for the time. Fire monster was fabulous. Looks ok even now.Yes it was. We came from SNES graphics… What are you talking about?
TintoConCasera
I bought a sex doll, but I keep it inflated 100% of the time and use it like a regular wife
I'm going to do a solid to our PS bros ITT and drop this here:
This is Brightis for the PSX, from Quintent the same devs as Terranigma or Illusion of Gaia/Time. A damn cool looking game.
NeverYouMind
what do you think of this one? I'd say it's way, way above Soul Reaver. Not sure if technically but it looks way prettier for sure.
This is Brightis for the PSX, from Quintent the same devs as Terranigma or Illusion of Gaia/Time. A damn cool looking game.
NeverYouMind
what do you think of this one? I'd say it's way, way above Soul Reaver. Not sure if technically but it looks way prettier for sure.
Midway-AGNC-
Member
that's a very distorted take. TVs weren't "256 interlaced," most consumer CRTs were 480i/576i, and the N64 usually ran 240p progressive — the blur came from Nintendo's AA filter, not the TVs. The "pitiful draw distance" is just another meme: fog was a design choice to make large 3D worlds playable, while the PS1 mostly avoided them because of warping and z-fighting.
As for the "PS1 looking a generation ahead" with prerendered backgrounds and FMVs, that's smoke and mirrors — pre-rendered JPEGs and grainy videos aren't real-time 3D. Resident Evil on PS1 is literally blocky characters pasted over still images. The RE2 N64 port, instead of being a failure, is actually a technical miracle: the whole game, FMVs and all, squeezed into a cart with extras.
And blaming "Nintendo cheapness" for cartridges is just revisionism. Carts were expensive, yes, but they had zero load times and better durability. It was a trade-off, not some budget cut.
The whole "N64 = blurry garbage" line is just retroactive myth-making. It had flaws, but it also did things the PS1 couldn't dream of. Different machines, different strengths.
mindfreak191
Member
Not even baked me can agree.
Syphon Filter
Member
i never knew about anti aliasing, how come it did it better for n64?
NeverYouMind
Member
Rounded 3D models would be the only thing.
It is impressive but there are more elements that show their age. I remember watching footage for Deception III and being wowed.I'm going to do a solid to our PS bros ITT and drop this here:
This is Brightis for the PSX, from Quintent the same devs as Terranigma or Illusion of Gaia/Time. A damn cool looking game.
kevboard
Member
more memory, more polys (it can technically handle 10k shaded polygons on screen at once), being able to do floating point calculations, perspective correct textures, Antialiasing, far better CPU, it can literally do bump mapping with the right microcode due to how flexible the GPU is.
the only hardware advantage of the PS1 is it having CDs.
Last edited:
nkarafo
Member
PS1 didn't avoid the fog. lt's just that it mostly had the regular pop up instead. N64 at least used fog to make it look a bit less abrupt.
Later on, N64 games completely got rid of the fog and it got a lot of games with unlimited draw distance.
Dr. Wilkinson
Member
Huge n64 fan, but this for sure the first time I've ever heard someone say they prefer n64 graphics over other kinds. They were…not pretty to look at. But that's all we had
NeverYouMind
Member
You seem to be looking at it through the lens of suped up RAM expansion add-on and modern homebrew/emulation scene. What the hardware could be pushed to do is not the same as what it did do which is jack shit in the grand scheme of things.
I mixed up vertical and horizontal lines but the resolution of video was something like 256x240 and I doubt all the lines were displayed at once. Most pre-DVD era TVs did not have S-Video and people used RF cables still. No RF Cable could do 480i. N64 looked like smeared shit on every CRT I have seen.
Silent Hill on PS1 used fog effectively.
The smoke and mirrors of computer graphics are ingenuity. RE2 N64 port's FMVs and textures are greatly reduced which is why it was obsolete the moment the Dreamcast version released. Zero load times for cartridges is a myth. They were just shorter and assets had better streaming. Try playing SNES's Street Fighter Alpha 2 and tell me cartridges have no load times. Many of my friend's N64 cartridges had the connectors degraded beyond repair from repetitive use but I am still playing my PS1 discs from that time. There is no inherent durability benefit to using cartridges.
N64 image quality was blurry as hell back then and it is still blurry. Giant PS1 catalogue realized what the hardware was capable of.
kevboard
Member
the later N64 games did absolutely use these advantages. and games like Conker look better than anything on PS1, and would be technically impossible to run on PS1 without severe cutbacks.
The World is not Enough as well looks better than anything on PS1. it has a pretty clean look, decently detailed environmens, ran pretty well, had good controls... beats essentially anything on PS1 visually (maybe not stylistically given its a Bond game)
Last edited:
NeverYouMind
Member
That is absurd. I have played a cleaned up version of Conker on Rare Replay (Xbox One version) and original Crash Bandicoot/Spyro on PS2 and it played and looked worse than either of them. Granted, I used PS2's texture smoothing but the point still stands.
If we are talking espionage then PS1's Syphon Filter serves it its own ass on a platter. TWINE was somehow more lame than GoldenEye.
Last edited:
Midway-AGNC-
Member
You're mixing some things up again. N64's native res was 320×240 in most cases, sometimes higher with the Expansion Pak. The blur wasn't because "RF can't do 480i" — it came from Nintendo's deliberate AA filter, which gave the console its trademark "soft" look. PS1 had sharper pixels, sure, but also had warping geometry and jittery textures everywhere. Different dev choices.
About fog: you cite Silent Hill, but N64 games used it just as effectively — GoldenEye's Surface stage looks like a full-on snowstorm thanks to fog blending, and Zelda: Ocarina's Haunted Wasteland sells the feeling of a sandstorm better than any PS1 attempt at large open areas. That wasn't just "hiding draw distance," it was atmosphere.
RE2 on N64, even with compression, is still a feat — a full two-disc PS1 game on a 64MB cart, with bonuses. Saying it was "obsolete" because Dreamcast came later is silly; of course a system two years newer on GD-ROMs would look better.
As for carts vs CDs: load times weren't a myth. Compare PS1's 30-second loads in FFVII to practically instant transitions in Mario 64 or Banjo-Kazooie. Street Fighter Alpha 2 on SNES was a special case using huge decompression; it doesn't erase the general advantage. And about "durability," PS1 discs absolutely scratch and rot — you can still find countless unreadable ones — while plenty of N64 carts work fine today. Bad handling kills both formats, not just carts.
Bottom line: N64's image was softer, but that doesn't make it "smeared shit." It was a design trade-off for stability in 3D, and the system's library showed plenty of unique strengths that PS1 couldn't replicate.
kevboard
Member
constant texture wobbling, polygons snapping to the pixel grid... and also Crash is so linear it's almost its own subgenre I'd call "corridor platformer"
Conker has relatively big and interconnected areas.
the character model of Conker himself beats anything ever done on PS1.
(texture filtering is off here, to show the raw pixels)
Last edited:
nordique
Member
N64 is a more powerful console though, so it's best games looking better than ps1 is no surprise
(Media limitations aside)
StreetsofBeige
Member
N64's core strengths were it was $100 cheaper than PS, fast load times, had AA which was a new thing, and banger first party games (if someone preferred Ninty's family oriented colourful games). I think AA made games look fine. Super Mario looked awesome being smoothed out while PS1/Saturn games were a pixel block mess of squares and jaggies. But the N64 trade off was usually fog and shittier frame rate and games were $30 more.
Pick your poison.
I preferred PS1. Ya, games looked jaggy and watching the loading screen was shit. But way more better games, third party support, and it was the time of CD quality sound and sports play by play, CGI cut scenes, and depth all coming from CD storage. PS1 games in Canada were $60-70. N64 cartridges were $80-100 no thanks.
Last edited:
NeverYouMind
Member
I do not judge games based on which has prettier character models. I judge them on the whole package. Conker is a basic bitch platformer with crappy environments. Had you chosen Banjo Kazooie I would have said you were right.
nkarafo
Member
It's because of decompression, not because the roms are slow or whatever you think it is.
Some N64 games have loading times for the same reason. If they used larger carts they wouldn't need to compress data, thus no need for decompression = no load times.
Roms are faster than both CDs and HDDs. They instantly grab whatever file they need, kinda like SSDs but even faster.
Factor 5 even said they used the roms in such a way they didn't even need the RAM. Like, the roms are so fast, they could jsut bypass the RAM, which is what happens in older consoles like the SNES/Genesis (which is why these consoles have so little RAM).
The Neo-Geo AES has very little RAM because it streams from the carts. The Neo-Geo CD has a massive 7MB Ram to compensate for.... guess what.
You seem to not know how those things work but you still have a strong opinion on the matter.
No you judge based on your Nintendo hate bias. You already pretty much admitted to everyone in this topic that it's impossible for you to judge fairly so i don't know why you bother to convince anyone now.
Your opinions are basically irrelevant now because of that.
Last edited:
kevboard
Member
Conker is an awful game, that doesn't change the fact that if beats any PS1 game on terms of fidelity.
Banjo does too, but to a lesser degree
NeverYouMind
Member
They are faster if you don't compress anything which never happens. Cartridge cost increases astronomically relative to the amount of data stored. Ergo, cut the crap.
Romulus
Member
nkarafo
Member
They are faster, period. With or without compression. Stop trying to find more things to bash about the N64, you are probably fooling a person or two.