RetroGamingUK
Member
Star Wars: Battle for Naboo
Huge amount of geometry on the stages, well detailed models and great lighting
Huge amount of geometry on the stages, well detailed models and great lighting
Last edited:
Which Nintendo 64 game had the BEST graphics on the system?
- Thread starter Midway-AGNC-
- Start date
RetroGamingUK
Member
Last edited:
RetroGamingUK
Member
Texture filtering made all the difference, especially with how blocky textures looked on PlayStation and Saturn.
I think it beat 3DFX to market too.
Drell
Member
Not just blocky, but zigzaging all around the place thanks to the absence of Z buffer and my worst nightmare: polygons wobbling all around the place. People like to puke on the N64 for its asthmatic framerates and blurry textures, but personally these days, I refuse to even touch a PS1 game without these eyesores being corrected by duckstation.
deriks
4-Time GIF/Meme God
Same opinion. I even remember saying that back in the day. Game to this day looks amazingProbably Conker, with a lot of games fighting for the #2 spot, but I don't think one of them is Rogue Squadron. It was one of my favorite games and I played it to death.
The first level is impressive taking a Mario64 clean approach because it's just sand.
But the ground textures in most levels like grass or rocks were unbelievably archaic, paired with jaggied enemies emerging from dense fog. Just get to the second level, and the honeymoon is over.
It doesn't take away from factor5's technical achievement looking as good as it does with those big maps full of unique enemies and structures, but many 1996/1997 games look cleaner than RS for most of the game, including Star Fox, Wave Race and Goldeneye.
And the second one on GC looks on par with PS360 games
Team Andromeda
Member
Doom is a nice shout, also liked the look of War Zone and WCW/NNO: Revenge too. Games which didn't seem to suffer either, and also Killer Instinct looked awesome on the N64 too
BlackTron
Member
I mean...to this day the first level still looks amazing, and the second level still looks like crap lol.
As for the sequel, one of the biggest moments in game graphics.
RetroGamingUK
Member
Those FPS games with 2D billboard enemies and weapons dated very quickly once Turok, Quake and GoldenEye arrived in 1997.
Last edited:
RoboFu
One of the green rats
N64 didn't have a ton of great looking games and a big reason was all the blurry textures. Some games could have looked great without bilinear filtering turned on the textures but Nintendo wouldn't allow it.
But I will also say it wasn't as bad on an old crt than it is on a modern display.
But I will also say it wasn't as bad on an old crt than it is on a modern display.
Sportler
Member
I'm no expert, but don't some of the GIFs come from Mega Man Legends 2? Which isn't on the N64.The only game where I feel the devs accomplished what they set out to do, both graphically and artistically, was Mega Man 64:
Last edited:
RetroGamingUK
Member
Last edited:
Midway-AGNC-
Member
Anyone saying the N64's graphics didn't look good when it came out is either being dishonest or judging them through the wrong lens. It's ridiculous to use today's standards to evaluate late-'90s 3D visuals. Games like Ocarina of Time, Super Mario 64, Banjo-Kazooie, and Turok didn't just "look good for the time" — they literally set new benchmarks for 3D graphics, both on consoles and in gaming as a whole.
And then there's the classic framerate argument, constantly brought up by early-3D detractors. Back then, high framerates were extremely difficult to achieve without major sacrifices — smaller rooms, short draw distances, fewer effects, etc. You couldn't have it all. Using that as a measure of quality is just missing the point. This was 1996–2001 — not the PS4 era. Even PS2 titles struggled with performance. What mattered then was how far developers could push new 3D technology, and the N64's best games absolutely delivered on that front.
I get the impression that very few people actually played Star Wars: Battle for Naboo, which is a shame. Not only does it look visibly superior to Rogue Squadron — with far better draw distance, sharper textures, and smoother performance — but it's also a genuinely great game. It expanded on Rogue Squadron's formula with ground vehicle missions and even the ability to switch vehicles mid-mission, adding a lot more variety and depth to the gameplay.
And then there's the classic framerate argument, constantly brought up by early-3D detractors. Back then, high framerates were extremely difficult to achieve without major sacrifices — smaller rooms, short draw distances, fewer effects, etc. You couldn't have it all. Using that as a measure of quality is just missing the point. This was 1996–2001 — not the PS4 era. Even PS2 titles struggled with performance. What mattered then was how far developers could push new 3D technology, and the N64's best games absolutely delivered on that front.
I get the impression that very few people actually played Star Wars: Battle for Naboo, which is a shame. Not only does it look visibly superior to Rogue Squadron — with far better draw distance, sharper textures, and smoother performance — but it's also a genuinely great game. It expanded on Rogue Squadron's formula with ground vehicle missions and even the ability to switch vehicles mid-mission, adding a lot more variety and depth to the gameplay.
Ok, I'll believe you actually was around back in the day.
Last edited:
nemiroff
Member
Hey, what's with the knee-jerk attitude. I just made a separate opinion, and it just happened to be different from yours. It shouldn't be too hard to handle.
Last edited:
Geometric-Crusher
"Nintendo games are like indies, and worth at most $19" 🤡
Midway-AGNC-
Member
It's not about having a "different opinion." It's about clearly showing that you didn't actually experience that era or understand the context of 3D development at the time. Saying nothing from that period looked impressive isn't just a matter of taste — it suggests you either weren't there, or you're judging it through today's standards. Those games were groundbreaking for what was technically possible back then, and their visual impact simply can't be measured by modern metrics.
nemiroff
Member
You are chock full of yourself... Well, continue to smell your own farts, you seem to enjoy it.
Last edited:
Instant_Classic
Member
You get way too defensive over the N64.
I had two of them, that shit NEVER looked good.
We accepted it, as 3D was new.
Trust me, the N64 was not a bad console but come on man...
Realistically, it was until the Dreamcast (1998/1999) where 3D graphics on consoles started looking good.
3D gaming really didn't come to form (controller, framerate, graphics, etc) and start thriving until the DC/PS2 gen.
Last edited:
nemiroff
Member
That's right, the Dreamcast introduced better image quality. The Silicon Graphics branded bilinear filtering and crude AA on the N64 promised to soften the extremely harsh and warped image as on the PS, but it did it so badly it swung over to the other extreme. The result was that a lot of people ironically preferred the warped and aliased but crispier look of the Playstation at the time.
Edit: And me too btw; I had a Japanese and a US version of the N64. ...I despised the PAL versions of consoles at the time.
Last edited:
tkscz
Member
Two of those gifs are MML 2 on the PS1. Don't think that game came to the N64The only game where I feel the devs accomplished what they set out to do, both graphically and artistically, was Mega Man 64:
Physiognomonics
Member
Banjo-Kazooie, Goldeneye 007 and Zelda 64 are my pick.
nkarafo
Member
Maybe in some ways.Those FPS games with 2D billboard enemies and weapons dated very quickly once Turok, Quake and GoldenEye arrived in 1997.
In other ways Doom 64 has aged better than Turok and Goldeneye. It runs smoothly and it still has the best level design of any Doom engine game even now.
Nowadays i enjoy playing Doom 64 more than any of the true 3D fps games of that era.
Last edited:
GoldenEye98
posts news as their odd job
Probably Conker, with a lot of games fighting for the #2 spot, but I don't think one of them is Rogue Squadron. It was one of my favorite games and I played it to death.
The first level is impressive taking a Mario64 clean approach because it's just sand.
But the ground textures in most levels like grass or rocks were unbelievably archaic, paired with jaggied enemies emerging from dense fog. Just get to the second level, and the honeymoon is over.
It doesn't take away from factor5's technical achievement looking as good as it does with those big maps full of unique enemies and structures, but many 1996/1997 games look cleaner than RS for most of the game, including Star Fox, Wave Race and Goldeneye.
A lot of the games from this area hold up on whether they kept it simple for the textures or tried to do to much....
AngelMuffin
Member
Rogue Squadron looked fantastic.
Madserb2023
Member
Banjo Kazooie and the sequel. The texture work in those games is amazing for the system.
Heimdall_Xtreme
Hermen Hulst Fanclub's #1 Member
I never understood why that game, having an English dub... was never released in America.Could Sin & Punishment get a spot? The game's a looker and iirc it runs quite well.
(the gif is sped up)
Back in the day, he wanted to play it.
Heimdall_Xtreme
Hermen Hulst Fanclub's #1 Member
Furthermore, its distribution was difficult. In Mexico, it could literally only be found on the black market and at exorbitant prices... I remember it cost double or triple what a regular N64 game did.
Heimdall_Xtreme
Hermen Hulst Fanclub's #1 Member
Yoshi's Story will always be Nintendo's black sheep.Exactly. N64 was full of blocky, muddy, and low framerate games. I will always consider PS1/N64 gen to be the ugliest generation due to that. The games were fun though.
However to be fair there were a few standouts artistically.
Most disgusting game.
Heimdall_Xtreme
Hermen Hulst Fanclub's #1 Member
Rogue Squadron is one of the greatest and most fantastic Star Wars games I've ever played.Probably Conker, with a lot of games fighting for the #2 spot, but I don't think one of them is Rogue Squadron. It was one of my favorite games and I played it to death.
The first level is impressive taking a Mario64 clean approach because it's just sand.
But the ground textures in most levels like grass or rocks were unbelievably archaic, paired with jaggied enemies emerging from dense fog. Just get to the second level, and the honeymoon is over.
It doesn't take away from factor5's technical achievement looking as good as it does with those big maps full of unique enemies and structures, but many 1996/1997 games look cleaner than RS for most of the game, including Star Fox, Wave Race and Goldeneye.
I finish it with all the gold medals on the PC version.
I always played the Star Wars games... Until what happened at Disney, I didn't care about the universe anymore.
Heimdall_Xtreme
Hermen Hulst Fanclub's #1 Member
If there's just a flat, empty background... then the Pokémon will look better.Pokémon Stadium 2 looks like an early GC game.
So much so that they reused the same models for Colosseum lol.
Because of the N64's processing power.
Trilobit
Absolutely Cozy
nkarafo
Member
I don't hate the game for not being nearly as good as Yoshi's Island. The later was much to high of a standard to beat. I actually do like Story in some ways.
But i still hate it for changing Island's cool Yoshi sfx and replacing them with those childish chipmunk cries and making them the standard Yoshi sfx since then.
Midway-AGNC-
Member
Don't dare to tell that to those who think framerate automatically equals graphical quality. Because yeah, all those "high performance" games back then looked amazing — if you enjoy tiny boxy rooms, five-meter draw distances, and textures that look like wet cardboard. That's what it took to hit those precious extra frames.
Gaiff
SBI’s Resident Gaslighter
Yeah, so?
Heimdall_Xtreme
Hermen Hulst Fanclub's #1 Member
Well, yes... In my case, I hate it because it has several negative aspects and it's so short. Thanks to this game, I've lost all desire to buy a Yoshi game.
In fact, they use those techniques to unleash the console's power... Although the Mexican video game press covered it up... I always noticed it.
I never liked that the N64 used "3D" objects that were just sprites... simulating a real object.
They also use those techniques in games like Dark Souls.
And I remember they used them a lot in Undead Knights... But I forgive them because it was a very interesting PSP game.
That trick made the characters look good... But it sacrifices a setting by making it look like just a drawn cardboard box.
Last edited:
BlackTron
Member
I only got a bit over half the gold medals, but maybe it would have been easier on PC with a better framerate. I love the N64 controller and stick for this game though. I actually played the PC version all the way back in 1999 but mostly used it as a demo in the first level, and preferred the N64 despite looking worse. Death Star trench bonus level on living room TV and sound system...classic console vs PC thing.
Romulus
Member
Could Sin & Punishment get a spot? The game's a looker and iirc it runs quite well.
(the gif is sped up)
Devs snorted coke before coding this
NeoIkaruGAF
Gold Member
Another N64 graphics thread, another missed chance to have this discussion without the usual crowd just having to come in and say how much the graphics of that era sucked then and suck now.
This is not what is being discussed here. Can't you find another party to poop?
This is not what is being discussed here. Can't you find another party to poop?
Midway-AGNC-
Member
I completely agree with anyone mentioning 007: The World Is Not Enough — its graphics are seriously impressive for the N64, and I totally forgot to include it in my original post.
In fact, during its final years, the N64 had an amazing lineup of visually stunning games that often get overlooked. Unfortunately, from around '99 onward, with the PlayStation dominating the market and the next generation just around the corner, many late N64 releases went unnoticed. That's why people tend to focus on the early-to-mid life titles — and often skip over games that were clearly superior in terms of visuals.
Battle for Naboo is a perfect example — it's undeniably better looking than Rogue Squadron in every aspect: sharper textures, far better draw distance, more detailed effects. Yet people still bring up Rogue Squadron way more often. The same goes for Turok 3 and Rage Wars — both completely outclass Turok 1 & 2 visually and technically.
Another great case is Perfect Dark. Some people love to complain about the framerate, but honestly, that's just missing the point. The game was so ambitious — pushing dynamic lighting, shadows, particle effects, and huge environments — that a perfectly smooth framerate simply wasn't realistic at the time.
You could say the same about Conker's Bad Fur Day, World Driver Championship, or even Indiana Jones and the Infernal Machine — all of them squeezed every ounce of power out of the hardware and looked phenomenal for 2000–2001. And I'll admit a bit of self-criticism here — I never played F1 World Grand Prix II, and from what several people here have said, it looks noticeably better than the first one. Another late release that didn't get its due because most players had already moved on.
Looking back, it's amazing how strong the N64's late library really was. Developers had fully mastered the hardware by then — it's just unfortunate that most of those games came too late to get the recognition they deserved.
In fact, during its final years, the N64 had an amazing lineup of visually stunning games that often get overlooked. Unfortunately, from around '99 onward, with the PlayStation dominating the market and the next generation just around the corner, many late N64 releases went unnoticed. That's why people tend to focus on the early-to-mid life titles — and often skip over games that were clearly superior in terms of visuals.
Battle for Naboo is a perfect example — it's undeniably better looking than Rogue Squadron in every aspect: sharper textures, far better draw distance, more detailed effects. Yet people still bring up Rogue Squadron way more often. The same goes for Turok 3 and Rage Wars — both completely outclass Turok 1 & 2 visually and technically.
Another great case is Perfect Dark. Some people love to complain about the framerate, but honestly, that's just missing the point. The game was so ambitious — pushing dynamic lighting, shadows, particle effects, and huge environments — that a perfectly smooth framerate simply wasn't realistic at the time.
You could say the same about Conker's Bad Fur Day, World Driver Championship, or even Indiana Jones and the Infernal Machine — all of them squeezed every ounce of power out of the hardware and looked phenomenal for 2000–2001. And I'll admit a bit of self-criticism here — I never played F1 World Grand Prix II, and from what several people here have said, it looks noticeably better than the first one. Another late release that didn't get its due because most players had already moved on.
Looking back, it's amazing how strong the N64's late library really was. Developers had fully mastered the hardware by then — it's just unfortunate that most of those games came too late to get the recognition they deserved.
NeverYouMind
Gold Member
For good reason. PC and Dreamcast graphics were a generation ahead of this basic ass 3D in 1999.
Midway-AGNC-
Member
By that logic, I guess we should also dismiss most of the SNES library, right? There were PCs, arcades, and even other consoles at the time capable of much more advanced 2D graphics — yet that doesn't make Super Metroid, Donkey Kong Country, or Chrono Trigger any less impressive.
Comparing the N64 to Dreamcast or PC hardware from 1999 completely misses the point. It's like judging a 1993 SNES game by 1997 standards — it just shows you're not actually interested in context or technical achievement, just in making a console war argument. Honestly, that kind of take sounds more like fanboy talk than an actual constructive discussion.
NeverYouMind
Gold Member
Judging by 1993 hardware, Sega Model 2 in arcades has better 3D graphics capabilities and N64 released the same year as Sega Model 3...
Midway-AGNC-
Member
Ah, right — the good old "compare a home console to multi-thousand-dollar arcade hardware" argument. Brilliant. What's next? Are we going to say the N64 was trash because it didn't look like The Lord of the Rings CGI from the same era? Come on. Comparing a consumer console to Sega's dedicated arcade boards — literal industrial machines designed for one purpose — isn't just a weak argument, it's dishonest.
You're not here to discuss the N64 or its late-era graphics in good faith — you're just moving goalposts for the sake of sounding smug. That's not a debate, that's trolling.
You're not here to discuss the N64 or its late-era graphics in good faith — you're just moving goalposts for the sake of sounding smug. That's not a debate, that's trolling.
NeverYouMind
Gold Member
N64 3D == Garbage
Romulus
Member
Man you have built up resentment over that console. You're the same guy that was trashing it in the other thread. Jesus.
RetroGamingUK
Member
Pisses all over Saturn's 3D though, doesn't it.
Last edited: