N64 lost to PS1 because Nintendo was lazy.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
I agree with you, but I don't think that Nintendo lost to Sony due to laziness. They lost to them due to arrogance in thinking that they were invincible after winning two console generations with both the NES & SNES & kept thinking that cartridges were the future. They made even more of a bigger mistake by using mini-disks for Gamecube & thought that 3rd parties will instantly come back to them from PS2. Look how that worked for them.
All you did was say they were being lazy. The only change you made was giving me a different reason why they were lazy. They were still lazy and could have easily done half of what Nintendo claimed it couldn't do and the PS1 could. Why? Because even toward the end they were lazy. "We do not have the technology for cutscenes and other visuals that have aided many PS1 games" was the biggest load of crap I had ever heard in my life and people to this day think Carts=No video.I agree with you, but I don't think that Nintendo lost to Sony due to laziness. They lost to them due to arrogance in thinking that they were invincible after winning two console generations with both the NES & SNES & kept thinking that cartridges were the future. They made even more of a bigger mistake by using mini-disks for Gamecube & thought that 3rd parties will instantly come back to them from PS2. Look how that worked for them.
garland51
lol . systemwars!
and no they lost because people saw somthing new,
that was ps ,
and it used compact disc, whats next youll blame nintendo for sony losin this gen haha no chance in h e double hockey sticks ,
face it , nintendo would have won had the ps used cartridges , and thats fact , also to say they lost, when it was sega who really lost, ya go look it up saturn was a flop so was dreamcast and so was game gear ,,
What exactly do you mean with "poor 3D rendering" ? N64 games in general had better poly detail and much better effects than PS1 games did. For example Ocarina of Time had a real 3D world while Final Fantasy VII used just sprites. And the N64 didn't have nearly as much problems with texture warping and pixelation than PS1 did. N64 games looked smooth, anyone who isn't blind can tell you that. The only real shortcomming was that it didn't use CDs which ment there was less texture detail (some falsly believe that was because of small texture cache but the PS1 actually had a even smaller), worse quality sound and the lack of CGI. Even the famous "N64 fog" was there just because devs didn't handle the hardware well. There are some completely fog-free games on the N64 with great draw distances. Furthermore games like Mario 64 didn't look simplistic because the console couldn't do better but because it was their graphical style (which imo aged good). If you want to see what N64 really could do take a look at Donkey Kong 64, Perfect Dark and Majora's Mask (and Conker). And to top it all N64 had a so-called "turbo3D" mode which was barely used but it could speed-up the games greatly if used.
Show me a PS1 game that had better water effects than this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u75ldIY46DA
I thought the N64 was better than the PS1. Graphically I'd take the N64 any day, everything looked less pixelized than most ps1 games, or at least to me they did. The main draw to the N64 was its original games, and that still remains true today. Who didn't like Mario 64? And no, don't think Nintendo was being lazy, I'm sure they knew exactly how much power a system they made had. Now please, drag this over to system wars.
I thought the N64 was better than the PS1. Graphically I'd take the N64 any day, everything looked less pixelized than most ps1 games, or at least to me they did. The main draw to the N64 was its original games, and that still remains true today. Who didn't like Mario 64? And no, don't think Nintendo was being lazy, I'm sure they knew exactly how much power a system they made had. Now please, drag this over to system wars.
What exactly do you mean with "poor 3D rendering" ? N64 games in general had better poly detail and much better effects than PS1 games did. For example Ocarina of Time had a real 3D world while Final Fantasy VII used just sprites. And the N64 didn't have nearly as much problems with texture warping and pixelation than PS1 did. N64 games looked smooth, anyone who isn't blind can tell you that. The only real shortcomming was that it didn't use CDs which ment there was less texture detail (some falsly believe that was because of small texture cache but the PS1 actually had a even smaller), worse quality sound and the lack of CGI. Even the famous "N64 fog" was there just because devs didn't handle the hardware well. There are some completely fog-free games on the N64 with great draw distances. Furthermore games like Mario 64 didn't look simplistic because the console couldn't do better but because it was their graphical style (which imo aged good). If you want to see what N64 really could do take a look at Donkey Kong 64, Perfect Dark and Majora's Mask (and Conker). And to top it all N64 had a so-called "turbo3D" mode which was barely used but it could speed-up the games greatly if used.
nameless12345
Uhm, what? I think you have it backwards. The characters were 3D, but the backgrounds were 2D. There were other games that did use 3D with sprites, like Grandia, Breath of Fire III, and Xenogears, however.
its not just about the amount of texture cache, its how its managed. as far as I know, using filtering like many N64 actually reduced the amount of VRAM available (though I could be wrong). though most of the bottlenecks on the N64 were from other things, such as slow bandwith , and a stupid lack of a soundchip. that said, alot of the later N64 games were ahead of anything on the PS1 imo , mostly because devs got around its issues and the texture issue was partly solved, both through better programming and through the use of the expansion pack though alot of devs were still doing some pretty stupid things just in the name of finishing a game quickly and Mario 64 looks simplistic because its an early game, in fact most of the game has alot of flat shading going on due to this.What exactly do you mean with "poor 3D rendering" ? N64 games in general had better poly detail and much better effects than PS1 games did. For example Ocarina of Time had a real 3D world while Final Fantasy VII used just sprites. And the N64 didn't have nearly as much problems with texture warping and pixelation than PS1 did. N64 games looked smooth, anyone who isn't blind can tell you that. The only real shortcomming was that it didn't use CDs which ment there was less texture detail (some falsly believe that was because of small texture cache but the PS1 actually had a even smaller), worse quality sound and the lack of CGI. Even the famous "N64 fog" was there just because devs didn't handle the hardware well. There are some completely fog-free games on the N64 with great draw distances. Furthermore games like Mario 64 didn't look simplistic because the console couldn't do better but because it was their graphical style (which imo aged good). If you want to see what N64 really could do take a look at Donkey Kong 64, Perfect Dark and Majora's Mask (and Conker). And to top it all N64 had a so-called "turbo3D" mode which was barely used but it could speed-up the games greatly if used.
nameless12345
[QUOTE="nameless12345"]
What exactly do you mean with "poor 3D rendering" ? N64 games in general had better poly detail and much better effects than PS1 games did. For example Ocarina of Time had a real 3D world while Final Fantasy VII used just sprites. And the N64 didn't have nearly as much problems with texture warping and pixelation than PS1 did. N64 games looked smooth, anyone who isn't blind can tell you that. The only real shortcomming was that it didn't use CDs which ment there was less texture detail (some falsly believe that was because of small texture cache but the PS1 actually had a even smaller), worse quality sound and the lack of CGI. Even the famous "N64 fog" was there just because devs didn't handle the hardware well. There are some completely fog-free games on the N64 with great draw distances. Furthermore games like Mario 64 didn't look simplistic because the console couldn't do better but because it was their graphical style (which imo aged good). If you want to see what N64 really could do take a look at Donkey Kong 64, Perfect Dark and Majora's Mask (and Conker). And to top it all N64 had a so-called "turbo3D" mode which was barely used but it could speed-up the games greatly if used.
hakanakumono
Uhm, what? I think you have it backwards. The characters were 3D, but the backgrounds were 2D. There were other games that did use 3D with sprites, like Grandia, Breath of Fire III, and Xenogears, however.
technically, the backgrounds weren't even 2D in the traditional sense since they didn't really cost the PS1 anything in terms of performance I don't think[QUOTE="nameless12345"]its not just about the amount of texture cache, its how its managed. as far as I know, using filtering like many N64 actually reduced the amount of VRAM available (though I could be wrong). though most of the bottlenecks on the N64 were from other things, such as slow bandwith , and a stupid lack of a soundchip.What exactly do you mean with "poor 3D rendering" ? N64 games in general had better poly detail and much better effects than PS1 games did. For example Ocarina of Time had a real 3D world while Final Fantasy VII used just sprites. And the N64 didn't have nearly as much problems with texture warping and pixelation than PS1 did. N64 games looked smooth, anyone who isn't blind can tell you that. The only real shortcomming was that it didn't use CDs which ment there was less texture detail (some falsly believe that was because of small texture cache but the PS1 actually had a even smaller), worse quality sound and the lack of CGI. Even the famous "N64 fog" was there just because devs didn't handle the hardware well. There are some completely fog-free games on the N64 with great draw distances. Furthermore games like Mario 64 didn't look simplistic because the console couldn't do better but because it was their graphical style (which imo aged good). If you want to see what N64 really could do take a look at Donkey Kong 64, Perfect Dark and Majora's Mask (and Conker). And to top it all N64 had a so-called "turbo3D" mode which was barely used but it could speed-up the games greatly if used.
Darkman2007
A lot of these problems would be easily solved if it had a CD drive. They could stream pre-baked textures and sound from the CD thus reducing the need for a dedicated sound chip or the memory expansion. The bandwidth was fine, it was the memory access latencies that were very high. Skilled devs knew how to work around N64's technical problems.
its not just about the amount of texture cache, its how its managed. as far as I know, using filtering like many N64 actually reduced the amount of VRAM available (though I could be wrong). though most of the bottlenecks on the N64 were from other things, such as slow bandwith , and a stupid lack of a soundchip.[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]
What exactly do you mean with "poor 3D rendering" ? N64 games in general had better poly detail and much better effects than PS1 games did. For example Ocarina of Time had a real 3D world while Final Fantasy VII used just sprites. And the N64 didn't have nearly as much problems with texture warping and pixelation than PS1 did. N64 games looked smooth, anyone who isn't blind can tell you that. The only real shortcomming was that it didn't use CDs which ment there was less texture detail (some falsly believe that was because of small texture cache but the PS1 actually had a even smaller), worse quality sound and the lack of CGI. Even the famous "N64 fog" was there just because devs didn't handle the hardware well. There are some completely fog-free games on the N64 with great draw distances. Furthermore games like Mario 64 didn't look simplistic because the console couldn't do better but because it was their graphical style (which imo aged good). If you want to see what N64 really could do take a look at Donkey Kong 64, Perfect Dark and Majora's Mask (and Conker). And to top it all N64 had a so-called "turbo3D" mode which was barely used but it could speed-up the games greatly if used.
nameless12345
A lot of these problems would be easily solved if it had a CD drive. They could stream pre-baked textures and sound from the CD thus reducing the need for a dedicated sound chip or the memory expansion. The bandwidth was fine, it was the memory access latencies that were very high. Skilled devs knew how to work around N64's technical problems.
of course CDs would have helped, and I think that Indiana Jones actually streams textures from the cartridge , though I think its the only game that does that. kinda reminds me of developers failing to use the Saturn's SCU DSP or even VDP2, actually most of them don't even bother use the 2nd SH2 all that often. its a bit sad both machines never got utilized 100%
PS1 won? In what world?
PS1 won? In what world?AvatarMan96
Wow, where have you been?
[QUOTE="AvatarMan96"]
PS1 won? In what world?garland51
Wow, where have you been?
Playing my AMAZING Nintendo 641. Your doing it wrong. 2. Never say in general when I can name one PS1 game that looked better than over hald the N64 library by itself 3.Nice to use FF (Or any Jrpg in general) when comparing 3D games. Nice desperation attempt. 4. Nintendo could have improved the sound, they were just lazy. 5. Nintendo could have thrown cutscenes in their games, they were just to lazy and lied and said they were incapable of having them and having an intro like Megamn 8's was nearly impossible. 6.Devs never took time to put the Hardware to full potential not even Nintendo who not until late just started showing off the N64's power and it still was not what it could do because most did not want to explore any further at that point mostly because of PS1. 7. Turbo3D was not used because people did not want to explore it because they were LAZY.What exactly do you mean with "poor 3D rendering" ? N64 games in general had better poly detail and much better effects than PS1 games did. For example Ocarina of Time had a real 3D world while Final Fantasy VII used just sprites. And the N64 didn't have nearly as much problems with texture warping and pixelation than PS1 did. N64 games looked smooth, anyone who isn't blind can tell you that. The only real shortcomming was that it didn't use CDs which ment there was less texture detail (some falsly believe that was because of small texture cache but the PS1 actually had a even smaller), worse quality sound and the lack of CGI. Even the famous "N64 fog" was there just because devs didn't handle the hardware well. There are some completely fog-free games on the N64 with great draw distances. Furthermore games like Mario 64 didn't look simplistic because the console couldn't do better but because it was their graphical style (which imo aged good). If you want to see what N64 really could do take a look at Donkey Kong 64, Perfect Dark and Majora's Mask (and Conker). And to top it all N64 had a so-called "turbo3D" mode which was barely used but it could speed-up the games greatly if used.
nameless12345
Plain and simple: The high cost of the cart format lost it for them.
its at least one factor, though there were others.Plain and simple: The high cost of the cart format lost it for them.
Heirren
[QUOTE="AvatarMan96"]In the world of games that are not extremely overrated and the majority of the games did no suck compared to those games. In terms of controller In terms of not being Lazy. In terms of detail. detail is a matter of perspective, textures on average were better on the PS1 and Saturn , but the N64 was better with 3D effects, so every console had its advantage. and Nintendo didn't get lazy, in fact they were some of the best on the N64, probably the best along with Rare, 3rd parties on the other hand , underutilized the system. I will agree on one thing, the lack of a soundchip sucks.PS1 won? In what world?
Pegalamp
[QUOTE="Heirren"] its at least one factor, though there were others.[QUOTE="Pegalamp"][QUOTE="AvatarMan96"]In the world of games that are not extremely overrated and the majority of the games did no suck compared to those games. In terms of controller In terms of not being Lazy. In terms of detail. detail is a matter of perspective, textures on average were better on the PS1 and Saturn , but the N64 was better with 3D effects, so every console had its advantage. and Nintendo didn't get lazy, in fact they were some of the best on the N64, probably the best along with Rare, 3rd parties on the other hand , underutilized the system. I will agree on one thing, the lack of a soundchip sucks.PS1 won? In what world?
Darkman2007
It was the major one. 3rd parties were voicing their concern even before the system launched. If Nintendo hadn't developed some unbelievably good games from the outset, the system likely would have flopped. PSX games ranged from $34.99/$39.99, with the occasional $49.99. N64 carts were $59.99 to !!!$69.99!!!
detail is a matter of perspective, textures on average were better on the PS1 and Saturn , but the N64 was better with 3D effects, so every console had its advantage. and Nintendo didn't get lazy, in fact they were some of the best on the N64, probably the best along with Rare, 3rd parties on the other hand , underutilized the system. I will agree on one thing, the lack of a soundchip sucks.[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Heirren"] In the world of games that are not extremely overrated and the majority of the games did no suck compared to those games. In terms of controller In terms of not being Lazy. In terms of detail.Heirren
It was the major one. 3rd parties were voicing their concern even before the system launched. If Nintendo hadn't developed some unbelievably good games from the outset, the system likely would have flopped. PSX games ranged from $34.99/$39.99, with the occasional $49.99. N64 carts were $59.99 to !!!$69.99!!!
Oh I kow it was a major reason , Im just saying there were other reasons too (system bottlenecks, Sony marketing)[QUOTE="Heirren"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] detail is a matter of perspective, textures on average were better on the PS1 and Saturn , but the N64 was better with 3D effects, so every console had its advantage. and Nintendo didn't get lazy, in fact they were some of the best on the N64, probably the best along with Rare, 3rd parties on the other hand , underutilized the system. I will agree on one thing, the lack of a soundchip sucks.Darkman2007
It was the major one. 3rd parties were voicing their concern even before the system launched. If Nintendo hadn't developed some unbelievably good games from the outset, the system likely would have flopped. PSX games ranged from $34.99/$39.99, with the occasional $49.99. N64 carts were $59.99 to !!!$69.99!!!
Oh I kow it was a major reason , Im just saying there were other reasons too (system bottlenecks, Sony marketing)Well, I want to say the cart format was part of the bottleneck, no? Also, I think the original PSX was one of the few systems that took off do moreso to word of mouth.
Oh I kow it was a major reason , Im just saying there were other reasons too (system bottlenecks, Sony marketing)[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Heirren"]
It was the major one. 3rd parties were voicing their concern even before the system launched. If Nintendo hadn't developed some unbelievably good games from the outset, the system likely would have flopped. PSX games ranged from $34.99/$39.99, with the occasional $49.99. N64 carts were $59.99 to !!!$69.99!!!
Heirren
Well, I want to say the cart format was part of the bottleneck, no? Also, I think the original PSX was one of the few systems that took off do moreso to word of mouth.
even without the cartirdge issue, the system has other issues like slow bandwith , texture cache issues (not so much with how much , but how it was managed) , lack of a soundchip (meaning the GPU had to divert resources to create music), slow RAM. Also , just like the Saturn , the N64 suffered from a lack of good development tools until the very end of its life. Sony's marketing was a big reason the PS1 did well , no doubt about it, a combination of good games and good marketingjust for the record though , Im not saying the N64 was weak , it had the most potential out of all the 3 main systems at the time in the 3D department.
Sony made the most sensible hardware , but it was not the most capable
N64 lost due to a number of reasons, but it certainty wasn't raw power.
This is coming from a man that plays both consoles extensively (never owning them in their time and whatnot), and the PS1 games look significantly worse with pixelated textures and terrible warping.
The N64, wile the textures are bland, they are far more smooth, with no warping whatsoever, and far more easy on the eye to get used to. I had no problem getting used to playing OoT, wile it was hard at first (first 30 minutes) to play MGS 1 because i was confuzed of it's pixelated visuals. Crash Bandicoot 3 looks pretty damn good though, despite the systems shortcomings.
I still feel the bad looking N64 games were worse than bad looking psx games. It was game dependent, really. Find me a fighter on N64 that looked as good as Tekken 3. Fine me a game on psx as visually impressive as Wave Race. Sometimes I prefer the pixelated look over the bland blurrines, honestly. In fact, jaggies don't bother me that much.N64 lost due to a number of reasons, but it certainty wasn't raw power.
This is coming from a man that plays both consoles extensively (never owning them in their time and whatnot), and the PS1 games look significantly worse with pixelated textures and terrible warping.
The N64, wile the textures are bland, they are far more smooth, with no warping whatsoever, and far more easy on the eye to get used to. I had no problem getting used to playing OoT, wile it was hard at first (first 30 minutes) to play MGS 1 because i was confuzed of it's pixelated visuals. Crash Bandicoot 3 looks pretty damn good though, despite the systems shortcomings.
Lucianu
I still feel the bad looking N64 games were worse than bad looking psx games. It was game dependent, really. Find me a fighter on N64 that looked as good as Tekken 3. Fine me a game on psx as visually impressive as Wave Race. Sometimes I prefer the pixelated look over the bland blurrines, honestly. In fact, jaggies don't bother me that much. alot of early N64 games are blurry and unattractive to me. the later N64 games on the other hand , look really good. and yes it is genre dependent, the N64 was great with games like platformers and racing games (good with FPS too), as they are less taxing on what the system is less good at. Saturn was best with fighting games, 3D or otherwise, or any game that used the VDP2. PS1 was probably the most balanced, though in alot of ways it was the weakest.[QUOTE="Lucianu"]
N64 lost due to a number of reasons, but it certainty wasn't raw power.
This is coming from a man that plays both consoles extensively (never owning them in their time and whatnot), and the PS1 games look significantly worse with pixelated textures and terrible warping.
The N64, wile the textures are bland, they are far more smooth, with no warping whatsoever, and far more easy on the eye to get used to. I had no problem getting used to playing OoT, wile it was hard at first (first 30 minutes) to play MGS 1 because i was confuzed of it's pixelated visuals. Crash Bandicoot 3 looks pretty damn good though, despite the systems shortcomings.
Heirren
I still feel the bad looking N64 games were worse than bad looking psx games. It was game dependent, really. Find me a fighter on N64 that looked as good as Tekken 3. Fine me a game on psx as visually impressive as Wave Race. Sometimes I prefer the pixelated look over the bland blurrines, honestly. In fact, jaggies don't bother me that much.
Heirren
Both of you are right, if i think about this more, it is game dependent. And jaggies in these older consoles don't bother me at all, because i'm not looking to be visually impressed. Actually, older games in general don't bother me if the visuals don't interfere with my gameplay. (it happened sometimes with PSX games, the first environment of MGS1 was confusing because of that, but i got around that quickly, since i think now that it's one of the greatest games ever made).
Crap visuals only bother me wen i'm playing current gen. PC games, hence why i max them up using everything, because i am expecting good visuals from current gen. games. No problem with older PC either.
I guess i'm lucky that my taste is broad and not bound to anything but being a good game.
[QUOTE="Heirren"]I still feel the bad looking N64 games were worse than bad looking psx games. It was game dependent, really. Find me a fighter on N64 that looked as good as Tekken 3. Fine me a game on psx as visually impressive as Wave Race. Sometimes I prefer the pixelated look over the bland blurrines, honestly. In fact, jaggies don't bother me that much. alot of early N64 games are blurry and unattractive to me. the later N64 games on the other hand , look really good. and yes it is genre dependent, the N64 was great with games like platformers and racing games (good with FPS too), as they are less taxing on what the system is less good at. Saturn was best with fighting games, 3D or otherwise, or any game that used the VDP2. PS1 was probably the most balanced, though in alot of ways it was the weakest.[QUOTE="Lucianu"]
N64 lost due to a number of reasons, but it certainty wasn't raw power.
This is coming from a man that plays both consoles extensively (never owning them in their time and whatnot), and the PS1 games look significantly worse with pixelated textures and terrible warping.
The N64, wile the textures are bland, they are far more smooth, with no warping whatsoever, and far more easy on the eye to get used to. I had no problem getting used to playing OoT, wile it was hard at first (first 30 minutes) to play MGS 1 because i was confuzed of it's pixelated visuals. Crash Bandicoot 3 looks pretty damn good though, despite the systems shortcomings.
Darkman2007
I thought all the racers on N64 looked pretty bad, save for wave race. Also, Tekken 3 looks better than any fighter on the saturn. That game is mighty impressive technically, given the hardware.
Nintendo's issue is the same one they've had since N64 to now, they don't lack the hardware capabilities, they lack the 3rd party support. N64 had no final fantasy, they had no real racing games (and yes Mario kart and that god awful conker racing game don't count), etc. I'll boil it right down for you, Mario 64, Zelda Oot and MM, Goldeneye, Starfox 64, Super Smash Bros., and Conkers Bad Fur Day. Versus, Medal of Honor, Need for Speed, Metal gear solid, Final Fantasy 7-9 (plus remakes), resident evil 1-3 (and yes I know the N64 got 2), Castlevania SotN (also I know 64 got those lamea== ones), etc. The list could go on forever man. So you say Ninty was lazy? Yeah they really were when they could lose with a systemcapable of2x the graphical power of the competition, but the graphical capabilities weren't the issue. Implementation has never been their problem, support always has.
alot of early N64 games are blurry and unattractive to me. the later N64 games on the other hand , look really good. and yes it is genre dependent, the N64 was great with games like platformers and racing games (good with FPS too), as they are less taxing on what the system is less good at. Saturn was best with fighting games, 3D or otherwise, or any game that used the VDP2. PS1 was probably the most balanced, though in alot of ways it was the weakest.[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Heirren"]I still feel the bad looking N64 games were worse than bad looking psx games. It was game dependent, really. Find me a fighter on N64 that looked as good as Tekken 3. Fine me a game on psx as visually impressive as Wave Race. Sometimes I prefer the pixelated look over the bland blurrines, honestly. In fact, jaggies don't bother me that much.
Heirren
I thought all the racers on N64 looked pretty bad, save for wave race. Also, Tekken 3 looks better than any fighter on the saturn. That game is mighty impressive technically, given the hardware.
name me every 3D Saturn fighting game you know. Im not so sure about Tekken 3 looking better, I can think of several which outdo it in several areas. Dead Or Alive (better resolution , less blocky, better/more detailed 2D backgrounds) Zero Divide (better resolution , 3D backgrounds) Last Bronx (better resolution, less blocky better/more detailed 2D backgrounds.) Anarchy in the Nippon (better resolution) thats 4 I can think of at the moment. now Tekken 3 does have its points over them as well, but its not a clear cut win for it (I would have mentioned Virtua Fighter 2 , but it doesnt really compete with those or Tekken 3) as for N64 racers, again , some of the late ones like World Championship Driver and Excitebike 64 are quite impressive, given their budgets (I doubt any of them had the funding the Gran Turismo games had) also Wave Race 64 and Diddy Kong Racing are quite nice for early N64 games[QUOTE="Heirren"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] alot of early N64 games are blurry and unattractive to me. the later N64 games on the other hand , look really good. and yes it is genre dependent, the N64 was great with games like platformers and racing games (good with FPS too), as they are less taxing on what the system is less good at. Saturn was best with fighting games, 3D or otherwise, or any game that used the VDP2. PS1 was probably the most balanced, though in alot of ways it was the weakest.Darkman2007
I thought all the racers on N64 looked pretty bad, save for wave race. Also, Tekken 3 looks better than any fighter on the saturn. That game is mighty impressive technically, given the hardware.
name me every 3D Saturn fighting game you know. Im not so sure about Tekken 3 looking better, I can think of several which outdo it in several areas. Dead Or Alive (better resolution , less blocky, better/more detailed 2D backgrounds) Zero Divide (better resolution , 3D backgrounds) Last Bronx (better resolution, less blocky better/more detailed 2D backgrounds.) Anarchy in the Nippon (better resolution) thats 4 I can think of at the moment. now Tekken 3 does have its points over them as well, but its not a clear cut win for it (I would have mentioned Virtua Fighter 2 , but it doesnt really compete with those or Tekken 3) as for N64 racers, again , some of the late ones like World Championship Driver and Excitebike 64 are quite impressive, given their budgets (I doubt any of them had the funding the Gran Turismo games had) also Wave Race 64 and Diddy Kong Racing are quite nice for early N64 gamesHmm. I don't remember Dead or Alive or Last Bronx looking nearly as good as Tekken 3. The others i'd need you to refresh my memory. Tekken 3 ran at 640x480 @ 60fps, had great character models, really good animation, and nice textures. Saturn games almost always looked rather bland--almost as if the architecture was just odd and the colors muted.
name me every 3D Saturn fighting game you know. Im not so sure about Tekken 3 looking better, I can think of several which outdo it in several areas. Dead Or Alive (better resolution , less blocky, better/more detailed 2D backgrounds) Zero Divide (better resolution , 3D backgrounds) Last Bronx (better resolution, less blocky better/more detailed 2D backgrounds.) Anarchy in the Nippon (better resolution) thats 4 I can think of at the moment. now Tekken 3 does have its points over them as well, but its not a clear cut win for it (I would have mentioned Virtua Fighter 2 , but it doesnt really compete with those or Tekken 3) as for N64 racers, again , some of the late ones like World Championship Driver and Excitebike 64 are quite impressive, given their budgets (I doubt any of them had the funding the Gran Turismo games had) also Wave Race 64 and Diddy Kong Racing are quite nice for early N64 games[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Heirren"]
I thought all the racers on N64 looked pretty bad, save for wave race. Also, Tekken 3 looks better than any fighter on the saturn. That game is mighty impressive technically, given the hardware.
Heirren
Hmm. I don't remember Dead or Alive or Last Bronx looking nearly as good as Tekken 3. The others i'd need you to refresh my memory. Tekken 3 ran at 640x480 @ 60fps, had great character models, really good animation, and nice textures. Saturn games almost always looked rather bland--almost as if the architecture was just odd and the colors muted.
that resolution claim is actually false (I assume you read that on IGN). the arcade version of Tekken 3 ran at 640X480 , the PS1 version did not and instead ran at 320X480 (Ive checked myself). id say the colours on the Saturn were richer , but the PS1 was brighter in general. also the Saturn was basically dead by the time Tekken 3 was out , so its quite difficult to compare them on a year to year basis. and by remembering DOA , I assume youre remember the Saturn version? the PS one has its share of issues with that port.I prefer the look of pixelated PS1 textures to blurry N64 textures.
[QUOTE="hakanakumono"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]
What exactly do you mean with "poor 3D rendering" ? N64 games in general had better poly detail and much better effects than PS1 games did. For example Ocarina of Time had a real 3D world while Final Fantasy VII used just sprites. And the N64 didn't have nearly as much problems with texture warping and pixelation than PS1 did. N64 games looked smooth, anyone who isn't blind can tell you that. The only real shortcomming was that it didn't use CDs which ment there was less texture detail (some falsly believe that was because of small texture cache but the PS1 actually had a even smaller), worse quality sound and the lack of CGI. Even the famous "N64 fog" was there just because devs didn't handle the hardware well. There are some completely fog-free games on the N64 with great draw distances. Furthermore games like Mario 64 didn't look simplistic because the console couldn't do better but because it was their graphical style (which imo aged good). If you want to see what N64 really could do take a look at Donkey Kong 64, Perfect Dark and Majora's Mask (and Conker). And to top it all N64 had a so-called "turbo3D" mode which was barely used but it could speed-up the games greatly if used.
Darkman2007
Uhm, what? I think you have it backwards. The characters were 3D, but the backgrounds were 2D. There were other games that did use 3D with sprites, like Grandia, Breath of Fire III, and Xenogears, however.
technically, the backgrounds weren't even 2D in the traditional sense since they didn't really cost the PS1 anything in terms of performance I don't thinkWell, that's true. They were still running around on 3D planes.
N64: best 1st and second party Ps1: more third party and sales In my eyes n64 is the winner, which is why it's so heavily sought after on online sites like eBay or amazon. pataponplayer
Well, PS1 doesn't have to be sought after because it lives on inside the PS2 - which is still being sold to this day.
technically, the backgrounds weren't even 2D in the traditional sense since they didn't really cost the PS1 anything in terms of performance I don't thinkI prefer the look of pixelated PS1 textures to blurry N64 textures.
[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"]
Uhm, what? I think you have it backwards. The characters were 3D, but the backgrounds were 2D. There were other games that did use 3D with sprites, like Grandia, Breath of Fire III, and Xenogears, however.
hakanakumono
Well, that's true. They were still running around on 3D planes.
technically thats not true, they are running around what is basically a picture file. what I mean is that its not a 2D background in the traditional sense .as they are not the same as what you would see on the older systems, or anything like the Saturn's 2D VDP2 backgrounds.[QUOTE="pataponplayer"]N64: best 1st and second party Ps1: more third party and sales In my eyes n64 is the winner, which is why it's so heavily sought after on online sites like eBay or amazon. hakanakumono
Well, PS1 doesn't have to be sought after because it lives on inside the PS2 - which is still being sold to this day.
thats true, although there are some games which won't work on a PS2 for whatever reason. it doesn't matter because both the PS1 and PS2 are so cheap.In my eyes n64 is the winner, which is why it's so heavily sought after on online sites like eBay or amazon. pataponplayer
WEll you must be blind to the FACTS!:) The facts(sales) show the PSX as the victor. Also, people seek out the N64 on sites that you mention because both the ps2 and ps3 can play psx games, flawlessly for the most part.
Personally though, I agree with you.
[QUOTE="pataponplayer"] In my eyes n64 is the winner, which is why it's so heavily sought after on online sites like eBay or amazon. Heirren
WEll you must be blind to the FACTS!:) The facts(sales) show the PSX as the victor. Also, people seek out the N64 on sites that you mention because both the ps2 and ps3 can play psx games, flawlessly for the most part.
Personally though, I agree with you.
that the PS1 won is a fact, and it had great games to prove it, though of course its all opinion based. btw, I went ahead and played both Tekken 3 and DOA just to see which is the better looking, from what Ive seen , Ive noticed this 1 Tekken 3 has better textures , and is a bit smoother 2. both have a very similar polygon count 3. DOA is sharper due to the higher res and has better backgrounds. personally I think both are great looking for their time. I could post comparison pics for all the games I mentioned, but I suppose its not the right thread for them.[QUOTE="Heirren"][QUOTE="pataponplayer"] In my eyes n64 is the winner, which is why it's so heavily sought after on online sites like eBay or amazon. Darkman2007
WEll you must be blind to the FACTS!:) The facts(sales) show the PSX as the victor. Also, people seek out the N64 on sites that you mention because both the ps2 and ps3 can play psx games, flawlessly for the most part.
Personally though, I agree with you.
that the PS1 won is a fact, and it had great games to prove it, though of course its all opinion based. btw, I went ahead and played both Tekken 3 and DOA just to see which is the better looking, from what Ive seen , Ive noticed this 1 Tekken 3 has better textures , and is a bit smoother 2. both have a very similar polygon count 3. DOA is sharper due to the higher res and has better backgrounds. personally I think both are great looking for their time. I could post comparison pics for all the games I mentioned, but I suppose its not the right thread for them.I wouldn't mind seeing some comparisons, actually. How are you capturing them? The ps3 does some funky stuff to psx games.
that the PS1 won is a fact, and it had great games to prove it, though of course its all opinion based. btw, I went ahead and played both Tekken 3 and DOA just to see which is the better looking, from what Ive seen , Ive noticed this 1 Tekken 3 has better textures , and is a bit smoother 2. both have a very similar polygon count 3. DOA is sharper due to the higher res and has better backgrounds. personally I think both are great looking for their time. I could post comparison pics for all the games I mentioned, but I suppose its not the right thread for them.[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Heirren"]
WEll you must be blind to the FACTS!:) The facts(sales) show the PSX as the victor. Also, people seek out the N64 on sites that you mention because both the ps2 and ps3 can play psx games, flawlessly for the most part.
Personally though, I agree with you.
Heirren
I wouldn't mind seeing some comparisons, actually. How are you capturing them? The ps3 does some funky stuff to psx games.
I use a video capture card, and use an original PS1 and a Saturn , I don't rely on emulators or such like some others. both consoles are using RGB , though it doesn't matter since the capture card only runs in composite sadly.[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]I prefer the look of pixelated PS1 textures to blurry N64 textures.
[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] technically, the backgrounds weren't even 2D in the traditional sense since they didn't really cost the PS1 anything in terms of performance I don't thinkDarkman2007
Well, that's true. They were still running around on 3D planes.
technically thats not true, they are running around what is basically a picture file. what I mean is that its not a 2D background in the traditional sense .as they are not the same as what you would see on the older systems, or anything like the Saturn's 2D VDP2 backgrounds.But the space is still 3D. They get bigger and smaller, etc.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment