PSX vs. N64 or SNES vs. Genesis: Which war was better?

  • 158 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Dj-Dampleaf (677 posts) -
The two most epic legacy wars, and the current one when it's finished will probably be at the top, the fanboys were terrible, but legacy wise these 2 are the most talked about without many clearer reasons, but many of these systems have great libraries and blast processing. Now, which was the better war? To be honest I would say that th amount of 2D, 2.5d and 3D games battling eachother and making such great franchises like Resident Evil, Crash Bandicoot, Banjo, Jet Force, Metal of Honor, Syphon Filter, Wave Race, and Rayman was just much more of an epci war. I wated much more money on the first war and 5th gen just had soo many great games coming out all the time our want lists from then are still the same, unlike the 4th gen were we are digging to see f we have old never hads. What about you?
#2 Posted by rilpas (8222 posts) -
PS1 > Genesis = SNES > N64
#3 Posted by Dudersaper (32949 posts) -
I was always more into PS1/N64.
#4 Posted by Blueresident87 (5339 posts) -

When I think of the phrase 'Console War' I think SNES v Genesis

#5 Posted by Swanogt19 (24159 posts) -
SNES vs. Genesis.
#6 Posted by Nintendo_Ownes7 (30917 posts) -

SNES/Super Famicom vs. Genesis/Mega Drive was better to me because it was closer in terms of sales and power.

PS1 vs. N64 while I prefered the N64 that war wasn't close the N64 was better in terms of power but the PS1 won in terms of sales and it got a lot of 3rd party support.

So I'm picking the SNES vs. Genesis because that war was closer then the PS1 vs. N64.

#7 Posted by _TheJoker_ (6013 posts) -

When I think of the phrase 'Console War' I think SNES v Genesis

Blueresident87

Epic gen.

Snes vs Genesis is a really hard debate as both had great exclusives, lots anf lots of great exclusives!

#8 Posted by Eikichi-Onizuka (8041 posts) -
SNES vs. Genesis The campaigns and commercials were more fun then. SEGA does what Nintendon't!
#9 Posted by amari24 (1898 posts) -
To me, the Genesis Vs. SNES was much better as a console war. It was dead even in pretty much all phases including statistics. I have Genesis at 1A and SNES at 1B, that's how close it was. The PS1 Vs. N64 wasn't the same thing. The PS1 was a better system, had better games, better sales, and more support. The N64 simply couldn't compete.
#10 Posted by jsmoke03 (12930 posts) -

during these era's, i neve knew of any war...i just knew playing games with the sytem you have.

i didn't hate nintendo because i didn't have the snes or the n64, i was jealous because i didn't have those systems that my friends owned. there was no discrimination, only the desire to go to their houses to play those games. there was no automatic discrimination, there was recognition that there were great games in every system

edit: there were no fanboys, just gamers

#11 Posted by Heirren (17361 posts) -
No one can argue this. Genesis vs snes was literally the start of console fanboy wars. A lot of it had to do with the fact that games back then were still largely marketed towards younger people, so a lot of people just had one console.
#12 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

SNES vs Gen/MD of course.

PSX/PS1 vs N64 was a pretty boring war imo.

It was PS1 dominating in sales and support and N64 getting the occasional Mario/Zelda/Pokemon/FPS game.

I think most people didn't even bother to delve deeper into N64's game library and the advertising was much lesser on Nintendo's part (they were mostly airing game and console commercials during cartoons and kid's shows whereas PlayStation was present literally everywhere, from musical events to sports and late night shows).

The 16-bit wars, on the other hand, were a very fierce competition, both, in games as well as advertising.

#13 Posted by DealRogers (4569 posts) -

PSX vs N64

#14 Posted by Megavideogamer (5441 posts) -

Sega Genesis/Sega MegaDrive Versus The Super Nintendo. The first console"war" Sega had a 2 year head start on Nintendo. Nintendo eventually won this "war" 49.10 million to 35million-40million for Sega. Sega did win in the U.S.A and for a short time was the number 1 videogame company in the world.

Since this was a very close "war" that Nintendo won. It is the best of the videogame wars or races for top spot. The Playstation destroyed N64 103 million PSones to 33 Million Nintendo 64 consoles. Not a very close race at all.

SNES VS Genesis is the "best" videogame system "war" Since it was very close.

#15 Posted by glez13 (8876 posts) -

PS vs. N64 wasn't even a war. It was a massacre. Only Nintendo fanboys think it was ever a real competition.

Thanks to Sega we have modern console wars and it all started with SNES vs. Genesis.

#16 Posted by Uloset (178 posts) -

I feel like this comes down to your age at the time of the war. I was in the prime of my childhood for the SNES vs Genesis conflict. Therefore as a gamer kid it was a vastly important part of my life to defend the system I chosen as their was no way my parents were getting me a 2nd system (I choose the SNES). Also how much do you have going on as a kid, I had more time and energy to waste on such endeavors. Plus the marketing campaign has great.

By the time the the N64-PS1 battle came along I was in highschool and had a job so by 97 I owned both systems and the arguing didn't matter as much, since I had no reason to defend one over the other. The only thing that sticks in my head marketing wise from these years was from Sega such as them throwing a PS1 off a building and stating "Fly plaything fly."

#17 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

Well, to be honest PS1 vs N64 was a pretty good war in terms of exclusive games.

When the N64 came out, it blew away the PS1 with superior graphics and games such as Mario 64 (Sony tried to counter it with Crash but Crash was not real competition to SM64 - it took Sony untill Spyro to come up with a decent competitor to SM64 and by then the N64 already had Banjo, which was better than any PS1 3D platformer), Wave Race 64 (blew away the Jet Moto games on the PS1) and Pilotwings 64 (nothing like it on the PS1).

The PS1 was initially selling because of games like Ridge Racer, Toshinden and WarHawk, which were nice graphics demos but mediocre games.

Later on, the PS1 got games like Final Fantasy VII, Resident Evil 2 (the N64 version came out much later) and Tomb Raider II (exclusive to PS1 at the time), which were all "killer-apps", but N64 got games like Diddy Kong Racing, Star Fox 64 (the first game to make use of force-feedback effect, i.e. the "Rumble Pak") and FPS exclusives like Turok and GoldenEye 007.

Especially GoldenEye was a killer game and envied much by PS1-only owners (the PS1 never got a FPS as good as GoldenEye was).

N64 was also the console to go for in terms of multi-player, as a lot of games supported the four-player split-screen.

But the best year for both systems had to be 1998.

The PS1 got such killer games like Gran Turismo, Crash 3, Tekken 3 and MGS in that year, but the N64 was just as strong, if not stronger, with games like Ocarina of Time, Banjo-Kazooie, 1080 Snowboarding (blew away Cool Boarders on the PS1), Turok 2 and Star Wars: Rogue Squadron (both console exclusives; Nintendo even tried to counter the Gran Turismo games with the F1 World Grand Prix games, which may be crap today but back then they were the best console F1 sims).

The following year, namely 1999, was not that good for both systems in the sense that PC emulators of both systems appeared and later in the year the Dreamcast came out, which blew both away in terms of graphics.

But they still received their fair share of great games.

The PS1 got games like WipeOut 3, Soul Reaver, Vagrant Story, Crash Team Racing, Gran Turismo 2, Final Fantasy IX, Chrono Cross, ect. and the N64 got games like Star Wars Racer (much more fun than any PS1 futuristic racer), Jet Force Gemini (easily the best TPS in that era), DK64 (underrated), Pokemon Stadium, Perfect Dark (gave any PS1 FPS a run for it's money), Paper Mario, Smash Bros., Majora's Mask (easily the best Zelda game), Banjo-Tooie (worse than the original one but still nice), Conker's Bad Fur Day (unique game to say the least), ect.

So when it comes to 1st (and 2nd) party games, the N64 was easily superior to PS1, but PS1 had much stronger 3rd party support (due to N64 using cartridges and being hard to develop for; And also because of Sony's advertising/financial power at the time).

#18 Posted by Emerald_Warrior (6581 posts) -

The PS1 vs. N64 wasn't even a war, it was simply healthy competition, which is quite normal.

The SNES vs. Genesis was, on the other hand, a war. They literally took shots at each other in ads and commercials, put each other's games and systems in a bad light at expos or in magazines to show that their own game or system were better, and constantly and blatantly stole ideas from each other. The PS1 vs. N64 competition wasn't that cutthroat.

#19 Posted by Dudersaper (32949 posts) -

The PS1 vs. N64 wasn't even a war, it was simply healthy competition, which is quite normal.

The SNES vs. Genesis was, on the other hand, a war. They literally took shots at each other in ads and commercials, put each other's games and systems in a bad light at expos or in magazines to show that their own game or system were better, and constantly and blatantly stole ideas from each other. The PS1 vs. N64 competition wasn't that cutthroat.

Emerald_Warrior
Very good point.
#20 Posted by WitIsWisdom (3804 posts) -

SNES vs. Genesis is the winner of this one sided battle featuring two sets of two sides....

ok Anyways, yeah, that battle was king of ALL console battles EVER.

PS1 just kind of walked in the door of N64, slapped its mama (I guess that would have to be rob the robot... :P ) who dropped Goldeneye and a few other gems, and the "war" was over... She (N64) never quite recovered from the brutality... however, Playstation went on to father many illegitimate children who never saw a sequel, and so was born modern day shovelware! (I mean it was disc based so thats modern enough right?) well either way, I thought it was a decent story... heh

#21 Posted by dragonfly110 (27071 posts) -

N64>Genesis>>>PS1>SNES.

I'm well aware of the fact that I'm in the minority with this one though haha.

#22 Posted by Supertornado (67 posts) -

PS1 - N64 wasn't a war.

The N64 was a gen ahead, only Sony fanatics can't handle the truth.

#23 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

PS1 - N64 wasn't a war.

The N64 was a gen ahead, only Sony fanatics can't handle the truth.

Supertornado

In tech specs, yes.

But it had very limited storage space due to cartridges and was hard to program for.

I think if the N64 came out with the disc drive and the extra 4 megs of RAM the "Expansion Pak" offered and would be easier to code for (they should really have given the 3rd party devs more documentation and more freedom about the graphics settings which were otherwise limited by the microcodes) we would be seeing some amazing things on the console.

#24 Posted by Supertornado (67 posts) -

[QUOTE="Supertornado"]

PS1 - N64 wasn't a war.

The N64 was a gen ahead, only Sony fanatics can't handle the truth.

nameless12345

In tech specs, yes.

But it had very limited storage space due to cartridges and was hard to program for.

I think if the N64 came out with the disc drive and the extra 4 megs of RAM the "Expansion Pak" offered and would be easier to code for (they should really have given the 3rd party devs more documentation and more freedom about the graphics settings which were otherwise limited by the microcodes) we would be seeing some amazing things

Sure, the N64 wasn't very easy to develop for and from what I've read the documentation was very weird but a skilled developer made wonderful things.

A similar situation what we have now with the XBOX 360 and PS3. A well done made PS3 game featured always better graphics than anything on the XBOX 360, same goes for the N64 against the PS1 and Saturn, however the gap was a lot bigger.

The N64 was a gen ahead for me, regarding on its graphics and games.

#25 Posted by Sali217 (1274 posts) -

Sega Genesis/Sega MegaDrive Versus The Super Nintendo. The first console"war" Sega had a 2 year head start on Nintendo. Nintendo eventually won this "war" 49.10 million to 35million-40million for Sega. Sega did win in the U.S.A and for a short time was the number 1 videogame company in the world.

Since this was a very close "war" that Nintendo won. It is the best of the videogame wars or races for top spot. The Playstation destroyed N64 103 million PSones to 33 Million Nintendo 64 consoles. Not a very close race at all.

SNES VS Genesis is the "best" videogame system "war" Since it was very close.

Megavideogamer
Wasn't the first "console war" Atari vs Mattel?
#27 Posted by rilpas (8222 posts) -

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Supertornado"]

PS1 - N64 wasn't a war.

The N64 was a gen ahead, only Sony fanatics can't handle the truth.

Supertornado

In tech specs, yes.

But it had very limited storage space due to cartridges and was hard to program for.

I think if the N64 came out with the disc drive and the extra 4 megs of RAM the "Expansion Pak" offered and would be easier to code for (they should really have given the 3rd party devs more documentation and more freedom about the graphics settings which were otherwise limited by the microcodes) we would be seeing some amazing things

Sure, the N64 wasn't very easy to develop for and from what I've read the documentation was very weird but a skilled developer made wonderful things.

A similar situation what we have now with the XBOX 360 and PS3. A well done made PS3 game featured always better graphics than anything on the XBOX 360, same goes for the N64 against the PS1 and Saturn, however the gap was a lot bigger.

The N64 was a gen ahead for me, regarding on its graphics and games.

as an owner of both consoles, I never really noticed any differences

as for the PS1 vs. N64, I always thought the PS1 had a better graphics progression, whereas the N64 had a smaller evolution in terms of graphics (not counting the ram expansion pack)

#28 Posted by Dudersaper (32949 posts) -

PS vs. N64 wasn't even a war. It was a massacre. Only Nintendo fanboys think it was ever a real competition.glez13

PS1 - N64 wasn't a war.

The N64 was a gen ahead, only Sony fanatics can't handle the truth.

Supertornado
Anyone else find this funny? :P
#29 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

[QUOTE="Supertornado"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

In tech specs, yes.

But it had very limited storage space due to cartridges and was hard to program for.

I think if the N64 came out with the disc drive and the extra 4 megs of RAM the "Expansion Pak" offered and would be easier to code for (they should really have given the 3rd party devs more documentation and more freedom about the graphics settings which were otherwise limited by the microcodes) we would be seeing some amazing things

rilpas

Sure, the N64 wasn't very easy to develop for and from what I've read the documentation was very weird but a skilled developer made wonderful things.

A similar situation what we have now with the XBOX 360 and PS3. A well done made PS3 game featured always better graphics than anything on the XBOX 360, same goes for the N64 against the PS1 and Saturn, however the gap was a lot bigger.

The N64 was a gen ahead for me, regarding on its graphics and games.

as for the PS1 vs. N64, I always thought the PS1 had a better graphics progression, whereas the N64 had a smaller evolution in terms of graphics (not counting the ram expansion pack)

I disagree.

Compare something like Top Gear Rally to World Driver Championship or Rush 2 to Rush 2049.

#30 Posted by Jag85 (4626 posts) -

SNES vs Mega Drive

These two consoles were very close and there wasn't a clear victor, ending in the stalemate.

On the other hand,the PS1 vs N64 conflict wasn't even close but had a very clear victor right from the beginning.

#31 Posted by JustPlainLucas (74224 posts) -
SNES vs Genesis by far. PSX slaughtered N64. It wasn't even a fair fight. Basically, Nintendo just took a dive when they stuck with cartridges.
#32 Posted by rilpas (8222 posts) -

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

[QUOTE="Supertornado"] Sure, the N64 wasn't very easy to develop for and from what I've read the documentation was very weird but a skilled developer made wonderful things.

A similar situation what we have now with the XBOX 360 and PS3. A well done made PS3 game featured always better graphics than anything on the XBOX 360, same goes for the N64 against the PS1 and Saturn, however the gap was a lot bigger.

The N64 was a gen ahead for me, regarding on its graphics and games.

nameless12345

as for the PS1 vs. N64, I always thought the PS1 had a better graphics progression, whereas the N64 had a smaller evolution in terms of graphics (not counting the ram expansion pack)

I disagree.

Compare something like Top Gear Rally to World Driver Championship or Rush 2 to Rush 2049.

yeah but then compare early PS1 games like jumping flash to mid-to-late gen games like Quake 2 or C-12, there's massive difference and it was all done without any RAM expansions

#33 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

as for the PS1 vs. N64, I always thought the PS1 had a better graphics progression, whereas the N64 had a smaller evolution in terms of graphics (not counting the ram expansion pack)

rilpas

I disagree.

Compare something like Top Gear Rally to World Driver Championship or Rush 2 to Rush 2049.

yeah but then compare early PS1 games like jumping flash to mid-to-late gen games like Quake 2 or C-12, there's massive difference and it was all done without any RAM expansions

I'm not sure why the RAM expansion shouldn't count but if you want so - compare Body Harvest to Jet Force Gemini or Mario 64 to Conker.

The games I mentioned in my previous post didn't need the RAM pack either.

#34 Posted by rilpas (8222 posts) -

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

I disagree.

Compare something like Top Gear Rally to World Driver Championship or Rush 2 to Rush 2049.

nameless12345

yeah but then compare early PS1 games like jumping flash to mid-to-late gen games like Quake 2 or C-12, there's massive difference and it was all done without any RAM expansions

I'm not sure why the RAM expansion shouldn't count but if you want so - compare Body Harvest to Jet Force Gemini or Mario 64 to Conker.

The games I mentioned in my previous post didn't need the RAM pack either.

oh, you can count the RAM expansion if you want, but I just meant to say that we count the initial hardware on both consoles, it seems to me the PS1 evolved much more (even if it never did quite catch up to the N64)

with that said I feel that body harvest is a poor example on your part, as there will always be poor looking games no matter how much you evolved

a much better comparison would be Mario 64 to Conker, one is a launch game the other is a late gen game. Conker does look awesome, but now, try looking at the PS1's launch line-up, all of it's games look terrible :P then compare it some late gen games like C-12 or wipeout 3, the difference is night and day

with that said, obviously N64 games look better

#36 Posted by Eliminatorcanon (36 posts) -

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

yeah but then compare early PS1 games like jumping flash to mid-to-late gen games like Quake 2 or C-12, there's massive difference and it was all done without any RAM expansions

rilpas

I'm not sure why the RAM expansion shouldn't count but if you want so - compare Body Harvest to Jet Force Gemini or Mario 64 to Conker.

The games I mentioned in my previous post didn't need the RAM pack either.

oh, you can count the RAM expansion if you want, but I just meant to say that we count the initial hardware on both consoles, it seems to me the PS1 evolved much more (even if it never did quite catch up to the N64)

with that said I feel that body harvest is a poor example on your part, as there will always be poor looking games no matter how much you evolved

a much better comparison would be Mario 64 to Conker, one is a launch game the other is a late gen game. Conker does look awesome, but now, try looking at the PS1's launch line-up, all of it's games look terrible :P then compare it some late gen games like C-12 or wipeout 3, the difference is night and day

with that said, obviously N64 games look better

I disagree. The N64 was badly designed and suffered from many issues making it's specs actually over come the PSX. Late gen N64 games and late gen PSX games were pretty much on par with none going above the other or "looking" better. Each at that point was pushing the system limits and sacrificed one or more areas to achieve their results. As such, the fact people say the N64 blew the PSX out the water had never made sense. Going off launch titles you could claim the PSX looked better than the N64 since Crash looked better than Mario 64, the whole N64 looks better and a gen ahead is pointless when the system can't even use it's specs fully.
#38 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

I'm not sure why the RAM expansion shouldn't count but if you want so - compare Body Harvest to Jet Force Gemini or Mario 64 to Conker.

The games I mentioned in my previous post didn't need the RAM pack either.

Eliminatorcanon

oh, you can count the RAM expansion if you want, but I just meant to say that we count the initial hardware on both consoles, it seems to me the PS1 evolved much more (even if it never did quite catch up to the N64)

with that said I feel that body harvest is a poor example on your part, as there will always be poor looking games no matter how much you evolved

a much better comparison would be Mario 64 to Conker, one is a launch game the other is a late gen game. Conker does look awesome, but now, try looking at the PS1's launch line-up, all of it's games look terrible :P then compare it some late gen games like C-12 or wipeout 3, the difference is night and day

with that said, obviously N64 games look better

I disagree. The N64 was badly designed and suffered from many issues making it's specs actually over come the PSX. Late gen N64 games and late gen PSX games were pretty much on par with none going above the other or "looking" better. Each at that point was pushing the system limits and sacrificed one or more areas to achieve their results. As such, the fact people say the N64 blew the PSX out the water had never made sense. Going off launch titles you could claim the PSX looked better than the N64 since Crash looked better than Mario 64, the whole N64 looks better and a gen ahead is pointless when the system can't even use it's specs fully.

Or did it?

It may be true that PSX had better texture detail, poly-counts and framerates in many cases, but that came at a cost.

Namely, all PSX could do were low-rez, jaggies, pixely textures (if you come close to a texture you can see tiny squares - no such problem on the N64) and texture warping/distortion due to lack of Z-buffering (perspective corrected textures) whereas the N64 already gave a glimpse of next-gen console graphics with it's texture filtering/smoothing, mip-mapping, Z-buffering/perspective correction, anti-alliasing, reflection mapping and high-rez if you added the memory expansion.

Personally, my only gripe with the N64 were the low framerates in many graphically intensive games.

But as far as the quality of the graphics go, the N64 could outdo the PSX (because of the above mentioned reasons).

#39 Posted by rilpas (8222 posts) -

orginal footage made by me

D9oNCnC22gIEqx0rBkz-tfuiq8TwOj4v9x9ePNob

x2BhO2xfxnykioNUzM_niwEMyHU0ozsJTUa6-8-o

nCFVH3mS4mIPKwhMeTzc48R_rpzWqeO1QF7c2wrd

DTtWGvuui4zPLX81mzaMR2_2qCrwFPOKZY3fgtuH

oht1p-5LpiqAZ9LQxK7c4OrQoMen2rCfTlyD70VX

cMr5QEmSsZUsoRlDRsEhlK-v3JpKWovoaA464jqz

25AH3zrItl6AlyU_YOHvQAANNdVjPHbKWwSfc4xd

I think N64 was a gen ahead

Supertornado

can't see anything

#40 Posted by rilpas (8222 posts) -

[QUOTE="Eliminatorcanon"][QUOTE="rilpas"]

oh, you can count the RAM expansion if you want, but I just meant to say that we count the initial hardware on both consoles, it seems to me the PS1 evolved much more (even if it never did quite catch up to the N64)

with that said I feel that body harvest is a poor example on your part, as there will always be poor looking games no matter how much you evolved

a much better comparison would be Mario 64 to Conker, one is a launch game the other is a late gen game. Conker does look awesome, but now, try looking at the PS1's launch line-up, all of it's games look terrible :P then compare it some late gen games like C-12 or wipeout 3, the difference is night and day

with that said, obviously N64 games look better

nameless12345

I disagree. The N64 was badly designed and suffered from many issues making it's specs actually over come the PSX. Late gen N64 games and late gen PSX games were pretty much on par with none going above the other or "looking" better. Each at that point was pushing the system limits and sacrificed one or more areas to achieve their results. As such, the fact people say the N64 blew the PSX out the water had never made sense. Going off launch titles you could claim the PSX looked better than the N64 since Crash looked better than Mario 64, the whole N64 looks better and a gen ahead is pointless when the system can't even use it's specs fully.

Or did it?

It may be true that PSX had better texture detail, poly-counts and framerates in many cases, but that came at a cost.

Namely, all PSX could do were low-rez, jaggies, pixely textures (if you come close to a texture you can see tiny squares - no such problem on the N64) and texture warping/distortion due to lack of Z-buffering (perspective corrected textures) whereas the N64 already gave a glimpse of next-gen console graphics with it's texture filtering/smoothing, mip-mapping, Z-buffering/perspective correction, anti-alliasing, reflection mapping and high-rez if you added the memory expansion.

Personally, my only gripe with the N64 were the low framerates in many graphically intensive games.

But as far as the quality of the graphics go, the N64 could outdo the PSX (because of the above mentioned reasons).

to be fair, the N64 suffered from very blurry textures

#41 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Eliminatorcanon"] I disagree. The N64 was badly designed and suffered from many issues making it's specs actually over come the PSX. Late gen N64 games and late gen PSX games were pretty much on par with none going above the other or "looking" better. Each at that point was pushing the system limits and sacrificed one or more areas to achieve their results. As such, the fact people say the N64 blew the PSX out the water had never made sense. Going off launch titles you could claim the PSX looked better than the N64 since Crash looked better than Mario 64, the whole N64 looks better and a gen ahead is pointless when the system can't even use it's specs fully.rilpas

Or did it?

It may be true that PSX had better texture detail, poly-counts and framerates in many cases, but that came at a cost.

Namely, all PSX could do were low-rez, jaggies, pixely textures (if you come close to a texture you can see tiny squares - no such problem on the N64) and texture warping/distortion due to lack of Z-buffering (perspective corrected textures) whereas the N64 already gave a glimpse of next-gen console graphics with it's texture filtering/smoothing, mip-mapping, Z-buffering/perspective correction, anti-alliasing, reflection mapping and high-rez if you added the memory expansion.

Personally, my only gripe with the N64 were the low framerates in many graphically intensive games.

But as far as the quality of the graphics go, the N64 could outdo the PSX (because of the above mentioned reasons).

to be fair, the N64 suffered from very blurry textures

Yes and no.

The texture detail in games like Turok 2, Perfect Dark, the Banjo games, ect. was pretty good.

Games like SM64 looked good too because they were "cartoony".

Some games looked blurry as hell, tho (e.g. Superman 64, Carmageddon 64, Body Harvest - the last one was a great game, despite the graphics).

#42 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

And don't forget Wave Race 64's water:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsBRPiyHdjM

No PSX game has such water and that was a launch game.

#43 Posted by rilpas (8222 posts) -

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Or did it?

It may be true that PSX had better texture detail, poly-counts and framerates in many cases, but that came at a cost.

Namely, all PSX could do were low-rez, jaggies, pixely textures (if you come close to a texture you can see tiny squares - no such problem on the N64) and texture warping/distortion due to lack of Z-buffering (perspective corrected textures) whereas the N64 already gave a glimpse of next-gen console graphics with it's texture filtering/smoothing, mip-mapping, Z-buffering/perspective correction, anti-alliasing, reflection mapping and high-rez if you added the memory expansion.

Personally, my only gripe with the N64 were the low framerates in many graphically intensive games.

But as far as the quality of the graphics go, the N64 could outdo the PSX (because of the above mentioned reasons).

nameless12345

to be fair, the N64 suffered from very blurry textures

Yes and no.

The texture detail in games like Turok 2, Perfect Dark, the Banjo games, ect. was pretty good.

Games like SM64 looked good too because they were "cartoony".

Some games looked blurry as hell, tho (e.g. Superman 64, Carmageddon 64, Body Harvest - the last one was a great game, despite the graphics).

but in that regard the same could be said for a lot of late PS1 games, the textures weren't quite as bad for them

#44 Posted by Supertornado (67 posts) -

Ok it seems I'm the only one who can see the pics I've posted. Next try.

Orginal Footage

IMAG0013_zpse6afb20f.jpg

IMAG0014_zps626497b3.jpg

IMAG0016_zpsd90b4c6d.jpg

IMAG0012_zps9dc1589e.jpg

IMAG0009_zps1aa698ae.jpg

IMAG0018_zps97234632.jpg

IMAG0020_zpsc415411b.jpg

#45 Posted by rilpas (8222 posts) -
we'd need some PS1 pics for comparison :P
#46 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

PD looks cool with the RGB mod:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeHx-si4wdA

N64 could also easily be overclocked to 133 Mhz, which is four times as much as PSX/PS1's clock speed (the framerate boost is notable in some games).

#47 Posted by Heirren (17361 posts) -

PD looks cool with the RGB mod:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeHx-si4wdA

N64 could also easily be overclocked to 133 Mhz, which is four times as much as PSX/PS1's clock speed (the framerate boost is notable in some games).

nameless12345
Is that a difficult mod? There's really a frame rate boost?
#48 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

PD looks cool with the RGB mod:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeHx-si4wdA

N64 could also easily be overclocked to 133 Mhz, which is four times as much as PSX/PS1's clock speed (the framerate boost is notable in some games).

Heirren

Is that a difficult mod? There's really a frame rate boost?

So I heard.

There's more examples of overclocked N64s on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXesXdk6Atg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbFxseisiSs

#49 Posted by NiKva (8768 posts) -
The PS1/N64 generation was one of the best in gaming.
#50 Posted by Heirren (17361 posts) -

Ok it seems I'm the only one who can see the pics I've posted. Next try.

Orginal Footage

IMAG0013_zpse6afb20f.jpg

IMAG0014_zps626497b3.jpg

IMAG0016_zpsd90b4c6d.jpg

IMAG0012_zps9dc1589e.jpg

IMAG0009_zps1aa698ae.jpg

IMAG0018_zps97234632.jpg

IMAG0020_zpsc415411b.jpg

Supertornado
Nice pics. People usually just grab garbled google pics or emulator shots.