Super Mario 64
Yoshi's Story
Rakuga Kids
Paper Mario
Goemon 2
Top 5 best-looking games on the N64?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="Heirren"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] whenever a developer says "this game can't be done on this system" , always take it with a grain of salt, unless it goes to the absurd, its usually not 100% true. in fact,sometimes its just there to cover up for the reason of why they are not doing the game on that platform.Darkman2007
What is the time stamp on that quote, though? See, even before the N64 launched, a lot of developers had negative things to say in regards to the cart format.
Im not quite sure but I would imagine it would have been at the time or somewhat before the game was launched. and developers were unhappy with carts by that time because for them there were more benefits with CDs, yes they had loading, but as far as devs were concerned, CDs gave them alot of storage for cheap , which cut down costs. I mean ,carts were still a decent format in the late 80s and early 90s, when games were still small ,and CD players were very expensive, but by 1995-96, not so much. the reason Nintendo went with carts was because they were scared of piracy, even with Gamecube and Wii they went with specialised formats, rather than the standard DVD for the very same reason.Justified reasons. What was the one real reason 3rd parties wanted cd? MONEY. With FAR cheaper production costs, they could throw games into the mix with far less risk. What happened? The psx was flooded with garbage(i'm not discrediting the great games here). Looking back it is pretty apparent that given the time/energy, the cart format was perfectly suitable for that generation. In fact, it was probably the right one. We never did see anything on the psx/saturn that were remotely on the scale of Ocarina of Time, or even Mario64 for that matter.
Im not quite sure but I would imagine it would have been at the time or somewhat before the game was launched. and developers were unhappy with carts by that time because for them there were more benefits with CDs, yes they had loading, but as far as devs were concerned, CDs gave them alot of storage for cheap , which cut down costs. I mean ,carts were still a decent format in the late 80s and early 90s, when games were still small ,and CD players were very expensive, but by 1995-96, not so much. the reason Nintendo went with carts was because they were scared of piracy, even with Gamecube and Wii they went with specialised formats, rather than the standard DVD for the very same reason.[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Heirren"]
What is the time stamp on that quote, though? See, even before the N64 launched, a lot of developers had negative things to say in regards to the cart format.
Heirren
Justified reasons. What was the one real reason 3rd parties wanted cd? MONEY. With FAR cheaper production costs, they could throw games into the mix with far less risk. What happened? The psx was flooded with garbage(i'm not discrediting the great games here). Looking back it is pretty apparent that given the time/energy, the cart format was perfectly suitable for that generation. In fact, it was probably the right one. We never did see anything on the psx/saturn that were remotely on the scale of Ocarina of Time, or even Mario64 for that matter.
youre talking as though every game on the N64 is golden , frankly, thats not true and you know it. the PS1 indeed had plenty of games which were total and utter rubbish , but I could say the same about every popular console , and includes the NES or PS2 , its just what happens when youre the most popular. while to a certain degree , the PS1's dev tolls were a factor in attracting support over the other 2 consoles, the sales are what caused the influx of gamesthere is no doubt that Sony's marketing budget was an important factor in them gaining the upper hand, although Nintendo could compete on that front better than Sega did , as Nintendo were the bigger company. at the same time, a lack of RPGs (one of the causes of,which , was the limited storage), was one of the main reason the machine ended up last place in Japan, and generally speaking too , less games for the console , means less exposure, limiting your console in terms of selling it to the not so avid gamers out there (ie, the ones who didn't know the latest thing, the ones who now spend alot of time playing only COD and nothing else) and I think you know why the 64DD was chosen , its the same reason Nintendo went with a specialised format for the GC and Wii , just an attempt to combat piracy finally, the early devtools for the N64 were notoriously basic, while the PS1s devtools were already being constantly updated by Sony (and were generally considered good to begin with), and even Sega had already releaseed improved documentation by then. of course, part of that was due to the console being new, though it was noted the N64's tools were basic even by new console standards, and that didn't help when it came to attracting the not so large developersI dont think cartridges were honestly such a bad idea. It lost them developer support, but I don't think that's really what lost them sales. They lost sales because they went up against a marketing giant in Sony that no one had really competed against before in the market.
Also, the 64DD just doesn't make sense because those drives and floppy disks were very expensive. Anyone remember zip drives? They cost insane amount of $ at the time....
magnax1
[QUOTE="Heirren"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] Im not quite sure but I would imagine it would have been at the time or somewhat before the game was launched. and developers were unhappy with carts by that time because for them there were more benefits with CDs, yes they had loading, but as far as devs were concerned, CDs gave them alot of storage for cheap , which cut down costs. I mean ,carts were still a decent format in the late 80s and early 90s, when games were still small ,and CD players were very expensive, but by 1995-96, not so much. the reason Nintendo went with carts was because they were scared of piracy, even with Gamecube and Wii they went with specialised formats, rather than the standard DVD for the very same reason.Darkman2007
Justified reasons. What was the one real reason 3rd parties wanted cd? MONEY. With FAR cheaper production costs, they could throw games into the mix with far less risk. What happened? The psx was flooded with garbage(i'm not discrediting the great games here). Looking back it is pretty apparent that given the time/energy, the cart format was perfectly suitable for that generation. In fact, it was probably the right one. We never did see anything on the psx/saturn that were remotely on the scale of Ocarina of Time, or even Mario64 for that matter.
youre talking as though every game on the N64 is golden , frankly, thats not true and you know it. the PS1 indeed had plenty of games which were total and utter rubbish , but I could say the same about every popular console , and includes the NES or PS2 , its just what happens when youre the most popular. while to a certain degree , the PS1's dev tolls were a factor in attracting support over the other 2 consoles, the sales are what caused the influx of gamesI apologize if I came across that way. What I meant was that I think Nintendo knew that a game would have to be rather high quality to sell on the console. For me there really wasn't much in-between on the N64; it was either great or utter garbage.
youre talking as though every game on the N64 is golden , frankly, thats not true and you know it. the PS1 indeed had plenty of games which were total and utter rubbish , but I could say the same about every popular console , and includes the NES or PS2 , its just what happens when youre the most popular. while to a certain degree , the PS1's dev tolls were a factor in attracting support over the other 2 consoles, the sales are what caused the influx of games[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Heirren"]
Justified reasons. What was the one real reason 3rd parties wanted cd? MONEY. With FAR cheaper production costs, they could throw games into the mix with far less risk. What happened? The psx was flooded with garbage(i'm not discrediting the great games here). Looking back it is pretty apparent that given the time/energy, the cart format was perfectly suitable for that generation. In fact, it was probably the right one. We never did see anything on the psx/saturn that were remotely on the scale of Ocarina of Time, or even Mario64 for that matter.
Heirren
I apologize if I came across that way. What I meant was that I think Nintendo knew that a game would have to be rather high quality to sell on the console. For me there really wasn't much in-between on the N64; it was either great or utter garbage.
well then you get into the question of how many of those great games are either from Nintendo , Rare or a large developer like Konami or Capcom or EA. because obviously those would have more money to invest in N64 projects, as opposed to some of the mid range developers like Game Arts, who produced some fantastic games for both the Saturn and PS1 at the time, but basically none on N64 (though I reckon part of that was that Game Arts were very Japanese in their games) of course you also have to take into account the fact the N64 has something the PS1 didn't, and thats 1st party and 2nd party games , something you could apply to Sega at the time. really the PS1 had some 2nd party games, but even those sometimes ended up on other systems (Wipeout and Destruction Derby on the Saturn , Ridge Racer on N64 , though thats not really 2nd party)[QUOTE="Heirren"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] youre talking as though every game on the N64 is golden , frankly, thats not true and you know it. the PS1 indeed had plenty of games which were total and utter rubbish , but I could say the same about every popular console , and includes the NES or PS2 , its just what happens when youre the most popular. while to a certain degree , the PS1's dev tolls were a factor in attracting support over the other 2 consoles, the sales are what caused the influx of games Darkman2007
I apologize if I came across that way. What I meant was that I think Nintendo knew that a game would have to be rather high quality to sell on the console. For me there really wasn't much in-between on the N64; it was either great or utter garbage.
well then you get into the question of how many of those great games are either from Nintendo , Rare or a large developer like Konami or Capcom or EA. because obviously those would have more money to invest in N64 projects, as opposed to some of the mid range developers like Game Arts, who produced some fantastic games for both the Saturn and PS1 at the time, but basically none on N64 (though I reckon part of that was that Game Arts were very Japanese in their games) of course you also have to take into account the fact the N64 has something the PS1 didn't, and thats 1st party and 2nd party games , something you could apply to Sega at the time. really the PS1 had some 2nd party games, but even those sometimes ended up on other systems (Wipeout and Destruction Derby on the Saturn , Ridge Racer on N64 , though thats not really 2nd party)As I said though, it is about money. There was far less risk involved which is why big companies like ea stuck mostly with sony. I mean, that is what they did and look how big ea is now. I feel that a lot of developers took a poor approach to game development on the n64. The system was clearly about innovation and providing new experiences when it launched, but what happened was that 3rd parties took a "fill in the gap" mentality: "oh, THIS game is popular on psx, lets make something like that on n64."
well then you get into the question of how many of those great games are either from Nintendo , Rare or a large developer like Konami or Capcom or EA. because obviously those would have more money to invest in N64 projects, as opposed to some of the mid range developers like Game Arts, who produced some fantastic games for both the Saturn and PS1 at the time, but basically none on N64 (though I reckon part of that was that Game Arts were very Japanese in their games) of course you also have to take into account the fact the N64 has something the PS1 didn't, and thats 1st party and 2nd party games , something you could apply to Sega at the time. really the PS1 had some 2nd party games, but even those sometimes ended up on other systems (Wipeout and Destruction Derby on the Saturn , Ridge Racer on N64 , though thats not really 2nd party)[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Heirren"]
I apologize if I came across that way. What I meant was that I think Nintendo knew that a game would have to be rather high quality to sell on the console. For me there really wasn't much in-between on the N64; it was either great or utter garbage.
Heirren
As I said though, it is about money. There was far less risk involved which is why big companies like ea stuck mostly with sony. I mean, that is what they did and look how big ea is now. I feel that a lot of developers took a poor approach to game development on the n64. The system was clearly about innovation and providing new experiences when it launched, but what happened was that 3rd parties took a "fill in the gap" mentality: "oh, THIS game is popular on psx, lets make something like that on n64."
well the systems were fairly similar in what they could do (I could argue what strengths each systems had but more or less the same ), so I don't see the issue in the similar games thing. I mean you can't expect developers not to make similar games if they sell. it happens on almost every systems.
[QUOTE="Heirren"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] Im not quite sure but I would imagine it would have been at the time or somewhat before the game was launched. and developers were unhappy with carts by that time because for them there were more benefits with CDs, yes they had loading, but as far as devs were concerned, CDs gave them alot of storage for cheap , which cut down costs. I mean ,carts were still a decent format in the late 80s and early 90s, when games were still small ,and CD players were very expensive, but by 1995-96, not so much. the reason Nintendo went with carts was because they were scared of piracy, even with Gamecube and Wii they went with specialised formats, rather than the standard DVD for the very same reason.Darkman2007
Justified reasons. What was the one real reason 3rd parties wanted cd? MONEY. With FAR cheaper production costs, they could throw games into the mix with far less risk. What happened? The psx was flooded with garbage(i'm not discrediting the great games here). Looking back it is pretty apparent that given the time/energy, the cart format was perfectly suitable for that generation. In fact, it was probably the right one. We never did see anything on the psx/saturn that were remotely on the scale of Ocarina of Time, or even Mario64 for that matter.
youre talking as though every game on the N64 is golden , frankly, thats not true and you know it.True, the cart expenses didn't prevent the N64 from getting "gems" like Superman 64 and Carmageddon 64.
The way I see it there were two types of devs on the N64 - the very talented ones which made outstanding games (most Nintendo and Rare games, some 3rd party games) and the average ones which made mediocre games at best (many 3rd party games).
This is quite contrasted compared to the PS1 which mostly had outstanding 3rd party games (albeit tons of "litter" as well) and not so much 1st or 2nd party exclusives (mostly the GT and Crash games).
And the carts, while being durable and having instant loading times (some poorly developed N64 games like Quake 64 still had apparent loading times tho), was too expensive and too tight, which explains why many 3rd parties fled to PS1.
And yes, the loss of Square and many other 3rd party devs did hurt the N64. I know back then was a JRPG hype, yet the N64 only had Ocarina of Time (which isn't even a "proper" JRPG). 3rd party support improved with time and we got games like RE2, RR64, ect. and there were even plans for a exclusive Resident Evil game (RE Zero), Eternal Darkness, ect. but by then the console was already old and some planned games were simply canned (or switched over to the Cube).
[QUOTE="Heirren"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] well then you get into the question of how many of those great games are either from Nintendo , Rare or a large developer like Konami or Capcom or EA. because obviously those would have more money to invest in N64 projects, as opposed to some of the mid range developers like Game Arts, who produced some fantastic games for both the Saturn and PS1 at the time, but basically none on N64 (though I reckon part of that was that Game Arts were very Japanese in their games) of course you also have to take into account the fact the N64 has something the PS1 didn't, and thats 1st party and 2nd party games , something you could apply to Sega at the time. really the PS1 had some 2nd party games, but even those sometimes ended up on other systems (Wipeout and Destruction Derby on the Saturn , Ridge Racer on N64 , though thats not really 2nd party)Darkman2007
As I said though, it is about money. There was far less risk involved which is why big companies like ea stuck mostly with sony. I mean, that is what they did and look how big ea is now. I feel that a lot of developers took a poor approach to game development on the n64. The system was clearly about innovation and providing new experiences when it launched, but what happened was that 3rd parties took a "fill in the gap" mentality: "oh, THIS game is popular on psx, lets make something like that on n64."
well the systems were fairly similar in what they could do (I could argue what strengths each systems had but more or less the same )Incorrect. The N64's CPU is literally three times stronger than the one in the PS1, it's graphics chip is way more advanced (PS1's GPU is actually a 2D renderer - it's the PS1's CPU co-processor which gives it the fast 3D graphics) and it has access to more than twice the RAM (with Exp. Pak).
I could go into detail why the games didn't look three times better, but the fact is that quite some N64 games did have vast 3D worlds, smart AI (for the time) and effects that would be hard to reproduce on the PS1.
It's wasn't a generational difference but the PS1 is more comparable to Saturn in terms of GPU features, CPU power and stuff like that.
1.Crash Bandicoot 3 2.Perfect Dark 3.Banjo Tooie 4.Majora 5.Gex 3
1.Crash Bandicoot 3 2.Perfect Dark 3.Banjo Tooie 4.Majora 5.Gex 3
Aquaunitpatrol
What's a PS1 game doing on the list?
And no, Crash Bandicoot 3 looks to pixely/warping to pass :P
well the systems were fairly similar in what they could do (I could argue what strengths each systems had but more or less the same )[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Heirren"]
As I said though, it is about money. There was far less risk involved which is why big companies like ea stuck mostly with sony. I mean, that is what they did and look how big ea is now. I feel that a lot of developers took a poor approach to game development on the n64. The system was clearly about innovation and providing new experiences when it launched, but what happened was that 3rd parties took a "fill in the gap" mentality: "oh, THIS game is popular on psx, lets make something like that on n64."
nameless12345
Incorrect. The N64's CPU is literally three times stronger than the one in the PS1, it's graphics chip is way more advanced (PS1's GPU is actually a 2D renderer - it's the PS1's CPU co-processor which gives it the fast 3D graphics) and it has access to more than twice the RAM (with Exp. Pak).
I could go into detail why the games didn't look three times better, but the fact is that quite some N64 games did have vast 3D worlds, smart AI (for the time) and effects that would be hard to reproduce on the PS1.
It's wasn't a generational difference but the PS1 is more comparable to Saturn in terms of GPU features, CPU power and stuff like that.
Im talking in terms of generations, yeah , the N64 has the better CPU , but at the end of the day, they could run fairly comparable games when looking at the big picture. and no , the Saturn and PS1 couldn't be more different in terms of GPU features, in fact , they offer different features and work in different ways.[QUOTE="nameless12345"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] well the systems were fairly similar in what they could do (I could argue what strengths each systems had but more or less the same )Darkman2007
Incorrect. The N64's CPU is literally three times stronger than the one in the PS1, it's graphics chip is way more advanced (PS1's GPU is actually a 2D renderer - it's the PS1's CPU co-processor which gives it the fast 3D graphics) and it has access to more than twice the RAM (with Exp. Pak).
I could go into detail why the games didn't look three times better, but the fact is that quite some N64 games did have vast 3D worlds, smart AI (for the time) and effects that would be hard to reproduce on the PS1.
It's wasn't a generational difference but the PS1 is more comparable to Saturn in terms of GPU features, CPU power and stuff like that.
Im talking in terms of generations, yeah , the N64 has the better CPU , but at the end of the day, they could run fairly comparable games when looking at the big picture.That may be so but I don't think the ports of RE2 and RR64 trully pushed it to the limits. I imagine a fully 3D RE games would be possible on the N64, given it would make good use of the RAM pack. And I find Rush 2049 to be considerably more impressive than RR64 (altho the framerate in RR64 is better).
What I ment by saying the PS1 is more in league with the Saturn is the way it renders the 3D graphics. Yes, they do have their unique features but the N64 was the first console with "proper" 3D acceleration as we know it from PC graphics cards like the 3dfx Voodoo (albeit it's GPU was a few times weaker than the 3dfx Voodoo).
Im talking in terms of generations, yeah , the N64 has the better CPU , but at the end of the day, they could run fairly comparable games when looking at the big picture.[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]
Incorrect. The N64's CPU is literally three times stronger than the one in the PS1, it's graphics chip is way more advanced (PS1's GPU is actually a 2D renderer - it's the PS1's CPU co-processor which gives it the fast 3D graphics) and it has access to more than twice the RAM (with Exp. Pak).
I could go into detail why the games didn't look three times better, but the fact is that quite some N64 games did have vast 3D worlds, smart AI (for the time) and effects that would be hard to reproduce on the PS1.
It's wasn't a generational difference but the PS1 is more comparable to Saturn in terms of GPU features, CPU power and stuff like that.
nameless12345
That may be so but I don't think the ports of RE2 and RR64 trully pushed it to the limits. I imagine a fully 3D RE games would be possible on the N64, given it would make good use of the RAM pack. And I find Rush 2049 to be considerably more impressive than RR64 (altho the framerate in RR64 is better).
What I ment by saying the PS1 is more in league with the Saturn is the way it renders the 3D graphics. Yes, they do have their unique features but the N64 was the first console with "proper" 3D acceleration as we know it from PC graphics cards like the 3dfx Voodoo (albeit it's GPU was a few times weaker than the 3dfx Voodoo).
a 3D RE was possible on the PS1 as well , Dino Crisis is proof of that. no , the PS1 actually does use real polygons, while the Saturn techincally has no polygon abilitiies, software or otherwise, its all sprites. in fact, I would say PS1 is closer to the N64 in how it draws polygons, even if its not "accelerated" per se, at least they are polygons.[QUOTE="Aquaunitpatrol"]
1.Crash Bandicoot 3 2.Perfect Dark 3.Banjo Tooie 4.Majora 5.Gex 3
nameless12345
What's a PS1 game doing on the list?
And no, Crash Bandicoot 3 looks to pixely/warping to pass :P
With superior visuals to people with normal eyes, better draw distance, better animation, better controls, better gameplay, and better replay value. Also does not cost $80 per cart, and does not need an expansion pack.@Darkman"words" Beat me to it.the Ps1 nd Saturn polygon wise are not comparable. To be honest the N64 despite it technically being superior to the Ps1 has a few problems within the system (Like the PS3) preventing us from seeing the full maxing out of the console. (oh and no sound chip.)
[QUOTE="nameless12345"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] Im talking in terms of generations, yeah , the N64 has the better CPU , but at the end of the day, they could run fairly comparable games when looking at the big picture.Darkman2007
That may be so but I don't think the ports of RE2 and RR64 trully pushed it to the limits. I imagine a fully 3D RE games would be possible on the N64, given it would make good use of the RAM pack. And I find Rush 2049 to be considerably more impressive than RR64 (altho the framerate in RR64 is better).
What I ment by saying the PS1 is more in league with the Saturn is the way it renders the 3D graphics. Yes, they do have their unique features but the N64 was the first console with "proper" 3D acceleration as we know it from PC graphics cards like the 3dfx Voodoo (albeit it's GPU was a few times weaker than the 3dfx Voodoo).
a 3D RE was possible on the PS1 as well , Dino Crisis is proof of that. no , the PS1 actually does use real polygons, while the Saturn techincally has no polygon abilitiies, software or otherwise, its all sprites. in fact, I would say PS1 is closer to the N64 in how it draws polygons, even if its not "accelerated" per se, at least they are polygons.I thought the Saturn used quads which are basically small squares (opposed to small triangles that are polygons).
Polygons or not, the PS1 could NOT do many effects the N64 could (like linear texture filtering, Z-buffering, mip-mapping, anti-aliasing, environment mapping, ect.).
Altho I did see motion-blur in games like MGS and reflection mapping in Crash 3 which surprised me (I guess it's faked via software mode).
[QUOTE="nameless12345"]
[QUOTE="Aquaunitpatrol"]
1.Crash Bandicoot 3 2.Perfect Dark 3.Banjo Tooie 4.Majora 5.Gex 3
Aquaunitpatrol
What's a PS1 game doing on the list?
And no, Crash Bandicoot 3 looks to pixely/warping to pass :P
With superior visuals to people with normal eyes, better draw distance, better animation, better controls, better gameplay, and better replay value. Also does not cost $80 per cart, and does not need an expansion pack.@Darkman"words" Beat me to it.the Ps1 nd Saturn polygon wise are not comparable. To be honest the N64 despite it technically being superior to the Ps1 has a few problems within the system (Like the PS3) preventing us from seeing the full maxing out of the console. (oh and no sound chip.)
Pixelated 3D graphics are superior visuals? You should learn what's the difference between hardware and software 3D rendering:
All the other stuff you wrote is subjective. Besides, this isn't a PS1 vs N64 thread.
[QUOTE="nameless12345"]
[QUOTE="Aquaunitpatrol"]
1.Crash Bandicoot 3 2.Perfect Dark 3.Banjo Tooie 4.Majora 5.Gex 3
Aquaunitpatrol
What's a PS1 game doing on the list?
And no, Crash Bandicoot 3 looks to pixely/warping to pass :P
With superior visuals to people with normal eyes, better draw distance, better animation, better controls, better gameplay, and better replay value. Also does not cost $80 per cart, and does not need an expansion pack.@Darkman"words" Beat me to it.the Ps1 nd Saturn polygon wise are not comparable. To be honest the N64 despite it technically being superior to the Ps1 has a few problems within the system (Like the PS3) preventing us from seeing the full maxing out of the console. (oh and no sound chip.)
better draw distance is quite simple to explain , there is not much to draw in the crash games , most levels consist of you walking down one road , a pretty narrow one at that. all others are debatable, though I still don't see why Crash Bandicoot is there, its not an N64 game. as for the performance, its not so much polygon counts as much as just the way they draw polygons, the Saturn's VDP1 is indeed weaker than the PS1's graphics chip, and there is no onboard geometry chip (though you can use the 2nd SH2 for that, and often thats been the case, SCU can also be used but there were some issues with it), a game that uses the VDP2 effectively can get quite a bit out of it. the biggest things holding back the N64 were devtools (Im not even talking about microcodes, the early tools in general were notoriously basic) , and to some extent the cartridge format (though its important to note that alot of PS1 games at the time were hardly over 300MB in size, and thats with FMVs, CD music , etc )a 3D RE was possible on the PS1 as well , Dino Crisis is proof of that. no , the PS1 actually does use real polygons, while the Saturn techincally has no polygon abilitiies, software or otherwise, its all sprites. in fact, I would say PS1 is closer to the N64 in how it draws polygons, even if its not "accelerated" per se, at least they are polygons.[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]
That may be so but I don't think the ports of RE2 and RR64 trully pushed it to the limits. I imagine a fully 3D RE games would be possible on the N64, given it would make good use of the RAM pack. And I find Rush 2049 to be considerably more impressive than RR64 (altho the framerate in RR64 is better).
What I ment by saying the PS1 is more in league with the Saturn is the way it renders the 3D graphics. Yes, they do have their unique features but the N64 was the first console with "proper" 3D acceleration as we know it from PC graphics cards like the 3dfx Voodoo (albeit it's GPU was a few times weaker than the 3dfx Voodoo).
nameless12345
I thought the Saturn used quads which are basically small squares (opposed to small triangles that are polygons).
Polygons or not, the PS1 could NOT do many effects the N64 could (like linear texture filtering, Z-buffering, mip-mapping, anti-aliasing, environment mapping, ect.).
Altho I did see motion-blur in games like MGS and reflection mapping in Crash 3 which surprised me (I guess it's faked via software mode).
no , the Saturn creates polygons via its sprite engine (since the VDP1 is just that, a sprite pusher). now the Saturn does use quads , but a quad can technically be any shape, in fact alot of later Saturn games didn't use squares at all , they used triangle shaped quads due to advances in polygon modeling techniques which forced devs to use triangles instead.[QUOTE="Aquaunitpatrol"]With superior visuals to people with normal eyes, better draw distance, better animation, better controls, better gameplay, and better replay value. Also does not cost $80 per cart, and does not need an expansion pack.[QUOTE="nameless12345"]
What's a PS1 game doing on the list?
And no, Crash Bandicoot 3 looks to pixely/warping to pass :P
Darkman2007
@Darkman"words" Beat me to it.the Ps1 nd Saturn polygon wise are not comparable. To be honest the N64 despite it technically being superior to the Ps1 has a few problems within the system (Like the PS3) preventing us from seeing the full maxing out of the console. (oh and no sound chip.)
better draw distance is quite simple to explain , there is not much to draw in the crash games , most levels consist of you walking down one road , a pretty narrow one at that. all others are debatable, though I still don't see why Crash Bandicoot is there, its not an N64 game. as for the performance, its not so much polygon counts as much as just the way they draw polygons, the Saturn's VDP1 is indeed weaker than the PS1's graphics chip, and there is no onboard geometry chip (though you can use the 2nd SH2 for that, and often thats been the case, SCU can also be used but there were some issues with it), a game that uses the VDP2 effectively can get quite a bit out of it. the biggest things holding back the N64 were devtools (Im not even talking about microcodes, the early tools in general were notoriously basic) , and to some extent the cartridge format (though its important to note that alot of PS1 games at the time were hardly over 300MB in size, and thats with FMVs, CD music , etc ) Crash Bandicoot 3's draw distance in just the first level out draws a lotofN64 games by itself despite whether the rest of the games does it or not.@nameless if many many many people and reviewrs can see that despite your warping, warped looks better than most of the N64 library in one level how come you can't? also you started the N64 vs. ps1 thing with your bias by saying "what's Crash doing there? That awful looking warping pile of pos." Yes you definately saidthat btw. :)
better draw distance is quite simple to explain , there is not much to draw in the crash games , most levels consist of you walking down one road , a pretty narrow one at that. all others are debatable, though I still don't see why Crash Bandicoot is there, its not an N64 game. as for the performance, its not so much polygon counts as much as just the way they draw polygons, the Saturn's VDP1 is indeed weaker than the PS1's graphics chip, and there is no onboard geometry chip (though you can use the 2nd SH2 for that, and often thats been the case, SCU can also be used but there were some issues with it), a game that uses the VDP2 effectively can get quite a bit out of it. the biggest things holding back the N64 were devtools (Im not even talking about microcodes, the early tools in general were notoriously basic) , and to some extent the cartridge format (though its important to note that alot of PS1 games at the time were hardly over 300MB in size, and thats with FMVs, CD music , etc ) Crash Bandicoot 3's draw distance in just the first level out draws a lotofN64 games by itself despite whether the rest of the games does it or not.[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Aquaunitpatrol"] With superior visuals to people with normal eyes, better draw distance, better animation, better controls, better gameplay, and better replay value. Also does not cost $80 per cart, and does not need an expansion pack.
@Darkman"words" Beat me to it.the Ps1 nd Saturn polygon wise are not comparable. To be honest the N64 despite it technically being superior to the Ps1 has a few problems within the system (Like the PS3) preventing us from seeing the full maxing out of the console. (oh and no sound chip.)
Aquaunitpatrol
@nameless if many many many people and reviewrs can see that despite your warping, warped looks better than most of the N64 library in one level how come you can't? also you started the N64 vs. ps1 thing with your bias by saying "what's Crash doing there? That awful looking warping pile of pos." Yes you definately saidthat btw. :)
That's not bias, that's common sense. You put a PS1 game on your list altho this thead is cleary about N64 games only.
And again, what looks better is a matter of taste. You can say that Crash looks infinitely better than, for example, Mario 64 but some people will still prefer the simple yet charming looks of Mario 64.
Crash Bandicoot 3's draw distance in just the first level out draws a lotofN64 games by itself despite whether the rest of the games does it or not.[QUOTE="Aquaunitpatrol"]
[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] better draw distance is quite simple to explain , there is not much to draw in the crash games , most levels consist of you walking down one road , a pretty narrow one at that. all others are debatable, though I still don't see why Crash Bandicoot is there, its not an N64 game. as for the performance, its not so much polygon counts as much as just the way they draw polygons, the Saturn's VDP1 is indeed weaker than the PS1's graphics chip, and there is no onboard geometry chip (though you can use the 2nd SH2 for that, and often thats been the case, SCU can also be used but there were some issues with it), a game that uses the VDP2 effectively can get quite a bit out of it. the biggest things holding back the N64 were devtools (Im not even talking about microcodes, the early tools in general were notoriously basic) , and to some extent the cartridge format (though its important to note that alot of PS1 games at the time were hardly over 300MB in size, and thats with FMVs, CD music , etc )nameless12345
@nameless if many many many people and reviewrs can see that despite your warping, warped looks better than most of the N64 library in one level how come you can't? also you started the N64 vs. ps1 thing with your bias by saying "what's Crash doing there? That awful looking warping pile of pos." Yes you definately saidthat btw. :)
That's not bias, that's common sense. You put a PS1 game on your list altho this thead is cleary about N64 games only.
And again, what looks better is a matter of taste. You can say that Crash looks infinitely better than, for example, Mario 64 but some people will still prefer the simple yet charming looks of Mario 64.
Define charming, and yes is bias. Yes define charming, how is mario 64 more charming looking then say, Rayman 2?[QUOTE="nameless12345"]
[QUOTE="Aquaunitpatrol"] Crash Bandicoot 3's draw distance in just the first level out draws a lotofN64 games by itself despite whether the rest of the games does it or not.
@nameless if many many many people and reviewrs can see that despite your warping, warped looks better than most of the N64 library in one level how come you can't? also you started the N64 vs. ps1 thing with your bias by saying "what's Crash doing there? That awful looking warping pile of pos." Yes you definately saidthat btw. :)
Aquaunitpatrol
That's not bias, that's common sense. You put a PS1 game on your list altho this thead is cleary about N64 games only.
And again, what looks better is a matter of taste. You can say that Crash looks infinitely better than, for example, Mario 64 but some people will still prefer the simple yet charming looks of Mario 64.
Define charming, and yes is bias. Yes define charming, how is mario 64 more charming looking then say, Rayman 2?Not every game needs insanely detailed textures and high poly counts to look good. Mario 64 is a good example of such a game. It may look plain to some, but for some it looks very well.
Rayman 2 looks good but I didn't like it too much as a game.
And if we play the PS1 vs N64 card - Rayman 2 looks better on N64.
To this day I think Mario 64 looks great. Nintendo understood the hardware and the display capabilities of the time. People bring up games like Jet Force and DK, but imo they are choppy messes with infantile use of textures. Just because a game has a higher res texture here or there, does not mean it looks better. I think a consistent looking game is far more important--I think that is why OoTs Hyrule is still so believable. Everything meshes together so well.
fighting games are an example of that , when you think about it, they don't really push a system , but they look good.To this day I think Mario 64 looks great. Nintendo understood the hardware and the display capabilities of the time. People bring up games like Jet Force and DK, but imo they are choppy messes with infantile use of textures. Just because a game has a higher res texture here or there, does not mean it looks better. I think a consistent looking game is far more important--I think that is why OoTs Hyrule is still so believable. Everything meshes together so well.
Heirren
To this day I think Mario 64 looks great. Nintendo understood the hardware and the display capabilities of the time. People bring up games like Jet Force and DK, but imo they are choppy messes with infantile use of textures. Just because a game has a higher res texture here or there, does not mean it looks better. I think a consistent looking game is far more important--I think that is why OoTs Hyrule is still so believable. Everything meshes together so well.
Heirren
Well, I think DK64 and JFG look great, but I'm able to appreciate the "clean" look of SM64.
Lol.
Thanks for turning my thread into a VS thread.
Are you happy?
Perfect Dark
Banjo Tooie
Zelda Majoras Mask
Donkey Kong 64
Paper Mario
Lol.
Thanks for turning my thread into a VS thread.
Are you happy?
GreekGameManiac
I don't think it was anyone's intent to turn this into a VS thread (except maybe the guy who put a PS1 game on his list), we were just discussing the technical side of things which does relate with the thread.
If you want just direct answers you can simply ignore what we were discussing.
In my opinion? I loved the look of the Banjo games. So colorful and cheery. Quite charming the whole way through.
And in a tie with the Banjo games is (I might get weird looks but hey to each his own) I thought Ogre Battle 64 looked fantastic. I liked the art style they took.
Next would be Majora's Mask, but that's just blind love for the game that's making me say that.
Edit: Oh dammit! I forgot Paper Mario. Charming graphics FTW.
Superman 64
Don't have four others to add because this is the only game I played.:P
supergp17
You poor, poor bastard.
[QUOTE="supergp17"]
Superman 64
Don't have four others to add because this is the only game I played.:P
MLBknights58
You poor, poor bastard.
I second that, Superman 64 is a horrid game.Superman 64
Don't have four others to add because this is the only game I played.:P
supergp17
I knew someone was gonna mention it :P
It's really kinda the culmination of all that was deemed wrong with N64 (like excessive fogging, slow framerate, blocky objects, poor textures, clunky control, ect.).
Carmageddon 64 was another "gem".
[QUOTE="supergp17"]
Superman 64
Don't have four others to add because this is the only game I played.:P
nameless12345
I knew someone was gonna mention it :P
It's really kinda the culmination of all that was deemed wrong with N64 (like excessive fogging, slow framerate, blocky objects, poor textures, clunky control, ect.).
Cramageddon 64 was another "gem".
some developers got it, others didn't, thats the problem with hardware thats harder to use. the Saturn suffered from that, as did Jaguar , and to a much lesser extent, PS3.[QUOTE="nameless12345"][QUOTE="supergp17"]
Superman 64
Don't have four others to add because this is the only game I played.:P
Darkman2007
I knew someone was gonna mention it :P
It's really kinda the culmination of all that was deemed wrong with N64 (like excessive fogging, slow framerate, blocky objects, poor textures, clunky control, ect.).
Cramageddon 64 was another "gem".
some developers got it, others didn't, thats the problem with hardware thats harder to use. the Saturn suffered from that, as did Jaguar , and to a much lesser extent, PS3.Yes, but Superman 64 kinda does everything wrong which in itself is an admirable "effort" :P
I'm not sure if it's worse than Bubsy 3D on the PS1 tho.
some developers got it, others didn't, thats the problem with hardware thats harder to use. the Saturn suffered from that, as did Jaguar , and to a much lesser extent, PS3.[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]
I knew someone was gonna mention it :P
It's really kinda the culmination of all that was deemed wrong with N64 (like excessive fogging, slow framerate, blocky objects, poor textures, clunky control, ect.).
Cramageddon 64 was another "gem".
nameless12345
Yes, but Superman 64 kinda does everything wrong which in itself is an admirable "effort" :P
I'm not sure if it's worse than Bubsy 3D on the PS1 tho.
to be fair to Bubsy 3D, the game was started before Mario64 was, when quite a few devs probably didn't realise the PS1 could support a 3D world like that, and it wasn't done by what you would call the best team in the industry (AM2 its not ) and yes, Superman64 is an odd one, you would expect better too given its a 1999 game. though interestingly there was a PS1 version being made which seems to have some of the problems fixed.I think Superman 64 clearly falls into the "licensed crap" category and was selling only because of the famous license. There were many such games which bet everything on the famous license but the gameplay and graphics were trash.
That's not to say there couldn't be any people who actually enjoyed it as hard as that's to believe :P
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment