Why doesn't N64 look better than PS1?

[sqoon]

Just a thought:

 

Any possibility of modding a N64 console to be capable of displaying the texture mapping more like those texture replacements, using unmodified game cartridges?

[shadow460]

In general, I'd agree. I'd even take it a step further and say that most of these game's were ugly the day they came out. I at least never considered the bulk of the early 3D releases on the Playstation and Saturn as being anything but insulting to the eye's and an embaressment after being used to beautiful 2D gaming like Link to the Past during the 16 bit generation.

 

THIS. Gran Turismo 2 is a particularly vile offender here. Ditto for Dark Forces. I mean, could they seriously not make a better looking game? What am I supposed to do here, drive laps on Pixel Soup II?

[Atariboy]

And Gran Turismo 2 is a beauty compared to most of the racing library. Thing's like Andretti Racing were the norm for several years and such awful 3D graphics were still commonplace even around 1999/2000 outside of the top tier of developer's like Namco.

 

I still can't believe how nice Ridge Racer Type 4 looked. Surpasses even many of the early Playstation 2 releases in the area of graphics like Sky Odyessy.

[Shannon]

4096-byte limit on a single texture. If I'm understanding that correctly, that's just tiny. It can't be that small, right? Those huge polygons would look a lot better with more than 4k worth of texture stretched over them.

 

Yeah I was gonna sight that as the primary reason for the ugliness of the textures. Some companies (like RARE) figured out ways around it. The Banjo Kazooie series is a good example. I think Conkers fell in the same category.. but apparently even there in that department if fell short.

[twoquickcapri]

Oh come now, really?

 

I don't know but, Iron Soldier 2, HoverStrike, Fight for Life, Supercross 3D all had pretty good texturing for their time.

[Cobra Kai]

I do think the N64 has better looking games generally over the PS1. Some of the gems on PS are unplayable to me now, like Tomb Raider and Twisted Metal. The 3d models are atrocious, you can see through cracks in the polygon walls in TR. Nothing ages worse than bad/old 3D.

[TPA5]

Nothing ages worse than bad/old 3D.

 

That is exactly what I was thinking. 8/16 bit games age generally quite well, and the better looking of those take on that nostalgic charm. Sadly the birth of modern graphics and physics has ruined classic 3D games to a certain extent for me. I can still play classics on the 64, and I indeed still do enjoy them, but I don't enjoy then quite as much as when I first sat down and was awed by them, which is a shame. I'm not blown away much by games anymore. Except the Mass Effect series, I can't remember when I last played a game that instilled that same feeling of amazement as when I first was able to play Super Mario 64 or Goldeneye.

[Cynicaster]

Not that I give a shart about graphics anyway, but today, I find the N64/PS1 era to be a wasteland of eye torture with those proto-3D games.

 

It's weird how that works. Whenever technological advancements come along--like, for instance, the transition from 2D to 3D graphics engines--we're always willing to accept degradations in quality in exchange for the novelty of something new. Then as soon as that "something new" advances to a point where it stands on its own rather than relying on novelty, the original stuff looks horrible.

 

As another example, I remember the first digital camera I used, which belonged to my first employer out of university. It was probably 1.0MP (if not less), and it actually used 3.5" floppies as storage media. I thought it was totally amazing, but the photos it took were absolute garbage compared to even a mid-grade film camera of the day. But, I was able to overlook the piss-poor results because I was beguiled by the novelty of digital.

[Reaperman]

I don't know but, Iron Soldier 2, HoverStrike, Fight for Life, Supercross 3D all had pretty good texturing for their time.

Fair enough, but how much better does Iron Soldier 2 look than Iron Soldier 3?

I probably can't speak much to them, since I actually only own the first one, and didn't care for it.

[kid_vidiot]

I'll take ps1-era graphics over PS2 any day of the week. PS1 stuff is unique and alien, while PS2 is like striving to be realistic but failing. Like PS2 era is just crappier version of the current gen, whereas PS1 was its own beast.

[roland p]

I'd even take it a step further and say that most of these game's were ugly the day they came out. I at least never considered the bulk of the early 3D releases on the Playstation and Saturn as being anything but insulting to the eye's and an embaressment after being used to beautiful 2D gaming like Link to the Past during the 16 bit generation.

 

I remember I was so dissapointed with 'Syndicate Wars':

Now compare that to the old pc version: video

Ofcourse, they ruined the franchise even further by going fps in the last version...

Edited January 29, 2013 by roland p

[evilevoix]

I always thought that the N64 looked better however games didn't have that cinematic feel that a CD could offer.

[dendawg]

I don't know but, Iron Soldier 2, HoverStrike, Fight for Life, Supercross 3D all had pretty good texturing for their time.

 

[Hatta]

There are some gorgeous PS1 games. Look at Einhander. Fully 3d rendered, but from a fixed perspective, and it looks fantastic.

[Atariboy]

2.5D Playstation games like that generally did look nice. I think the complaints are more about the full blown 3D releases.

[mbd30]

2.5D Playstation games like that generally did look nice. I think the complaints are more about the full blown 3D releases.

 

Programmers got better at doing full 3D on the Playstation, eg. the "Spyro" and "Tony Hawk Pro Skater" games.

[Austin]

I've noticed the framerate issue, but N64 was nearly 3x the speed of ps1--why wasn't it enough? I mean it just seems like n64 should be walking all over the playstation, and it just doesn't.

 

Pretty sure I read that the system was tough to program for and it had some technical/design issues that made it difficult to work the system to its fullest extent. I think someone here did a really good analysis of the system a ways back and put it into perspective pretty well.

 

Regarding framerates though, the system has a wide variety of games with both good and bad. Perfect Dark for instance struggles (then again, just look at it!), while F-Zero X *never* goes below 60 (people have complained about the low polygon count in it, but I think it looks great). I'd actually argue that more N64 games have decent framerates than ones that don't. Keep in mind, the PS1 was no saint when it came to framerates either, and it probably had about the same ratio as the N64 when it came to games that averaged at the lower end of the spectrum.

 

I don't know but, Iron Soldier 2, HoverStrike, Fight for Life, Supercross 3D all had pretty good texturing for their time.

 

Hover Strike, for sure (strictly from a visual/texture standpoint--the framerate is god-awful), but the rest? Not really, considering what was available on the competing platforms at the time of their releases (Supercross Vs. Sega Rally, Fight For Life Vs. Tekken, Iron Soldier 2 Vs.. well, I don't know.. I'll just use Panzer Dragoon, despite it being a different kind of game).

[twoquickcapri]

Hover Strike, for sure (strictly from a visual/texture standpoint--the framerate is god-awful), but the rest? Not really, considering what was available on the competing platforms at the time of their releases (Supercross Vs. Sega Rally, Fight For Life Vs. Tekken, Iron Soldier 2 Vs.. well, I don't know.. I'll just use Panzer Dragoon, despite it being a different kind of game).

 

I'm not saying they are good or bad, have good frame rates or are better then other games on other systems. Just that they have good texture quality (not blocky, not blurry) for their time and on a system that has no hardware texture mapping support.

[Austin]

I'm not saying they are good or bad, have good frame rates or are better then other games on other systems. Just that they have good texture quality (not blocky, not blurry) for their time and on a system that has no hardware texture mapping support.

 

I think asides from Hoverstrike though, they are poor examples. Yeah, the textures look good in Fight For Life. Errr... I mean, what textures there actually are, anyway. Most of the game is comprised of flat/shaded polygons, with a few worthwhile textures here and there. Supercross 3D doesn't have much going on, either. I get what you are saying though--the textures on the Jag can look really nice. AvP or Skyhammer, for instance--better examples.

[chrisbid]

Storage space for textures is the reason. That's why Square defected to Sony.

 

 

and yet Final Fantasy VII featured mostly flat shaded polygons

[OldSchoolRetroGamer]

 

 

and yet Final Fantasy VII featured mostly flat shaded polygons

 

Exactly, it was more about the soundtrack and cinematic that could be stored on cd media.

[kid_vidiot]

Exactly, it was more about the soundtrack and cinematic that could be stored on cd media.

3 discs worth was a lot more than the soundtrack and some cinematics...

[OldSchoolRetroGamer]

3 discs worth was a lot more than the soundtrack and some cinematics...

 

Oh I agree, and a lot more than could have been done on a cartridge.

[Rex Dart]

Puzzles the **** out of me to hear people complain about rudimentary graphics on an Atari fansite.

[Atariboy]

Rudimentary graphics and ugly graphics aren't one and the same. Something like River Raid is still an attractive game today but many of these early 3D mid 1990's releases were never attractive and time hasn't been kind to them.

 

For every Sega Rally that did an attractive job with 3D at home in the mid 1990's, you have dozens of awful looking examples.