>>3703691
>The PS1 hardware nativelly uses full-screen dither to avoid color banding, since it outputs at a lower color depth than it renders internally, it's a feature of the hardware, a feature that makes the games look terrible, exactly like the vaseline-like filter featured on the N64.
The N64's dither filtering is much more aggressive than that of the PS1. It completely eliminates banding, while the PS1 still has banding. Of course, it also looks more blurry as a result.
>on average PS1 games have better draw distances than the N64
Very few PS1 games even attempt long draw distances, but those that do generally have horrible fogging, or some kind of other "catch" like Spyro's extremely aggressive distance LOD which completely strips textures away from anything sufficiently far enough.
Compare that to even a launch title like Mario 64 (to say nothing of later games like Banjo-Kazooie) which preserve texture detail at unlimited distances.
Meanwhile, even late PS1 games that are regarded as having excellent graphics like Soul Reaver have fogging out of the wazoo.
>THPS, Mega Man Legends, Gex 3D, Spider-Man
Congrats, you've identified almost all of the horribly botched ports. Last one you forgot was A Bug's Life.
On the flip side, try comparing the draw distances of South Park Rally, Army Men, and Battletanx. Rayman 2 on PS1 is the only version with fogging (despite the geometrically simplified levels), though it's set pretty far away.
>I'm yet to see a draw distance as bad as Turok's on PS1
Silent Hill, obviously
>Even the less geometrically intensive N64 games have worse textures
Poorly coded games. WDC on N64 has the highest polygon count of the entire 5th generation and it still has better texture quality than shovelware on both consoles.
>4k of texture cache.
Nothing stops developers from breaking large textures up into 4K chunks, in fact the good developers did exactly that.
People need to be reminded how bad PS1 games look on real hardware