Can we admit the N64 was a powerhouse system for its time?

[Anonymous No.5925518]

I don't understand how people can critique the N64 hardware or the graphical quality of the games on the system. Pic related is what your baseline, average N64 game looked like. It is crisp, colorful, detailed. The PSX doesn't even touch it. The common complaint I hear about is "muh big polygons" but I don't even know what that means?

[Anonymous No.5925521]

Why didn't they make a N63 tho

[Anonymous No.5925559]

>>5925518
The continuing insane hatred and phony criticisms of the N64 are one of the most baffling things in video gaming.

[Anonymous No.5925565]

You could have picked a more flattering pic of Banjo, to be honest.

I might say that the N64 had a higher floor but lower ceiling. The most advanced 3D PSX games were more impressive than the most advanced 3D N64 games, I think.

[Anonymous No.5925570]

>>5925565
I'd love to know how that's possible when one is 64 bit and the other is 32 bit. It couldn't be your nostalgia, could it?

[Anonymous No.5925579]

>>5925570
okay I'm out of this thread lmao

[Anonymous No.5925583]

The N64 was a powerhouse at making Adobe Shockwave games.

[Anonymous No.5925589]

>>5925583
oh yea, dookie in the mouth

[Anonymous No.5925592]

>>5925518
For 96-97 it absolutely was, nothing on PC really could compete till 98 or so in lighting and triangle count, but the N64 was blown out by even a Voodoo 1 in texturing due to low vram and the N64's awful texture loading cashe.

[Anonymous No.5925595]

>>5925579
defeated sony baby x 1

[Anonymous No.5925604]

It was a nice machine with a nice library, but I'd still rather emulate. Even if I'm outputting to a CRT TV.

[Anonymous No.5925607]

>>5925595
grow up

[Anonymous No.5925609]

>>5925565
>The most advanced 3D PSX games were more impressive than the most advanced 3D N64 games, I think.
Maybe if they're rendered at four times native res like that webm, but that's obviously cheating.

[Anonymous No.5925613]

>>5925607
No, really. One is 64 bit and the other is half that. In what world can the PSX have a higher 'graphical ceiling'?

[Anonymous No.5925616]

>>5925609
The much better texture and effects are still evident at native res. As well as the lack of mandatory bilinear filtering.

[Anonymous No.5925653]

>>5925570
Are you an actual 8 year old from 1997 who discovered time travel? Bits were a marketing gimmick. Even with what bearing they had on processing power, the N64 still suffered more games with poor draw distance and low framerates. I can still remember the audible scoff my brother made when he saw the pop-in in OoT when it was supposed to be "the best graphics in a game ever." The greater compression required to fit games on a 24 meg cart as opposed to a CD stored nigh 100 megs held it way back, too. Little to no CD audio, more compressed lower res textures. No chance of making N64 games with nothing but stylized pre-rendered vistas except for ports that got scaled to fuck. Raw poly count is the one area where the N64 shines brighter and that's glossed over nowadays by the fact all 3D from that era looks varying degrees of tinted poop while the PS1 boasts more hand-drawn and pre-rendered sprites that are still nice to look at. All this is coming from a hardcore N64 kid growing up.

[Anonymous No.5925658]

PS1 games look like shit.

[Anonymous No.5925664]

>>5925658
>crying baby.jpg

[Anonymous No.5925669]

>>5925664
yeah sonyfags are babies.

[Funcoland Clown No.5925682]

>>5925518
>Final wave flagship game is "your baseline average N64 game"

[Anonymous No.5925684]

>>5925609
I am glad someone else is bothered by this. People posting early 3D games rendered at 1080p are being disingenuous.

[Anonymous No.5925689]

C’mon now, the N64? People trying to say that the PS1 copied the N64 with an analog controller or some shit…I don’t give a fuck. Shit, you know what the N64 should copy? They should copy how to get good games. They should copy how to get good games from the PS1. What everybody knows, is that PS1 had the best games, know what I mean nigga? I mean, c’mon, you got lil’ games on the N64 like what? what you got? Legend of Zelda where you walk around with a lil’ bitch, and his lil’ bitch-ass sword, and lil’ shield, and he’s goin “HEH! HEH! HEH!” C’mon, who wants to play that shit? I needa shoot some niggas.

Then you talk about Nintendo isn’t copying anything and how Sony is copying everything, and that’s just bullshit, that bullshit…shit s-saying Final Fantasy was on Nintendo before Sony, have you played the PS1? Nigga, nigga the PS1 got Final Fantasy 7, shit, Nintendo trying to copy that shit, they know that they can’t compete if they don’t have Final Fantasy. Nigga, I don’t even care if any other systems get Final Fantasy, Final Fantasy sucks ass now. So what I’m really trying to say, is that, Sony…Sony’s the bomb, nigga. That’s true shit, Sony is true shit.

[Anonymous No.5925712]

>>5925684
By all means render N64 games at higher resolutions too, it only accentuates differences in asset quality between the two consoles.

[Anonymous No.5925713]

>>5925518
>n64
>crisp

[Anonymous No.5925750]

Sometimes I forget that there are actually autistic people posting here. Like, not "you're an autistic faggot", but actually barely functioning, mentally unwell autistic. How else could you find fun in having the exact same arguments day after day, and wasting time trying to upset people instead of actually discussing things you'r interested in?

[Funcoland Clown No.5925759]

>>5925750
It galena to every board eventually. /vr/is just the first one I rode all the way from beginning to... this. Almost feels like watching your child die - or become an obnoxious adolescent, I guess. Probably good practice for me day-sue.

[Funcoland Clown No.5925761]

>>5925750
It happens to every board eventually. /vr/ is just the first one I rode all the way from beginning to... this. Almost feels like watching your child die - or become an obnoxious adolescent, I guess. Probably good practice for me day-sue

[Anonymous No.5925798]

>>5925761
>namefagging
speaking of obnoxious adolescents

[Anonymous No.5925812]

>>5925613
>In what world can the PC Engine Supergrafx have a 'higher graphical ceiling' than the Atari Lynx? One is 16 bit and the other is half that.

[Anonymous No.5925872]

>>5925518
>>5925559
It's yuroenvy, as usual.

[Anonymous No.5925876]

>>5925761
You're replying to a copypasta.

[Anonymous No.5925979]

I think it's telling that there's a current wave of indie games emulating the PSX aesthetic complete with texture warping and polygonal fighting, but no one is trying to emulate the N64's smeared foggy bullshit.

[Anonymous No.5925983]

>>5925812
one brain of dolphin = four brain of shark

[Anonymous No.5925986]

>>5925689
the N64 controller looks like some kind of DIL DOH

[Anonymous No.5926037]

Uh... yeah? It was a system released in 1996. To anyone who was alive (and conscious) back then, it was painfully obvious that the N64 was more powerful than PS or Saturn, or even the average consumer PC at the time.
Only console warrior zoomers LARPing as having been alive back then try to argue with their "muh blurriness" due to emulating N64 games on 4K screens.

[Anonymous No.5926054]

N64's texture mapping gives me cancer. They only figured out how to really make it work toward the end of the console's life cycle. PS1 had a smaller cache I think but somehow I don't remember seeing this kind of stretched-out garbage?

[Anonymous No.5926057]

The n64 sucks my balls.

[Anonymous No.5926058]

>>5926054
>PS1 had a smaller cache I think but somehow I don't remember seeing this kind of stretched-out garbage?
Yeah you'd just see pixel vomit on PS.

[Anonymous No.5926075]

why are sonyfags so obsessed?

[Anonymous No.5926082]

>>5926075
they're jelly of people who grew up in the actual SOUL era (4th gen and before). Since they only existed since the beginning of the SOULLESS era, they have to cope somehow.
Seriously though, I've owned pretty much every playstation device except for PS4, and I like many games on them, but the systems themselves were always very soulless and devoid of any unique personality.
Which is strange because I have nostalgia for the PS1 intro sounds and all, but it's still a soulless brand, while Sega and Nintendo still manage to have the utmost soul (/vr/ at least).

[Anonymous No.5926097]

>>5925570
Bits mean nothing.

[Anonymous No.5926106]

>>5926097
Neither does Sony baby fags bitching when OOT blows all of ps1 out of the water. Name a better graphics on ps

[Anonymous No.5926120]

[Anonymous No.5926164]

Why do you guys even bother with graphics?
If graphics are that important to you, go ahead and play PS4.
Its retarded to compare the PS1 and N64 in that way.

[Anonymous No.5926169]

>>5925518
N64 is so good that playstationniggers are mad to this day

[Anonymous No.5926187]

>it's a everyone feeds a troll who isn't even trying to be subtle thread
either that or it's an actual retard, which in both cases isn't worth replying to

[Anonymous No.5926190]

>it's an everyone feeds a troll who isn't even trying to be subtle thread
either that or it's an actual retard, which in both cases isn't worth replying to

[Anonymous No.5926217]

>>5925872
But the N64 came out in Europe?

[Anonymous No.5926228]

>>5925565
Thats not a psx used to run. PSX doesnt even perspectiv3 correct.

[Anonymous No.5926237]

>>5926057
I wish my PS1 could do that

[Anonymous No.5926301]

>>5926054
N64 does actual 3d texture mapping though, as opposed to the PS1

[Anonymous No.5926305]

>>5926301
This is a retarded argument, as bad as the 32 bit thing. You are arguing based on irrelevant specs. Talk about the things the ps1 does better instead. Texture mapping in 3d is irrelevant and a meme concept.

[Anonymous No.5926307]

>>5926305

The texture mapping on the ps1 is purely 2 dimensional, which is why you get warpy looking textures. The N64 considers the depth of a polygon at each textured pixel, so even though it's blurry, it's at least correct.

Warpy textures have some charm to them though.

[Anonymous No.5927156]

>>5925616
>The much better texture
Which drowns in what is 240p + interlacing + render correction.


>>5925712
It really does.
Crash & Spyro still looks worse than Banjo.
Late Enix and Square games still look worse than Turok.
The few 2D games that where made is capable of outputting 480p render quality, unlike the PS1 where games are stuck at the problem Blood Omen had at the start of the era.

However, that isn't particularly important. What is important is that the PS1 ended up being the top dog of the generation by quite the margin. Which also meant:
1. Better devkits
2. Better documentation
3. More games to compare features with
4. More sales == more software(games) and devtools documentation
5. And again, more games = more niche game sales = bigger consumer base
The feedback loop is just that important to get high end games.
The added bonus is that the N64 and PS1 are roughly in the same horsepower tier, even if there is stark feature differences on hardware.

[Anonymous No.5927185]

>>5925559
I knew one dude who hated it back in the day because of the anti-aliasing alone, and would all but refuse to play anything on it. He was die-hard PS1, and that was about it. Don't recall for sure, but I would imagine he thought the controller sucked too. Kind of agreed with him, but N64 had some great games without question. They should have released an official controller revision that wasn't so bulky and weird to appease people that hated it. The anti-aliasing was a fair trade off for non-wobbly environments, I think.

[Anonymous No.5927192]

>>5925518
>crisp
>those textures
yikes..........................................................

[Anonymous No.5927194]

>>5925979
There's a huge scene for N64 style graphics, just stand up and turn around next time you take a watery shit.

[Anonymous No.5927215]

>>5927185
But they did release a revision anon, for China.

[Anonymous No.5927216]

>>5925559
That goes for all Nintendo systems post snes

[Anonymous No.5927220]

>>5927185
The ps1 has shit draw distance in a lot of its games too

[Anonymous No.5927231]

>>5927215
True, forgot about that. Did those have to house the system itself too? I thought they were essentially plug and play devices.

[Anonymous No.5927234]

>>5925689
That is exactly how I've heard spics and nuggets talk about video games

[Anonymous No.5927285]

>>5927231
I guess
>The console itself takes the form of the controller and plugs directly into the television.
>Games for the iQue Player are stored on a 64 MB flash card which is contained within a cartridge that plugs directly into the controller/console. Games were purchased at a special "iQue depot", where games may be downloaded onto the cartridge and played later, in a similar manner to the Famicom Disk System, Satellaview, Nintendo 64DD and Nintendo DS Download Play.
>Games can also be downloaded, by connecting the iQue to a PC. Demo games that come with the iQue include The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Super Mario 64, and Star Fox 64. These demos are time-limited versions of the games. Full versions of the three titles are available, as are other first party Nintendo titles such as Dr. Mario 64, Mario Kart 64, Wave Race 64, and F-Zero X.
Its still impressive that by 2003 you could miniaturize a entire game console from 1996 into what is a plug and play controller.

[Anonymous No.5927429]

>>5925712

[Anonymous No.5927446]

>>5927156
>Crash & Spyro still looks worse than Banjo.
You're off your head. Even if it's primarily due to the strategy Naughty Dog took with the extreme linearity of the games, Crash Bandicoot 2/3 looks 'better' (more detail on screen) than any 3D platformer on the N64 and possibly the whole 5th generation. This had less to do with the power of the console and more the direction (and talent) of the developers.

As for Spyro, a more open platformer, it still has much better texture and lighting effects than Banjo Kazooie. The consoles had their advantages and disadvantages but to just say "banjo looks better" is bullshit whether you mean that from an aesthetic or technical perspective. Since we're talking about games here rather than the consoles themselves.

[Anonymous No.5927516]

>30+ year-old men STILL console warring to this day
>when the PC was better anyways

[Anonymous No.5927552]

>>5927446
Cray cray

[Anonymous No.5927556]

>>5927516
>>when the PC was better anyways
If you like RTS and FPS, sure.

[Anonymous No.5927561]

>>5927446
>Crash Bandicoot 2/3 looks 'better' (more detail on screen) than any 3D platformer on the N64 and possibly the whole 5th generation.
Holy shit, that article Naughty Dog released sucking their own dicks about the development of Poochie the bandicoot really brainwashed a lot of clueless Playstation fanboys.
Crash, best looking game of 5th gen? Are you serious, nigger?

[Anonymous No.5927619]

>>5927561
If you learnt to read properly you can see that I wrote 3D platformer. And yes, there's easily more detail on-screen in a typical Crash Bandicoot 2/3 frame than perhaps any other platformer on PS1/N64, for the obvious reasons already stated. This isn't hard to understand, nor is it even necessarily attributed to the power of the consoles. And speak for yourself, I haven't read the article which you speak of.

And 'Playstation fanboys' may be your opposing party but I assure you I'm not a part of your autism conflict.

[Anonymous No.5927779]

>>5927619
Naughty dog and whoever the fuck made spyro over n64 era rare? Never gona happen

[Anonymous No.5927834]

>>5925518
>detailed

top bantz

[Anonymous No.5927856]

>>5925518
>piddly ass texture cache
>no dedicated audio hardware forcing more workload on the CPU
>cartridge size forcing additional compression and gimping the size of games
>I don't understand how people can critique the N64 hardware or the graphical quality of the games on the system
It's ok, Nintoddlers can't understand technological oversights beyond
>how will this affect my bing bing wahoos

[Anonymous No.5927860]

>>5926082
>SOUL
>SOULLESS
I wish reddit never discovered this board.

[Anonymous No.5927861]

>>5925518
>Pic related is what your baseline, average N64 game looked like
Let's be very honest, the average N64 game did not look anything at all like that.

[Anonymous No.5927873]

It's true that the N64 was a 3d powerhouse than the PS1. The only flaws I see it had was the controller but most importantly the use of cartridges instead of CDs. From what I can understand was that the big N was worried about how easy it was to duplicate disks and they didn't want pirates making bootlegs of their games so they chosen to use cartridges (game pak for actual name).
And since bits (as in storage) was expensive, they couldn't make carts as big a CD.
Due to that, companies would have to either alter it for release on N64 or don't port at all. Had the n64 used CDs instead , we would more likely have way more games released to the system and would've sold more.

TLDR: The reason n64 sold less was due to Nintendo's fear of disks being pirated too easily, so they used cartridges instead which may have caused not many big 3rd party titles on the ps1 to release on N64

[Anonymous No.5927885]

>>5927861
Yeah they looked a lot better, OP used a pretty poor example

[Anonymous No.5927901]

>>5925518
Standard console war stuff. War never changes.
I was jealous of my friends ps1 for the huge library, cheaper games, and more "mature" games, but never, ever the graphics. Wobbly shit with jaggies everywhere, and terrible draw distances.
I will say the ps1 seems to have aged better as far as how it looks on modern displays, depending on the upscaling. But n64 definitely dominates the best games of the era category, even with the tiny library.

[Anonymous No.5927906]

>>5927856
You do realize even ignoring the "64 bit" reason, the Vr4300 was the most powerful CPU in any console during that generation. The reason we don't normally see that is due to the limits of using cartridge storage, they couldn't store as much as say a disk would.

[Anonymous No.5928014]

if it actually could produce not shitty textures and they got rid of the shit blur filter then maybe. Something like a higher end psx with perspective correction would've been much better.

[Anonymous No.5928105]

I don't get the blurry complaints.
Even on stretched emulator screenshots like pic related it doesn't look all that bad, and it looks quite good on a CRT.
As a kid, it was hard to go back to the shaky, more "fragile" PS1 graphics compared to the solid visuals of N64.

[Anonymous No.5928134]

>>5928105
Wow so blurry it's like semen is all over my screen not like my silky buttery smooth psx

[Anonymous No.5928138]

>>5927906
If that's the case then why do so many of it's games render less polygons at worse frame rates than many games on the PS1 and even Saturn?

The N64 has a more advanced GPU than either of those systems so it can do proper perspective correct polygons with filtering and the like, but that's where it's superiority ends. Those effects come a huge performance cost and Nintendo mandated that almost all games have those effects enabled.

As a result, you'll notice that a lot of your N64 games are running at lower framerates with lower polygon counts than a lot of PS1 games.

Case in point, Zelda is 20fps at best. Goldeneye and Perfect Dark hover around the teens, and dip regularly into the single digits. Meanwhile on Saturn and PS1 games with "bad" frame rates are usually the ones that are around 15-20fps, where as that seems to be the norm for a lot of popular N64 games. On Saturn and PS1 30fps and 60fps seem to be the target in a lot more games. In fact the Saturn even has more 60fps 3D games than the N64.

[Anonymous No.5928140]

>>5928138
>render less polygons
I don't think this is really the case. If a game was sub-20 fps on N64, it sure had more polycount than PS or Saturn.
Then, games like F-Zero X, which had simpler graphics, ran at 60fps no problem.

[Anonymous No.5928145]

[Anonymous No.5928150]

>>5927429
Expansion pack, that's cheating

[Anonymous No.5928153]

>>5928140
This is factually the case. Either console pushed way more polys than the N64 did. Each console had very specific strengths.

[Anonymous No.5928173]

>>5928140
As I said, it's all those fancy effects that kill the performance. So they had to balance that with their polygon budget and frame rate.

Though the N64 did have the benefit of being able to render very large polygons and having them still be passable due to the filtering and what not. On PS1 and Saturn that would look really bad. though even then that only gets you so far.

The PS1 and even the Saturn are typically pushing more polygons at higher frame rates in many cases. For example, Gran Turismo has a hidden HiFi mode that lets you do Time Trial on a few tracks in High Res mode at 60fps:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rdAxewJ6fw

[Anonymous No.5928193]

Please, let's all get along now. We all know Japan was the best (Sony, Nintendo and Sega). Microsoft is the real villain here. They fucked up Sega (by stealing the fuck out of the Dreamcast hardware and aesthetics for their Xbox), they fucked up Nintendo (by stealing Rare, the best second-party developer in the history of gaming, and transforming it into a huge mess) and they fucked up Sony (by stealing their exclusive game library and hegemony of "adult" video games). They did what Americans do best: stealing stuff from other countries (see also the many pointless remakes of Asian and European movies).

Love Sony, Nintendo and Sega.
Hate Microsoft.

[Anonymous No.5928216]

>>5925682
Banjo-Kazooie was squarely in the middle of the N64's lifespan (1996 to 2000 or 2001).

[Anonymous No.5928238]

>>5927516
>>when the PC was better anyways
Pkeks didn't even get graphics cards that could do everything the N64 did (namely hardware T&L) until the very late-90s, even then they still got BTFO by the Dreamcast.

[Anonymous No.5928249]

>>5928238
Not really, accelerator cards started becoming a thing in the mid 90s and by the time the Dreamcast was out there were cards out that left in the dust.

Go look up Quake 3 Benchmarks from the late 90s for cards like the Voodoo and what not. You'll see they destroy the Dreamcast version of Quake 3 in resolution and performance.

[Anonymous No.5928261]

>>5925592
Nobody cares about PC.

[Anonymous No.5928267]

>>5928261

[Anonymous No.5928270]

>>5925689
Sony always wins BAY-BEE

[Anonymous No.5928289]

>>5927873
Shut up zoomer.

[Anonymous No.5928293]

>>5928261

[Anonymous No.5928297]

>>5928249
But Dreamcast exclusives looked way better than PC exclusives. And anyway the GameCube and Xbox went on to steamroller PCs again in three short years and it took until like 2005 for PC to finally leave consoles in the dust.

[Anonymous No.5928301]

>>5928249
>Go look up Quake 3 Benchmarks from the late 90s for cards like the Voodoo and what not. You'll see they destroy the Dreamcast version of Quake 3 in resolution and performance.
>for cards like the Voodoo and what not.
>the Voodoo and what not
I think you have no fucken clue what you're talking about zoomboy.

If you had endlessly deep pockets then sure the PC always won the technical things like the framerate. If you bought a normal computer with a normal budget - even allowing some extra money for the fact it can do more than consoles, the consoles were more advanced throughout the 90s. Because they were specifically designed for one thing.

[Anonymous No.5928335]

>>5928301
The statement wasn't cost, it was that the Dreamcast "BTFO'd" PCs, which in terms of raw performance and power that's not true at all.

The Voodoo3 came out in April of 1999 and gives significantly better performance than the Dreamcast. Quake 3 on Dreamcast runs at 640x480 and struggles to maintain 30fps with low detail and textures with a custom made engine optimized for the Dreamcast. A Voodoo 3 could hit 30fps at 1024x768 at max settings. Lower it to 800x600 and it could hit 60fps.

Even the Voodoo 2 and Voodoo Banshee that were out earlier outperformed the Dreamcast for this game:

http://www.vogonswiki.com/index.php/3dfx_Benchmarks

Yeah it cost more, but that's really not that different than it is now. Consoles are still giving good performance for their cost, it's just that PCs are much more commonplace now that prices have come down and people are more used to routinely upgrading them.

This still holds true going back earlier as well. A good PC during the 5th gen out performed the PS1, Saturn and N64, it just cost a lot more. Compare Quake, Quake 2, Duke Nukem 3D, Doom, Tomb Raider, etc. to their console counter parts. PC beats them for each and every one. Hell you could even throw Final Fantasy VII and VIII into that list as graphically they outperform the PS1 versions, the music just took a hit due to lazy midi conversions.

And if we include Japanese Computers like the Sharp X68000, it olds true for the 16-bit era as well.

[Anonymous No.5928345]

>>5926106
Final Fantasy 7 (in battle) and 8 (entire game).

[Funcoland Clown No.5928346]

>>5928335
Guess how we can tell you weren't actually there to experience what you're talking about. First of all gaming in PC didn't just "cost more" it was a whole order of magnitude more expensive $200-$300 vs $2,000-$6,000+

Second you try to compare side by side as if games came out at the same time on consoles as they did on PC when it actually took literally years for games to be ported in either direction.

[Anonymous No.5928374]

>>5927429
blurred floor textures still makes me sad in the eye

[Anonymous No.5928395]

>>5928335
Quake 3 runs at 30fps on the Dreamcast, Shenmue also runs at 30fps on the Dreamcast. You need a better comparison.

[Anonymous No.5928403]

>>5928346

>$6000 PCs.
We're talking about building a decent PC in 1999 that can beat the Dreamcast, not an overpriced Gateway, IBM, or Compaq from 1994.

A high end gaming PC is still going to be going over $1000 these days if you are starting from scratch with nothing to salvage from an existing set up.

Looking at historical data though, the Voodoo3 was about $250-$400 when it came out. Pentium IIIs in 1999 were about $250-$900 depending on the speed. Memory was about ~$1/MB, so let's go with 128MB as that should be enough. A HDD would probably be around $300 or so looking at historical data as well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Pentium_III_microprocessors
https://jcmit.net/memoryprice.htm
https://jcmit.net/diskprice.htm
https://assets.hardwarezone.com/2009/reviews/video/Voodoo3/3dfx-v3.htm

So let's say we go with one of Pentium III's that were around $400, and let's say about $350 for the Voodoo 3. So that put's us at around $1200. We'd still need a Case, MB, PSU, and a CD-ROM drive, etc. So let's round up to about $1800 to cover that stuff. Yeah $1800 is a lot, but that's not bad for at the time, and it's really not that far of from what some people dump into their prized gaming rigs these days:

https://pcpartpicker.com/builds/

You can see people building from scratch are still hitting the $2000 mark or higher with their builds.

>Games didn't come out at the same time!
Yes, Quake III came out in 2000, Unreal Tournament in 2001 for Dreamcast, years after they were out on PC. And by that point PCs were even more affordable and could run circles around the Dreamcast.

And then we have PC ports of Dreamcast games. Phantasy Star Online Version 2 on PC needed the following specs:

450MHz Pentium III
64MB of RAM
600MB HDD Space
a Direct 3D Card (it came out after 3dfx kicked the bucket after all).

That's not that high end in the cost category, even for 1999.

>>5928395
Both games use custom engines optimized for Dreamcast. And see PSOv2 specs.

[Anonymous No.5928408]

>>5925518
Comparing the N64 to the PS1 is like comparing methylphenidate to caffeine. Yes, one is slightly better than the other, but along comes methamphetamine(the PS2) and alpha-PVP(PC) to set the record straight on 3D gaming.

[Anonymous No.5928420]

>>5928403
>Both games use custom engines optimized for Dreamcast
One is just much better optimized than the other.

[Anonymous No.5928448]

>>5928420
How do you know that? Have you seen the source code for either games? The truth is the Dreamcast isn't powerful enough to handle the original Quake III engine, which is why the port needed a new engine built from scratch for the system.

Shenmue looks nice, but it's also setup in a way where good art direction can hide it's short comings. High quality textures are used to create detail in some areas to save polyons for other areas. Polyon detail tends to be reserved more for things like primary Character facial features and hands, while cutting them down for things like scenery and non primary character models.

[Anonymous No.5928459]

>>5928448
>How do you know that?
visual comparison

[Anonymous No.5928463]

>>5928408
>like comparing methylphenidate to caffeine
Not really as rational-minded people would always prefer a naturally available mild stimulant to a scam synthetic pharmaceutical with unknown long-term side effects.

[Anonymous No.5928465]

>>5928463
Exactly.

[Anonymous No.5928470]

>>5928459
Which means nothing.

[Anonymous No.5928472]

>>5928173
GT sucked until A spec, though. And unfun racing graphics were always bullshots, and youre only reinforcing that.

[Anonymous No.5928492]

>>5925812
From the thumbnail I thought that was a far away/zoom in shot of a man in tubgirl pose

[Anonymous No.5928525]

>>5928472
>racing graphics were always bullshots, and youre only reinforcing that.
>recorded from the game's own high res mode
Nigger pick one.

[Anonymous No.5928821]

>>5925518
The n64 is a BRICKHOUSE!

[Anonymous No.5928897]

If you’re going to post comparisons, you may as well show what the consoles actually looked like, not high res emulator screenshots. Personally I think the obsession with not-quite-ready 3D ruined the generation regardless of console.

[Anonymous No.5928924]

>>5928897
That's not what N64 looks like.

[Anonymous No.5929065]

>>5925570
aw shit nigga did you just do the math?

[Anonymous No.5929113]

>>5928105
>I don't get the blurry complaints.
same
to me the one big weakness of the N64 has always been the framerate. Hell, Banjo Tooie in OPs pic is a prime example, the framerate must have dropped to like 6fps at times, and it certainly never got beyond maybe 16 fps, 20 in the less demanding games.
Even back in the day I was at times bothered by the low framerate.

[Anonymous No.5929117]

>>5928470
retard

[Anonymous No.5929124]

>>5928140
It's to do with the fact that you didn't have to subdivide surfaces as much. The N64 was always running in its perspective-correct mode, in which it pushed less polygons than its perspective-incorrect mode. But that meant that each surface needed less polygons. Where the flat wall on the side of a building could be two polys on N64, let's say, it'd need to be a bunch more on PS1 to lessen the impact of its Z-axis issues.

TL;DR: PS1 pushed more polys than the N64 in their most commonly used modes, but the N64 was vastly more efficient with them.

[Anonymous No.5929165]

>>5927156
>240p + interlacing

[Anonymous No.5929176]

>>5926054
>PS1 had a smaller cache I think
It did, but as long as the texture was no bigger than 256x256, you could specify VRAM coordinates and use any part of it, no matter if it fit into the cache or not. Using cache was purely for the times where performance was critical and you really needed to squeeze that extra bit out of it. Spyro for example shares a lot in common with how Rare games were texture mapped. N64 demaded you to use its texture cache.

>>5928105
>Even on stretched emulator screenshots like pic related
Nigga that's not stretched, and certainly not native res.

[Anonymous No.5929219]

>>5929176
>Nigga that's not stretched, and certainly not native res.
isn't this contradictory?

[Anonymous No.5929267]

>>5929219
You don't add detail by stretching.

[Anonymous No.5929285]

>>5929165
240p -> 480i -> composite or RCA = signal loss + scaling loss
480p -> 480i is still some significant information loss, but at the least the increased information has some retention
Its also the same reason why SMAA and downscaling works. I.e 1440p sampled down to 1080p.

[Anonymous No.5929314]

>>5928403
>We're talking about building a decent PC in 1999 that can beat the Dreamcast
the price differential is still absurd
the PC you posted is close to $3k in today's dollars vs the less than $500 the dreamcast would have cost

[Anonymous No.5929420]

>>5929124
The n64 is definitely capable of rendering more polygons than either though, it just wasn't always necessary.

[Anonymous No.5929430]

>>5925570
Nice b8 m8

[Anonymous No.5929447]

>>5929420
Running in its rarely used non-perspective-correct mode, which introduced the same depth errors as the PS1? It could absolutely push more polygons, yes.

[Anonymous No.5929792]

It's absolutely no contest, N64 wipes the floor with the competition. Pic related, divide any PS1/Saturn poly performance by 16 if you want to make a remotely fair comparison to the N64.

[Anonymous No.5930243]

>>5929285
>240p -> 480i
why though

[Anonymous No.5930262]

>>5929447
>Running in its rarely used non-perspective-correct mode
Talk about never used, AFAIK non-perspective correct mode isn't even a thing, and if it is it would offer no technical advantage whatsoever because the existing integrated circuitry relegated to drawing perspective corrected 3d or its texture filtering simply gets disabled, and not repurposed into pushing more polygons. Disabling the z-buffer completely? That can be done and has a definite performance boost, but doing things the PS1 way with painter's algorithms and geometry subdivision actually wouldn't have made all that difference in terms of performance and as somebody who would really like to see some mind blowing N64 demo or fan port turn up someday all of this is really disappointing and only displays all the incompetence and cost-cutting measures enveloped by Nintendo's engineers.

[Anonymous No.5930285]

>>5930243
no idea. that's a retard
that conversion dosen't do shit.


240p or 480i.
both are good depending of the native
- resolution the game, it's assets, type of art the game has.
all that shit has to be planed to be rendered one way in suck small resolution.

ofc the you can put more details in 480i even when is the same shit in overall pixels.
but now you have more horizontal space.

helps a lot with font rendering in newer games and UI
but unless you're playing in a CRT, the interlaced mode is going to look like fucking trash.
because of the stretched low resolution with missing in between data.

a simple AA can help a lot on them with the interlaced jaggies.

anyway crt magic,

[Anonymous No.5930514]

>>5925689
Is this pasta or is this poster that fucking stupid?

[Anonymous No.5930519]

>>5926057
Can I borrow it

[Anonymous No.5930524]

>>5930514
chad daddy baby
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyufDxxWIsM

[Anonymous No.5930536]

>>5930524
I think this guy was the main reason why the sonygger term came to exist.
Nice meme, he really put on a show.

[Anonymous No.5930547]

>>5930536
he's latinx

[TrekkiesUnite118 No.5930945]

>>5929314
>Muh inflation.

This argument has always been dumb. It cost me about $1500 to build my first PC back in 2005. I don't see that as being more or less money now than I did then. $1500 is still $1500 to me. So $1800 to build something decent in 1999 to be better than the Dreamcast isn't that crazy or ridiculous. Hell I had friends and neighbors who were big into the scene back then dropping that much or more into building the ultimate gaming PC.

Was the Dreamcast awesome for it's price in 1999? Sure. But we were never arguing that. That's just moving the goalposts. The original argument was that the Dreamcast beat the PC, which it certaintly didn't in power or performance. Sure it beat it in price, but a PC could do a lot more than the Dreamcast so people were willing to spend more on a PC anyways.

>>5929117
Visual inspection tells you nothing about what's going on under the hood, nor does it actually tell you what's happening underneath the art direction. A game can be rather minimal in it's hardware demands but still look amazing thanks to good art direction and clever use of what's available.

For example, on the Saturn many of it's best looking games are it's 3D Fighters. However they are also some of it's least demanding games because they're only rendering 2 character models, the rest is offloaded to VDP2 to be drawn as background layers, including the floors.

>>5928472
Regardless of your opinion on the gameplay, it's still evidence that the PS1 game is pushing more polygons as it's running at a higher frame rate. The closest game on the N64 would be World Driver Championship and that game has a pretty rough frame rate. It targets I think 30fps but routinely dips below that.

>>5929124
While that is true, it's also very circumstantial. Certain games aren't going to lend themselves to that set up as well.

[Anonymous No.5930947]

>>5929314
>Muh inflation.

This argument has always been dumb. It cost me about $1500 to build my first PC back in 2005. I don't see that as being more or less money now than I did then. $1500 is still $1500 to me. So $1800 to build something decent in 1999 to be better than the Dreamcast isn't that crazy or ridiculous. Hell I had friends and neighbors who were big into the scene back then dropping that much or more into building the ultimate gaming PC.

Was the Dreamcast awesome for it's price in 1999? Sure. But we were never arguing that. That's just moving the goalposts. The original argument was that the Dreamcast beat the PC, which it certaintly didn't in power or performance. Sure it beat it in price, but a PC could do a lot more than the Dreamcast so people were willing to spend more on a PC anyways.

>>5929117
Visual inspection tells you nothing about what's going on under the hood, nor does it actually tell you what's happening underneath the art direction. A game can be rather minimal in it's hardware demands but still look amazing thanks to good art direction and clever use of what's available.

For example, on the Saturn many of it's best looking games are it's 3D Fighters. However they are also some of it's least demanding games because they're only rendering 2 character models, the rest is offloaded to VDP2 to be drawn as background layers, including the floors.

>>5928472
Regardless of your opinion on the gameplay, it's still evidence that the PS1 game is pushing more polygons as it's running at a higher frame rate. The closest game on the N64 would be World Driver Championship and that game has a pretty rough frame rate. It targets I think 30fps but routinely dips below that.

>>5929124
While that is true, it's also very circumstantial. Certain games aren't going to lend themselves to that set up as well.

[Anonymous No.5931358]

>>5930947
>disregarding inflation
This is some seriously max level retardation, do you lack a high school level understanding of economics?

[Anonymous No.5931418]

>>5928408
drugs are for losers

[Anonymous No.5931431]

>>5925518
Nintendo 64 was extremely powerful, yes, but the whole thing was also a compromise as a whole. As far as I remember, it used cartridges because it had to, not because Nintendo wanted it to. If N64 games were put on CDs, the system would've never been able to run them. Access time would've been far too slow for software to function efficiently because N64 worked with high quality assets. It was literally too powerful for conventional CDs, and Nintendo had to rely on cartridges. But that also made life a lot more difficult for developers, and ended up biting Nintendo in the ass when Square fucked off to Sony and developed FF7 for PS1, which was the game that took that entire console off the ground.
So calling it a powerhouse is true, but also an oversimplification.

[Anonymous No.5931443]

>>5925518
Powerful, sure. But it also had retarded architecture that was a pain to work with, and the cart severely clamped its capabilities to output graphics comapreable to its contemporaries just because it couldn't store all the textures in the good resolutions.

[Anonymous No.5931493]

>>5930947
You're a fucking idiot. Disregard inflation because "I don't see that as being more or less money now than I did then. $1500 is still $1500 to me".
>Regardless of all the important things
bruh like you just said yourself superficial trivia doesn't matter even if itrue, the fact is that racing games on N64 are overall significantly more advanced than PS1 ones and several of them are considered the best racers of that generation.

[Anonymous No.5931502]

>>5926164
The only correct measure is framerate. Lower FPS means less playability.

[Anonymous No.5931692]

>>5925565
>I might say that the N64 had a higher floor but lower ceiling
I'd say N64 had a high floor and high ceiling.
Nintendo couldn't be assed to translate the N64 developer's guide so the only one that wasn't Japanese that was really advanced was Conker.
Seeing how Conker is still one of the best looking N64 games of all time (even though it was at the tail end of the N64's lifetime) I'd have to say the PS1 had the lower floor and ceiling.
Thankfully N64's floor was so fucking high nobody could fully utilize it.

[Anonymous No.5931868]

>>5930947
>I don't see that as being more or less money now than I did then.
wew lad.
http://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/2005?amount=1500

[Anonymous No.5931879]

>>5931358
>he paid $1500 to build a DualCore in 2005.
pretty sure he's special ed

[Anonymous No.5931881]

>>5931358
>>5931493
The problem with the argument is that the prices for much of what we're discussing here hasn't changed by much in the last 20 years. You can also throw in the argument that wages and minimum wage have been stagnant for years as well.

People are still shelling out $1500-$2500 to build a Gaming PC. It's not getting them some monster build either. It's still getting them something in the same range as it would have gotten them in 1999.

The point is, it wasn't that outrageous to shell out $1500-$1800 for a decent computer back in 1999 no matter how much you try to piss and moan about it. In fact that would have been considered a great deal since we were coming off the era of the mid 90s where high prices for memory and the like were causing computers to be $5000 or more.

>>5931493
Ok, name the ones more advanced than the likes of Gran Turismo 1&2, and Ridge Racer R4. Again the only one I know of that gets even close to that level is World Driver Championship.

[Anonymous No.5932051]

>>5930947
>it's still evidence that the PS1 game is pushing more polygons as it's running at a higher frame rate
Because the PS1 cheats with its texture mapping, while the N64 does it correctly

[Anonymous No.5932063]

>>5927429
Edges never looked that sharp on an actual N64, emufag.

[Anonymous No.5932067]

>>5927516
No one gave a fuck about PC gaming back then except nerds and rich kids, and those kids were too busy getting shoved into lockers to actually be taken seriously.

[Anonymous No.5932075]

>>5932067
Not really. Quite a few kids, myself included, had access to decent PCs at home because our parents had them for work. And we were by no means rich.

[Anonymous No.5932080]

>>5932075
>parents work from home on a computer in the 90's
>not rich
Ok, suburbanite. Whatever you say.

[Anonymous No.5932338]

>>5925518
to be entirely fair, this is a late 64 game (came out in 2001), and it uses the Expansion Pak , so it does look better than most of them.
Plus by that point the developers (especially at Rareware, who were good at little graphical tricks to eke the best out of a machine; look at DK country on SNES for example), Rare had gotten used to working with the 64 and had already make Kazooie, so by the time Tooie came out they could do a lot more graphics wise.

most 64 games were blockier than that; they were, though, graphically better than ps1 games overall; but videos (FMVs) on ps1 looked much better, sound on the ps1 was generally better (depended on the game, but generally with AAA titles it was better) and also ps1 games had the capacity to be bigger (due to being disk media)

But, yeah, your central point stands; the 64 did not look as bad as fags who never played it tell you
Also it did look better back on a CRTV, all 90s games look patchy on huge HD tvs they weren't made for

[Anonymous No.5933047]

>>5927156
>What is important is that the PS1 ended up being the top dog of the generation by quite the margin
because it was a lot cheaper and pirateable

[Anonymous No.5933056]

>>5925518
the best console was the one that you had in your childhood
thanks god I wasn't poor and had both

[Anonymous No.5933075]

>>5925518
Imagine growing up with a PS1. Ew. Gross.
>Christmas day
>Been telling mummy about needing an N64 all year
>Unwrap present, big box
>It's a PS1 :(

[Anonymous No.5933158]

>>5925518
looking good

[Anonymous No.5933240]

>>5925559
It's similar to how a lot of american-muscle-car enthusiasts like to show their disdain for JDM cars, stating that american cars are superior. But really, both are good. They're just good at different things.

It's the same with japanese and american consoles. Nintendo have always been good at producing consoles that are simply enjoyable to play, while microsoft has proven that they're good at producing consoles that can do a wide array of things and therefore effectively be almost like a PC.

[Anonymous No.5933275]

>>5927185
I just hate the shitty and fragile N64 joysticks.

[Anonymous No.5933331]

>>5933275
Get this

[Anonymous No.5934162]

>>5930947
>it's still evidence that the PS1 game is pushing more polygons
???
??
?

[Anonymous No.5934167]

>>5933331
Not a terrible N64 controller but still worse than the original.

[Anonymous No.5934175]

Anyone who genuinely cares about graphic fidelity in a time where every texture looked like mushy shit is a retard

[Anonymous No.5934212]

>>5933331
and throw it in the trash.

[Anonymous No.5934220]

[Anonymous No.5934423]

>>5934167
It's big and clunky but the analog stick at least from what I can tell is dead on with a the original or very close and with a steel Stick it lasts a lot longer too

[Anonymous No.5935023]

>>5932338

tooie doesn't use Expansion Pak

[Anonymous No.5935193]

>>5935023
just four games required the expansion pack, and one of them isn't even 3d

[Anonymous No.5935195]

>>5925521

[Anonymous No.5935697]

>>5935193
No it's only three majoras mask perfect dark and donkey Kong 64

[Anonymous No.5935715]

>>5934423
>a steel Stick it lasts a lot longer too
Only if the mechanism is steel, and its lubricated.
Otherwise it will just grind itself to dust with enough usage.

[Anonymous No.5936916]

>>5935697
you can't play the starcraft expansion without it

[Anonymous No.5937543]

>>5928216
That's Banjo-Tooie, though.
And it looks better than 95% of N64 games. And OP's screenshot even seems to be from the Xbox360/XBONE version.