Lets stop with the meme that PSX was more powerful than N64

[Anonymous No.7111325]

This is the absolute best PSX could do with a fully 3D environment and it looks worse than release date N64 games. Mystical Ninja and Mario 64 looks 100x better than Ape Escape, which looks closer to Bubsy than Zelda.

Playstation could trick you a little with artificially pleasing graphics with deceptions like Crashs camera or pretenders graphics, but that crap didn't actually look good. It simply tricked your brain into thinking bad graphics were good.

[Anonymous No.7111334]

stfu nerd

[Anonymous No.7111339]

>>7111325
It's amusing how much this game triggers nintendrones.
I love Ape Escape.

[Anonymous No.7111341]

>>7111339
Everyone in the cutscenes talks like Stinkoman from homestarrunner

[Anonymous No.7111361]

>>7111341
EU VA > USA VA.

[Anonymous No.7111386]

>>7111325
The Spyro games looked way better than this Ape Escape game.

[Anonymous No.7111387]

>>7111325
ape escape is fondly remembered for having a good art style, fun gameplay and catchy ost, not for having detailed textures
metal gear solid on the other hand was absolutely groundbreaking and i dare argue that its influence on cinematic games was comparable to the one oot had on action rpgs

[Anonymous No.7111487]

>>7111325
Ps1 games usually had better models, textures and higher polycount environments and was also capable of distortion effects and aggressive dynamic lighting. Despite all of this, the n64 was technically more powerful but the games were technically inferior to ps1 games.

[Anonymous No.7111489]

>>7111387

This, N64 has no answer for MGS

[Anonymous No.7111492]

N64 had 100 cartoon racing games, ps1 had grab Turismo 2

[Anonymous No.7111496]

>>7111386
This. Spyro was fucking gorgeous.
In fact, I had an N64 which I loved, but after seeing Spyro at my uncle’s place I asked for a PS1 for my next birthday based solely on how good it looked.

[Anonymous No.7111506]

>>7111325
>it looks worse than release date N64 games. Mystical Ninja and Mario 64 looks 100x better than Ape Escape
source: trust me dude

[Anonymous No.7111509]

>meme
>PSX was more powerful
What kind of ass backwards place you frequented? Even a child could tell the N64 was more powerful. Or are you talking with the voices inside your head again, schizo-kun?

[Anonymous No.7111560]

>>7111489
>Muh Zelda

[Anonymous No.7111563]

>>7111506
What do you mean “source”? I’m not even that guy but the source would be actually looking at the games in question.

[Anonymous No.7111576]

>>7111325
That looks really good for the era, though. Better examples would be Naughty Dog and Insomniac games.

[Anonymous No.7111647]

>>7111563
>source: trust me bro they look better

[Anonymous No.7111661]

I think there is no objective answer to this.
I personally think any 3D game looks better on N64 and having low res textures doesnt change that.

[Anonymous No.7111675]

>>7111647
Why do you need a source? Go look for yourself. Do you need a source on me telling you the sky is blue?

[Anonymous No.7112029]

playstation had silent hill

[Anonymous No.7112158]

>>7111675
>source: dude I fucking promise you they look better just look at them

[Anonymous No.7112170]

>>7112158
This is the poster who makes the re4 hate thread btw.

[Anonymous No.7112337]

>>7111325
Ape Escape is cartoony and fun. Did you not get enough hugs as a child, OP? Is that why you hate other people's happiness?

[Anonymous No.7112347]

>>7111325
>>7111386
It honestly matters on the art direction
I honestly think being forced to use textures because lighting was hardly attainable on PS1 made Spyro's environments much more interesting visually

[Anonymous No.7112420]

The N64 may have had some more technically advanced stuff but the games all looked like crap and had no style. Virtually all of them had the exact same look which is needlessly large flat environments, even lighting, with a sparse few polygonal doodads, and everything covered in that ugly, blurry texture filtering.

Show me an N64 game that looks this atmospheric and dense and stylish.

[Anonymous No.7112429]

>>7112420
You can make N64 games look like Playstation games (ridiculous aliasing and overall visual noise) by disabling the AA and dither filter.

[Anonymous No.7112451]

>>7112347
Are you saying that building lighting into the environment was good? Your post is confusing

[Anonymous No.7112457]

>>7112420
>>7112420
>ps fanboy posts emulation screenshots, one of which looks like shit
>asks people to post games that are "atmospheric and dense and stylish" as if he had any idea of what anything of that means
gonna be a cringe from me bro

[Anonymous No.7112464]

the n64 and the psx were both cool and both looked good for different reasons

[Anonymous No.7112475]

>>7112420
Blurry cut scene...

[Anonymous No.7112486]

one thing the 64 does miss out on is decent looking prerendered backgrounds, the ones in zelda looked ok though
really though you're arguing about two consoles that had pretty shitty looking 3D

[Anonymous No.7112492]

>>7112451
That's exactly what he's saying, all the best looking PSX games do that shit.
Hell that's the reason the original mirror's edge still looks better than its sequel.

[Anonymous No.7112495]

>>7112486
Is this screenshot supposed to look in any way appealing? It looks like a bad youtube LP from 2009.

[Anonymous No.7112535]

>>7112495
pretty telling that your frame of reference is watching people play games on youtube lol

[Anonymous No.7112537]

>>7111334
Fpbp

[Anonymous No.7112545]

>>7112486
>>7112535
based. zoomers can't into scanlines, not surprising.

[Anonymous No.7112550]

>>7111341
That's a bad thing?

[Anonymous No.7112556]

>>7112457
The N64 is just ugly to me. Blurry and ugly in its native appearance and even blurrier and uglier when played at high resolutions. I never play PSX games at high resolution either but at least in native res I can appreciate the dithered, unfiltered, pixelated look almost like a low-res 2D game.

Or maybe it's because I don't care much for those colorful bing-bing wahoo platformer graphics which is pretty all that existed on the N64.

[Anonymous No.7112671]

>caring about ugly 3D graphics

[Anonymous No.7112689]

>>7112556
You had me there until you started with your /v/ memes at the end.
5th gen in general looks pretty sketchy and you could notice it back then too, but N64 had more solid 3D that wasn't shaking all the time. It had convincing perspective that didn't distort. That alone made the N64 be seen as a more advanced 3D machine, and anyway people also thought the blurrier (but more seamless) textures were less jarring than the pixelation on PS1, which sure nowadays many people romanticize because "muh pixels", but back then that wasn't seen as "soulful" or whatever meme state of mind you get in to excuse it.
In short, anyone who thinks the PS1 (a 1994 system) is actually more powerful than the N64 (a system from mid 1996), it's either a clueless fanboy, or a shitposter, or both. It's not even about console war or brand bias, the N64 is a step more powerful than the 32-bit systems and is the reason why Nintendo went bold and shoved "64" in everyone's faces, because they knew people noticed the difference. Using the "muh bit" marketing to advertise something in 1996 was risky because the Jaguar did the exact same, and failed spectacularly.

[Anonymous No.7113214]

>>7112556
It looks like shit.

[Anonymous No.7113421]

>>7111325
Comparing N64 to PS1 in terms of graphical capabilities is pointless as both have their strengths and weaknesses. PS1 is capable of displaying much higher resolution textures, while being hobbled by it's perspective distortion. N64 is capable of displaying smooth (tri-point I think) filtered textures and anti aliased polygons, but texture RAM is pitifully small. Both systems have beautiful games that take advantage of the hardware to the point where comparing them becomes a point of subjective artistic opinion rather than an objective technical analysis.

[Anonymous No.7113435]

>>7111325
why are you talking about this? people buy consoles for the software not the other way around dumbass

[Anonymous No.7113663]

>>7111487
It had more polygons because it simply couldn't draw big polygons like the N64 , also , no z buffer, lack of a fixed floating point and perspective correction less RAM, and a very slow with high latency disc drive , that's why it had a chip to decompress pictures and movie data on the fly. The only advantage was disc space , that's why so many games used pre rendered backgrounds in order to made better looking games .

[Anonymous No.7114347]

>>7113435

[Anonymous No.7114362]

>>7111325
Someboy needs to bath your s.0.y.pod head in battery acid, please.

[Anonymous No.7114506]

>>7114362
This post constitutes assault in every US state

[Anonymous No.7115752]

Why were Ape Escape 1 & 3 so good, and how did they fuck 2 so bad? It has to be one of the biggest differences in quality between different interations I've ever experienced, and I'm counting some modern day garbage like nu-pokémon and whatever the fuck they're doing to Metal Slug these days.

[Anonymous No.7115813]

>>7115752
>whatever the fuck they're doing to Metal Slug these days.
i'm scared to ask

[Anonymous No.7116151]

>>7111489
>This, N64 has no answer for MGS

You mean the N64 didn't have a movie game where you had to sit the controller down and pick up a magazine to read while a 20 minute cinematic played? Sorry we were busy actually PLAYING games....

[Anonymous No.7117552]

n64

[Anonymous No.7117554]

ps1

[Anonymous No.7117564]

>>7117552
>>7117554
which one is supposed to look better

[Anonymous No.7117568]

Spyro looks better.

[Anonymous No.7117575]

>>7117568
it really doesn't. the lack of detail is so atrocious it looks like a mattel toy, and that's not even seeing it in motion to see the wobbling and persepective fuckery

[Anonymous No.7117582]

>>7117575
no spyro definitely looks better than ape escape

[Anonymous No.7117583]

>>7117564
ps1

[Anonymous No.7117585]

>>7115813
Tencent.
In other news, some Saudi Arabia prince has somehow brought SNK today. http://www.bloter.net/archives/483475

[Anonymous No.7117589]

>>7117575
all ps1 games wobble, it’s to do with how 3d was rendered on that system

[Anonymous No.7117596]

>>7117589
"3D", the thing is, the PS1 is doing very bad fake 3D. The N64 was the only real 3D console at that time, actually no wonder after all it was co-developed by THE 3D workstation company, Silicon Graphics, then.

[Anonymous No.7117602]

>>7117585
>Oil money swallows SNK

[Anonymous No.7117621]

>>7111325
>Lets stop with the meme that PSX was more powerful than N64

I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim that the PS1 was 'more powerful' than the N64. One glance at the specs shows N64 to be signficantly stronger in almost all aspects, and miles stronger in terms of raw cpu and gpu power.

...But the design of the PS1 is simply more versatile. IT's a machine that has its strengths and weaknesses in smarter areas than the N64 does.

The N64's Texture filtering is nice, but was it really necessary on an SDTV? And is it really a benefit if it can't be turned off? Is it really wise to blur a 32x32 texture? 2D elements look like blurry shit on the N64, purely because of the mandatory filtering. Is it really wise to make a video game console that is literally incapable of producing a sharp 2D image?

The N64 can do bigger environments with bigger draw distances than the PS1, but what's the point when it can't actually fill them with any detail?

The N64 can output CD-quality audio, but what's the point when the memory and cartridges lack the capacity to store it?

The N64 is full of "That's great, but" design issues like these. It has plenty of power, but it was difficult for developers to make practical use of much of it.

The PS1, on the other hand, is much more balanced. Almost every aspect of its architecture can be fully utilized without being bottlenecked by another.

The result was much larger and much more varied game library, because the system had a wider range of viable options for developers.

[Anonymous No.7117672]

>>7117621
well said

[Anonymous No.7117874]

>>7117585
>link hidden by spoiler
You’re a real son of a bitch, you know that?

[Anonymous No.7117927]

>>7111325
Who cares about power? N64 has less than ten good games.

[Anonymous No.7118467]

>>7111325
Who actually thinks the PSX is more powerful? Are you delusional? The ONLY thing the PSX had on the N64 was more storage allowing for more cutscenes and higher res textures. And that came at the cost of slow ass spinning rust that caused minute long load screens. Aside from that, the N64 was actually designed as a 3D console, unlike the PSX which was badly hacked to display 3D graphics on a console designed to be a more powerful SNES. PSX games look like actual trash on original hardware due to the awful vertex jitter non-perspective correct textures. PSX games are only playable on an emulator with PGPX. And there are barely any games worth playing in the first place. It's mostly limited to Silent Hill and Ape Escape. Spyro? Just play the remakes. MGS? It's legitimately a steaming pile of shit. I have no idea how people played that garbage. N64 is still the patrician choice and always will be no matter how much the ponies seethe.

[Anonymous No.7118472]

>>7117874
Way to out yourself as a phoneposter

[Anonymous No.7118712]

>>7118467
>Just play the remakes.
Please leave /vr/ and never come back.

[Anonymous No.7118715]

>>7117621
Can't argue with any of your points. On paper everything about the Nintendo 64 screams "half-generation leap in power." It really should have felt closer to the Dreamcast than to the PSX, but fell short for the reasons you've listed.

[Anonymous No.7118784]

>>7111325
Graphics don't matter, the n64 sucks and the only people who like it are nintodlers

[Anonymous No.7118804]

>>7118715
I didn't even touch on the fact that they went for a 64 bit processor at a time when the vast majority of programmers at the time had never written for anything higher than a 32 bit processor.

There was no real need for it, either. It doesn't need 64-bit memory addressing, it doesn't need 64-bit floating point operations. The PS1 got away without floating point operations at all, and the N64 comes along with a hardware capability my desktop computer wouldn't have until 2012? In the name outputting a 320x240 image to an SDTV?

I really can't wrap my head around what Nintendo's engineers were thinking here. I can only assume they just wanted a high clock speed at a cheap price, and the chip they found just happened to be 64bit and they were like 'sure, ok, sounds cool'.

Either that or it's needed to interface with the SGI gpu? I really don't know, but it was a strange choice for a 1996 games console, really.

[Anonymous No.7118819]

>>7112420
“ Show me an N64 game that looks this atmospheric and dense and stylish.”

[Anonymous No.7118827]

>>7115752
what's wrong with 2? i liked it about the same as 3 and the minigames were great

[Anonymous No.7118831]

>>7117575
>someone says spyro looks better than ape escape
>sixtypoor faggot barges in and starts screaming about 'muh wobblin'
lol

[Anonymous No.7118846]

>>7118819

You think you're being clever by zoming in on a region of the image?
That's what? 40x80 pixels?

Show me 40x80 pixels of an n64 game with that much detail in them.

Good luck.

[Anonymous No.7118853]

>>7118804
>I can only assume they just wanted a high clock speed at a cheap price
That's my take on what Nintendo did as well. We obviously benefit from hindsight, but decisions such as forgoing a CD drive or using a cheap, but high latency RAM solution resulted in a lower manufacturing cost, but was it necessarily worth it when it meant giving up dominance in what is now the largest grossing multimedia industry? Kudos to Sony, though. They produced an incredibly elegant system and they deserved the success that it brought them over the years.

[Anonymous No.7118865]

Nobody thinks the PS1 is stronger than the Nintendo 64. 64>32

[Anonymous No.7118878]

>>7118712
Please cope. The remakes are better, like most remakes of PSX games. The PSX is such an utter piece of junk that it's actually hard to make a remake worse than the original.

[Anonymous No.7118904]

>>7118853
So, they released a year and a half after the PS1 (per Japanese release dates), the system was significantly cheaper than the PS1, and on top of the higher cost of producing a cartridge, they also demanded $19 in royalties???

God damn, what a bunch of absolute jews.

No fucking wonder nobody wanted to develop for the N64 unless Nintendo themselves were paying them to do it.

[Anonymous No.7118913]

>>7118853
> an incredibly elegant system
> Not capable of floating point arithmetic, which is necessary for 3D graphics that don't look horrible
Also, cartridges were superior to disks. The N64 hardware was better than PSX in every conceivable way. The problem is that devs were cheapskates who went with the PSX because disks give you more storage for cheaper despite being an inferior technology to cartridges in every other way.

[Anonymous No.7118917]

>>7118913
Gonna be honest, texture warping isn't noticeable in most PS1 games. PS1 games just look better.

[Anonymous No.7118934]

>>7118917
Maybe if you're using PGPX in an emulator. Without PGPX though? It's incredibly obtrusive. I'll take the N64's blurrier textures any day over the PSX's jiggling.

[Anonymous No.7118941]

>>7111325
Is this irony? Ape Escape isn't even top 10 of the best looking, maybe not even top 50.

[Anonymous No.7118946]

>>7118934
>It's incredibly obtrusive
Nah, playing it right now on a CRT over RGB. Lots of 3D in Duke Nukem Time to Kill but no distortion stands out so far...Just sounds like an exaggeration. "There must be a flaw, ANY flaw!" All to deflect from how poor the N64 is at its only job.

[Anonymous No.7118947]

>>7118913
> Not capable of floating point arithmetic, which is necessary for 3D graphics that don't look horrible

Might look like ass in EPSXE, but when you're outputting 320*240, the vertex wobble on a character model is generally going to be single-pixel in most situations.

also,

>implying vertex wobble isn't full of SOUL

>>7118917
>texture warping isn't noticeable in most PS1 games

It's very noticable in a lot of games, but many developers mitigated by using smaller polygons. There's loads of it in Tomb Raider, but very little of it in, Wipeout, Crash Bandicoot, or Metal Gear Solid.

[Anonymous No.7118980]

>>7111325
Threads of Fate or Vagrant Story look much better than Ape Escape.

[Anonymous No.7118986]

>>7114347
the fuck is that face supposed to mean

[Anonymous No.7118996]

>>7118947
>>7118917
Texture warping is extremely noticeable on real hardware, a CRT, emulator, there is no getting around it.

In this screenshot you can SEE the the PSX's worst nemesis: the straight line. Something it is incapable of rendering.
>>7118941

[Anonymous No.7118997]

>>7118996
>Texture warping is extremely noticeable
Depends on the game, honestly the issue is overblown and is basically a non-factor.

[batowl No.7119004]

i like all 3 incuding saturn. low ploy was my claymation.

[Anonymous No.7119130]

>>7111325
N64 was more powerful a good example is sanfranscico rush. And the hot wheels racing that is on ps1 and n64. You can see the n64 is more polished but the game play moves slower. Ps1 moves fast but you can tell the graphics are a different style.

[Anonymous No.7119141]

>>7111325
Nobody memed that PS was more powerful than N64, everyone knows that PS was jack of all trades master of none in regards to 2D & 3D, right between Saturn and N64. PS was more capable than N64 specifically in redbook music/sound/texture/FMV and triangle output and some other shit I don't recall. N64 does true-r 3D.

[Anonymous No.7119182]

>>7118996
>In this screenshot you can SEE the the PSX's worst nemesis: the straight line.

That screenshot is emulation running at triple the Playstation's resolution. Pic related is an re-upscaled version of the image after a nearest-neighbour reduction to the correct resolution.

The vertex wobble in the buildings is now almost imperceptible. Only the distortion of the sidewalk texture in the foreground remains, and it would be reduced further by the blur of a 90's TV.

[Anonymous No.7119185]

>>7119182
Pic actually related this time.

[Anonymous No.7119220]

>>7118904
Yeah, pretty crazy. Nintendo and Sega were both guilty of seeing third parties as competition instead of as a source of royalty income. I'm not a fan of Sony post-2005, but from the beginning they did provide a paradigm shift that caught the old guard with their pants down.

[Anonymous No.7119245]

>>7118913
>Also, cartridges were superior to disks.
I don't disagree on principle, but for the era and market trends at the time, it was probably a mistake.
>The N64 hardware was better than PSX in every conceivable way.
I do disagree with this statement, though. In a vacuum, yes, the hardware could have been better in every conceivable way. What they needed, I believe, is a two bus system split between graphics and CPU/sound. And RDRAM is okay if latency can be masked like it was in the PS2, but standard SDRAM (and SGRAM for graphics) would have incurred a lower latency penalty at the cost of more expensive hardware. The N64 without a CD drive COULD have produced much better graphics with minor hardware changes.

[Anonymous No.7119246]

ITT: zoomies console warring 20 years late

[Anonymous No.7119258]

>>7111325
> Lets stop with the meme that PSX was more powerful than N64
literally nobody says this. they just state the fact that despite the n64 being technically more powerful, the actual experience of playing it is much more smudgy and laggy than the ps1. mostly due to the fact that rare games made up like 90% of the n64 games anyone actually played and they clearly didn't give a fuck less about optimizing their games. on top of the n64's architecture being much harder to work with than the ps1's

[Anonymous No.7119314]

sure was fun playing 3 games for an entire year in 1998

the choice to drop n64 for psx was easy

[Anonymous No.7119528]

>>7118996
>>7119185
I don't want to give the impression I think PS1 3D looked good, but both of those are far better than anything on N64. Gen 5 was the low point of video games, especially when it comes to graphics.

[Anonymous No.7119564]

>>7119314
Eh, I imported a Dreamcast and already had a gaming PC in 1998.
Also, 1998 for N64? I can remember Mystical Ninja, Rogue Squadron and F-Zero X.
That's not even counting the "big games" like Banjo and OOT.
I was still using my PS1 in 1998 too, though, but mostly playing shovelware anime games lol.

[Anonymous No.7119620]

>>7119528
>Gen 5 was the low point of video games
No. That would be gen 7. Gen 5 was at least impressive for its time, even if it aged like a corpse in a sauna. Gen 7 was shit for the time it came out and it was a downgrade from gen 6 in several ways. I basically stopped playing new video games for a decade because of how badly gen 7 sucked.
> especially when it comes to graphics.
I'll give you that one. Early 3D is rough to go back to.

[Anonymous No.7120479]

>>7118865
kids in the 90s don't know the difference. they just know that they could play their audio cds and it was a huge technological leap from the previous generation. that was good enough to sell over 100 million systems.

[Anonymous No.7120481]

>>7118913
>Also, cartridges were superior to disks.

if they could hold as much data and were as cheap as cds, i'd agree, but that's not the case.

[Anonymous No.7120887]

>>7119620
Well we can disagree. I know around here modern games are disliked and though I put gen 5 as one of the low points it still had a lot of good. 7 might be my favorite generation since 4 though.