Quantcast

Page 61 of 68 FirstFirst ... 1151575859606162636465 ... LastLast
Results 901 to 915 of 1014

Thread: Is It Me, or Does the Nintendo 64 SUCK?!

  1. #901
    Hard Road! ESWAT Veteran Barone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    7,044
    Rep Power
    151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BladeJunker View Post
    Yeah the N64 was hampered right out the gate with the textures being no better than PS1 and Saturn as the filtering just washed everything out,

    What I hated most was landscape texturing on N64, because of the limitations you'd see a lot of small textures stretched over giant polygons. I wish more developers on N64 would have have used texture tiling more often instead of making giant texel eyesores.
    1) Filtering isn't really the problem. The real problem is that the textures themselves were really low quality for the most part.
    2) Texture tiling isn't really applicable to all cases (think about logos and ads on race tracks, for an example) but that's why the said best looking games of the N64 have tons of grass and mud; because that is where it's really applicable.


    Quote Originally Posted by j_factor View Post
    Well said. I'm not sure what the deal is on the N64 with 2D and "2D/3D combo" type games. Limited cartridge space is partly to blame -- artwork, backgrounds, and animation all use up memory fast, and budget-wise you're not likely to get the larger/higher-priced of the cartridge sizes available. Metal Slug X on the Neo Geo is almost identical in ROM size to the N64 version of Resident Evil 2, and it's hard to justify that kind of expense.

    Ogre Battle 64 MK Trilogy Wonder Project J2. Mischief Makers was kind of hideous. Ogre Battle 64 and Bangaioh being a lot better would seem to support that it's a space issue. But then again, Rayman looks very nice on the Jaguar, so I don't know.
    Main problem isn't really the cartridge. People say it all the time but the reality is always hidden by that.
    The fact is that everything related to texturing on the N64 sucks:
    - The texture cache is only 4 KB and get reduced to 2 KB when using mip-mapping.
    - Trying to replace textures quickly on the texture cache will likely cause stalls.
    - The memory bandwidth of the N64 is really really bad.
    - Fillrate is hurt by all the previous issues and also for the official SDK which forced strong geometry correction and Z-buffer usage.
    - Loading data from the N64 cartridge is VERY slow. Top Gear Rally/World Driver Championship lead programmer said it was slower than loading from CD depending on the size of the things to be transferred.
    - Lots of bus concurrency problems hurt the final performance even more.

    And 2D stuff on the N64, unlike on the Saturn and on the Jaguar, will be handled pretty much like 3d; sprites will be textured polygons after all, like the PS1.

    The games you cited which don't look bad in your opinion are very static in one way or another. Ogre Battle 64 is obviously slow paced and its battles are basically single screen static background stuff.
    Bangaioh's background is a static picture with very small objects on top of it.

    MK Trilogy is just a poor port IMO but it shows that it wasn't an easy job to do a cheap port on the N64. Heck, the Saturn version is mostly 1:1 with the PS1's which is said to be the code base for the other console ports.

    Mischief Makers is closer to the more dynamic 2D/3D mixes you'll find on the Saturn and on the PS1, but the limitations are everywhere: foreground parallax uses low quality blown-up textures, background is very static (look at the first stage for Christ's sake! one of the background planes is a bunch of crushed trees and bushes; they would be drawn as 2D objects in any 2D/3D PS1/SAT game); enemies and animated objects are all very small and repetitive; background texture is repetitive and low res; frame rate is locked at 30 fps not 60 fps.
    The boss scene when you're running has basically no other objects, enemies or moving parts. It's just very repetitive background and foreground scrolled "fast".

  2. #902
    Raging in the Streets A Black Falcon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Age
    35
    Posts
    3,238
    Rep Power
    38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black_Tiger View Post
    I had the exact opposite reaction bitd. The N64 is like the NES in that way. SMS games had "real" color and looked like arcade and misc games. NES didn't look like anything else and not in a good way. The early Collecovision-looking titles looked like an evolution of the previous generation, but once we started seeing games with proper artwork, the combo of limited colors per sprite + funky non-RGB color always made it feel limited and compromised.
    SMS graphics "looked like arcade games"? You overrate the system... and you don't mention how similar most SMS games seem to look, or at least the '80s ones. It's ironic you criticize N64 games so harshly for looking similarly, while the SMS is worse in that regard. But regardless, the SMS hardware is 2 1/3 years newer than the NES. It better the better, and it does... but considering that it's newer, it's too bad that Sega failed to improve the audio. The SMS certainly does beat the NES graphically, but it gives up almost as much ground with its not-great music as it gains graphically. Maybe it should have had the FM sound chip built in...

    The N64 has a similar yet signature limited and compromised feel with its aesthetics. The games didn't look like fancy computer games from the time.
    ... What? N64 games look much closer to PC games of the late '90s than anything you'll see on the PS1 or Saturn, certainly. By '98 none of the consoles could match what PCs could do, I certainly noticed the downgrade when I got my N64 in '99 and compared the graphics to the better visuals of the Voodoo2 card in my PC, but the N64 was closer than the others because it's a more powerful system.

    They looked like a more primitive 3D game than Saturn/PSX,
    Come on, at least try to separate your opinion (dislike for N64 textures) from the fact that it's more powerful overall than the other 5th-gen consoles. This isn't quite right anyway; blurred textures aren't something you'll see on any "primitive 3d game", so this doesn't even make sense. No early 3d systems could do that kind of filtering! The whole point of the blurring is to get rid of the pixelization you saw in 3d game textures before the N64. It's something which requires some hardware power to do. As someone who has always disliked the look of pixelated textures, it was a good idea. Of course I wish the texture cache was a lot bigger, though, higher-res textures without needing to make them really small (as you see in Conker, Battle for Naboo, and such) would be nice.

    which then got filtered into oblivion. The limited ram and cart format might have been responsible for most of it, but it still felt severely compromised at the time, especially since CD games had been around for 8+ years already and the upcoming consoles also used disc based mediums.
    The texture issues are more because of the texture cache than the decision to not use CDs. The media format isn't the main cause, the cache is.

    You also got see such a huge variety of aesthetics all the way through the generation on Saturn/PSX. They had low and high res games. Some very detailed textures and always with a variety rarely seen on N64. There were various combos of 2D/3D assets and lots of different kinds of 2D games.
    You see all of these things on the N64 as well. If some are less common that'd only be because the N64 has fewer games and fewer developers working on it. Games from the same studios often look similarly, though even there that's not a given -- there are few more impressive improvements than going from San Francisco Rush for N64 to Rush 2049, for example!

    Certain aspects of 3D were handled or balanced differently in different games.
    Nintendo setting a standard that all games had to meet -- that is, all the hardware features the N64 has standard -- was a move with a massive upside and almost no downside. Sure, it's true that there are no N64 games with polygons that pop all over the place and warp as you move, because Nintendo mandated that all games must have perspective correction, but this is one of the best things about the shstem's design!

    Of course though, there are a few N64 games which handle 3d differently -- see Factor 5 and Boss Games titles.

    You can pick out a high number of unique looking Saturn/PSX titles from each year and continue doing so for every year and wind up with a giant variety of different looking 3D games. You didn't get much of that on N64. They're almost all a similar balance of signature neutered bland 3D and cart sound with limited artwork.
    You need to play more N64 games, because this isn't true. You see an incredible change, and difference, as you move from early N64 games to late ones. PS1, Saturn, N64, all three systems have some basic things you always see in 3d games on the system -- stuff such as N64 blurry textures (but with no perspective issues, filtering, etc.), PS1 perspective problems, pixelated textures on PS1 and Saturn, limited transparencies on Saturn, etc. I think you're overstating how similar N64 games look because you dislike the console.

    Quote Originally Posted by j_factor View Post
    Well said. I'm not sure what the deal is on the N64 with 2D and "2D/3D combo" type games. Limited cartridge space is partly to blame -- artwork, backgrounds, and animation all use up memory fast, and budget-wise you're not likely to get the larger/higher-priced of the cartridge sizes available. Metal Slug X on the Neo Geo is almost identical in ROM size to the N64 version of Resident Evil 2, and it's hard to justify that kind of expense.
    There are some 2d/3d combo games on the N64, but I'm guessing that you might have seen more of them had larger cartridges been available earlier -- by the time the 40MB and 64MB carts came available in 1999, interest was probably less for that kind of thing than it would have been had large sizes been available in '96, when games like KI Gold or MK Trilogy suffered from having to cram them in to 8MB cartridges.

    Of course though, as you say, even once they were available few took advantage because of the much higher costs. But the 16MB and 32MB sizes were used by plenty of games, once Nintendo added them. I know that over time ROM prices drop, as you make more for a system, but still I wish Nintendo had had a way of offering larger sizes earlier, instead of about one per year -- 8MB in '96, 16MB in '97, 32MB in '98, 64MB and 40MB in '99.

    One of the few good examples of an N64 game with a combination of 2D and 3D graphics is Ogre Battle 64. Probably the largest such game on the system too, at 320Mb/40MB. No doubt the delay in its US release (15 months after Japan) was to wait for the cost to go down. Ogre Battle 64 is pretty good visually; unlike most N64 games it's fairly detailed, and it's definitely an upgrade from the more plain-looking Tactics Ogre on Playstation (although that was an SNES port). It has an issue with blurry sprites, but it doesn't detract too much. I might say it's one of the better-looking games of that type in that generation, but I wouldn't say that it outclasses Shining Force III in the graphics department. That sounds like faint praise, but I would have liked to see more of this type of thing on the N64.
    I agree Ogre Battle 64 looks good and mixes 2d and 3d well, but Paper Mario also should get a mention! That game looks really great, perfect mix of '2d' and 3d elements.

    Earlier attempts at 2D or partial 2D on the N64 were mostly not great. MK Trilogy had major cuts on the N64, Wonder Project J2 had extremely limited/repetitive animation, and Mischief Makers was kind of hideous. Ogre Battle 64 and Bangaioh being a lot better would seem to support that it's a space issue.
    Yeah, as I say earlier I think larger cart sizes would have done those early games wonders.

    But then again, Rayman looks very nice on the Jaguar, so I don't know.
    The Jaguar is natively designed for 2d; Rayman just shows how few Jag games actually push its capabilities -- they're mostly 4th-gen ports or 3d games, and the Jag just isn't great at 3d. This is perhaps a bit like how the N64 was designed for games to use a mixture of shaded and textured polygons, but after Mario 64 most games started being fully textured, exposing the limited texture cache issue.
    Last edited by A Black Falcon; 07-18-2015 at 01:22 AM.

  3. #903
    Hero of Algol TrekkiesUnite118's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Age
    29
    Posts
    7,769
    Rep Power
    106

    Default

    Why the hell did we bump this thread?

    Quote Originally Posted by A Black Falcon View Post
    SMS graphics "looked like arcade games"? You overrate the system... and you don't mention how similar most SMS games seem to look, or at least the '80s ones. It's ironic you criticize N64 games so harshly for looking similarly, while the SMS is worse in that regard. But regardless, the SMS hardware is 2 1/3 years newer than the NES. It better the better, and it does... but considering that it's newer, it's too bad that Sega failed to improve the audio. The SMS certainly does beat the NES graphically, but it gives up almost as much ground with its not-great music as it gains graphically. Maybe it should have had the FM sound chip built in...

    A lot of early NES games look similar too you know. But yeah, I'd say looking at typical arcade ports of the time, the SMS versions do look closer to the arcade. And the SMS did have the FM chip build in, in Japan. Though that's not to say you couldn't have good sounding games on the stock PSG chip:



    Quote Originally Posted by A Black Falcon View Post
    ... What? N64 games look much closer to PC games of the late '90s than anything you'll see on the PS1 or Saturn, certainly. By '98 none of the consoles could match what PCs could do, I certainly noticed the downgrade when I got my N64 in '99 and compared the graphics to the better visuals of the Voodoo2 card in my PC, but the N64 was closer than the others because it's a more powerful system.
    Yet Quake looks better on the Saturn. Gee, I wonder why...





    Quote Originally Posted by A Black Falcon View Post
    Come on, at least try to separate your opinion (dislike for N64 textures) from the fact that it's more powerful overall than the other 5th-gen consoles. This isn't quite right anyway; blurred textures aren't something you'll see on any "primitive 3d game", so this doesn't even make sense. No early 3d systems could do that kind of filtering! The whole point of the blurring is to get rid of the pixelization you saw in 3d game textures before the N64. It's something which requires some hardware power to do. As someone who has always disliked the look of pixelated textures, it was a good idea. Of course I wish the texture cache was a lot bigger, though, higher-res textures without needing to make them really small (as you see in Conker, Battle for Naboo, and such) would be nice.
    What's the point of that advanced texture filtering if the textures being used are so poor that the game just looks like the screen is smeared with Vaseline? Look at that Saturn capture above and try to tell me those textures are pixelated. Try to tell me the N64's textures look better.

    Quote Originally Posted by A Black Falcon View Post
    The texture issues are more because of the texture cache than the decision to not use CDs. The media format isn't the main cause, the cache is.
    It's a combination of all of the above. The Texture cache is the biggest issue, but when you have 64MB carts vs 650MB CDs, it's pretty obvious you have more space for better textures and more textures on the CD than the cart.

    Quote Originally Posted by A Black Falcon View Post
    Nintendo setting a standard that all games had to meet -- that is, all the hardware features the N64 has standard -- was a move with a massive upside and almost no downside. Sure, it's true that there are no N64 games with polygons that pop all over the place and warp as you move, because Nintendo mandated that all games must have perspective correction, but this is one of the best things about the shstem's design!
    Nintendo didn't set that Standard, 3D Graphics were already heading in that direction. I think the Model 3 board did all of that, and that was released before the N64. And the Model 2 board had perspective correct polygons too I believe. And there was a massive downside to that on Nintendo's hardware. We had horrific texture smearing, and that perspective correct rendering had a huge hit on polygon performance. Again look at Quake on the Saturn vs the N64. The Saturn version has better textures and more geometric detail than the N64 version, yet the N64 is supposedly the more powerful system.

    Quote Originally Posted by A Black Falcon View Post
    Of course though, there are a few N64 games which handle 3d differently -- see Factor 5 and Boss Games titles.
    Yes, too bad they came out after we already had the Dreamcast.

    Quote Originally Posted by A Black Falcon View Post
    You need to play more N64 games, because this isn't true. You see an incredible change, and difference, as you move from early N64 games to late ones. PS1, Saturn, N64, all three systems have some basic things you always see in 3d games on the system -- stuff such as N64 blurry textures (but with no perspective issues, filtering, etc.), PS1 perspective problems, pixelated textures on PS1 and Saturn, limited transparencies on Saturn, etc. I think you're overstating how similar N64 games look because you dislike the console.
    Except you don't always see pixelated textures on the Saturn and PS1, and you don't always see limited transparencies on the Saturn. Again look at the footage of Quake I posted. You have better geometry, crisp clean textures with good detail, and you have transparencies plus dynamic lighting. That's pretty damn impressive if you ask me.

    Quote Originally Posted by A Black Falcon View Post
    There are some 2d/3d combo games on the N64, but I'm guessing that you might have seen more of them had larger cartridges been available earlier -- by the time the 40MB and 64MB carts came available in 1999, interest was probably less for that kind of thing than it would have been had large sizes been available in '96, when games like KI Gold or MK Trilogy suffered from having to cram them in to 8MB cartridges.

    Of course though, as you say, even once they were available few took advantage because of the much higher costs. But the 16MB and 32MB sizes were used by plenty of games, once Nintendo added them. I know that over time ROM prices drop, as you make more for a system, but still I wish Nintendo had had a way of offering larger sizes earlier, instead of about one per year -- 8MB in '96, 16MB in '97, 32MB in '98, 64MB and 40MB in '99.
    Yes, but even at it's best it's significantly less than what was available on on CDs.

    Quote Originally Posted by A Black Falcon View Post
    I agree Ogre Battle 64 looks good and mixes 2d and 3d well, but Paper Mario also should get a mention! That game looks really great, perfect mix of '2d' and 3d elements.
    Then lets compare the N64's best at this style to the Saturn's best:









    Paper Mario looks good for an N64 game, but it lacks the crispness and detail the Saturn games have. Not to mention the Saturn games seem to have more going on.

  4. #904
    End of line.. ESWAT Veteran gamevet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    6,697
    Rep Power
    91

    Default

    Was the frame-rate really that choppy on the N64 version of Quake? It's horrible!
    A Black Falcon: no, computer games and video games are NOT the same thing. Video games are on consoles, computer games are on PC. The two kinds of games are different, and have significantly different design styles, distribution methods, and game genre selections. Computer gaming and console (video) gaming are NOT the same thing."



  5. #905
    Hero of Algol TrekkiesUnite118's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Age
    29
    Posts
    7,769
    Rep Power
    106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gamevet View Post
    Was the frame-rate really that choppy on the N64 version of Quake? It's horrible!
    That may be an issue with the way it was captured, but it's rather hard to find real hardware capture of N64 games. It seems most footage that pops up on youtube is emulated.

  6. #906
    Raging in the Streets A Black Falcon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Age
    35
    Posts
    3,238
    Rep Power
    38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118 View Post
    Why the hell did we bump this thread?
    Black Tiger just HAD to go attack the N64 again, I guess.

    A lot of early NES games look similar too you know.
    Every system, particularly any classic one, has some visual design styles you only see on that console.

    but yeah, I'd say looking at typical arcade ports of the time, the SMS versions do look closer to the arcade.
    What "typical arcade ports of the time" are you talking about? On both systems, graphics are significantly downgraded versus the arcade originals... but because the SMS is a bit more powerful it sometimes can do more than the NES. Of course both systems look dated compared to the next-gen Turbografx, which released only two years after the SMS -- part of why it failed in Japan, it released far too late in the generation, after the NES had already won and without the power of next-gen consoles that followed it.

    And the SMS did have the FM chip build in, in Japan. Though that's not to say you couldn't have good sounding games on the stock PSG chip:

    That song sounds decently good, but it's got nothing on the better NES songs. Oh, and as for 'the SMS did have the FM chip', remember that the Mark III is the original model of the console there, and that doesn't have one. The Japanese SMS is a later model which surely sold less than the first version.

    Yet Quake looks better on the Saturn. Gee, I wonder why...



    Which one looks better is a matter of opinion. I have never played either of the console versions of the game, only the PC original, so I don't think I can say which one I prefer based only on videos, not when so many are emulated... and N64 emulators change the graphical look of the games. Here's a short and quite bad, but real hardware (PAL though) video of Quake 64: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYQMMvCVzm4 The framerate is decent, not choppy like that other video.

    But based on those videos, each version has pluses and minuses -- the N64 version doesn't have pixelated textures, which is a big plus, but does have some simplified geometry and other things. Here's the classic version comparison article: http://www.curmudgeongamer.com/2002/...-quake-vs.html I'd need to play them to know which one I'd like more. The better quality of N64 3d that the article points out is a big plus, but the Saturn version does look impressive for the platform and I'd like to get it.

    Really though, this isn't an ideal comparison, because the N64 can do far better than you see in Quake 1! For the Saturn it's one of the top 3d games for the platform, probably, but that's definitely not true on N64. Even not looking at other games, Quake II looks a lot better than the first one, for example.... and I've never found Quake II as impressive as Turok 3, TWINE, or Perfect Dark, certainly, as far as N64 FPS graphics go.

    What's the point of that advanced texture filtering if the textures being used are so poor that the game just looks like the screen is smeared with Vaseline? Look at that Saturn capture above and try to tell me those textures are pixelated. Try to tell me the N64's textures look better.
    Oh come on, you're being silly. What's the point? Better graphics, that's the point! Those features all make N64 graphics look better than they would look without them. N64 graphics with popping polygons, blocky textures, etc. would look a lot worse than they do.

    As for the Saturn textures, they are often pixelated. Good analyses of the game admit this reality -- see that article I linked (again I'm sure, it's old and has surely been linked before). The author talks about the advantages of N64 texture filtering for a reason, it's an advantage.

    It's a combination of all of the above. The Texture cache is the biggest issue, but when you have 64MB carts vs 650MB CDs, it's pretty obvious you have more space for better textures and more textures on the CD than the cart.
    Sure, but we know from developers that the cache, not space, was the main issue. And that thanks to compression you can fit a lot on an N64 cart.

    Nintendo didn't set that Standard, 3D Graphics were already heading in that direction.
    On home consoles Nintendo did indeed set that standard. What arcades or computers were doing isn't directly relevant to consoles, of course they quickly got ahead of consoles.

    And there was a massive downside to that on Nintendo's hardware. We had horrific texture smearing,
    A "massive" downside? No, there isn't. There is a midzsized downside that N64 critics, which of course there are many of here, massively overstate in order to try to make the system look worse than it is. The constant denial that better advanced features are better than not having any of that stuff is kind of absurd!

    We had horrific texture smearing, and that perspective correct rendering had a huge hit on polygon performance.
    That performance hit was 1000000% worth it, to get rid of perspective issues. Requiring perspective correction in all N64 games was one of the best things Nintendo did with

    Again look at Quake on the Saturn vs the N64. The Saturn version has better textures and more geometric detail than the N64 version, yet the N64 is supposedly the more powerful system.
    The Saturn version only sometimes has better textures, not always. See the article I linked above again, it makes it clear that that issue goes both ways at different points -- the author expresses surprise at a point where the Saturn actually wins on textures. The same goes for geometric detail, it seems, though I guess the N64 cuts in more places -- though again, the N64 can do FAR better than Quake 64, so that says a lot more about the mediocre quality of the N64 port of Quake 1 than it does anything else.

    Yes, too bad they came out after we already had the Dreamcast.
    Uhh... since when have later releases not counted? Talk about moving the goalposts just to suit your case and not for any other reason...

    Except you don't always see pixelated textures on the Saturn and PS1,
    You almost always do. Maybe you're too used to it to see it, but it's all over the place in most PS1 and Saturn games.

    and you don't always see limited transparencies on the Saturn.
    I watched that great video explaining how transparencies work on the Saturn. I presume you've seen it... And no, they are always limited; the Saturn cannot do free transparencies anywhere like the PS1 and N64 (and SNES) all can. I don't understand how Sega didn't realize that this would be an issue, but it is.

    Then lets compare the N64's best at this style to the Saturn's best:









    Paper Mario looks good for an N64 game, but it lacks the crispness and detail the Saturn games have. Not to mention the Saturn games seem to have more going on.
    Smooth vs. blocky is not something with an objective "right" answer, as far as personal opinions of which looks better goes.

    Quote Originally Posted by gamevet View Post
    Was the frame-rate really that choppy on the N64 version of Quake? It's horrible!
    No. It's just a bad emulator video.
    Last edited by A Black Falcon; 07-19-2015 at 06:33 AM.

  7. #907
    End of line.. ESWAT Veteran gamevet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    6,697
    Rep Power
    91

    Default

    I found a video with Quake on a real N64. The textures are just so blurry and ugly. There's no contest on which version is better. It's certainly not the N64 game.
    A Black Falcon: no, computer games and video games are NOT the same thing. Video games are on consoles, computer games are on PC. The two kinds of games are different, and have significantly different design styles, distribution methods, and game genre selections. Computer gaming and console (video) gaming are NOT the same thing."



  8. #908
    Nameless One Jump Space's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    97
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    I didn't watch any videos or read any of the links above, so I'm just going from my experience playing these two games, but you can actually go into the options menu of the N64 version of Quake and turn off some of the graphics filtering. It looks noticably better when you do. The frame rate is choppy in either port however. It varies depending on the levels, but the Saturn one seems more stable. Maybe. It's been a while. The Saturn is missing some of the more nutty levels like Ziggarat Vertigo though.

    If I had to pick one as better, it would be the Saturn Quake because of the exclusive levels and the original soundtrack, but the N64 Quake is still basically Quake and I prefer it to most other N64 first-person shooting games. It is kind of neat having a version of Quake on a cartridge too.

  9. #909
    Hero of Algol TrekkiesUnite118's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Age
    29
    Posts
    7,769
    Rep Power
    106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by A Black Falcon View Post

    Every system, particularly any classic one, has some visual design styles you only see on that console.
    So then why are you complaining about that being the case with the SMS? If you can do mental gymnastics to make it ok on the NES why can't you do that for the SMS too?

    Quote Originally Posted by A Black Falcon View Post
    What "typical arcade ports of the time" are you talking about? On both systems, graphics are significantly downgraded versus the arcade originals... but because the SMS is a bit more powerful it sometimes can do more than the NES. Of course both systems look dated compared to the next-gen Turbografx, which released only two years after the SMS -- part of why it failed in Japan, it released far too late in the generation, after the NES had already won and without the power of next-gen consoles that followed it.
    After Burner, Space Harrier, Outrun, Hang On, Ghouls n Ghosts, etc. all look closer to the arcade on the SMS than they do on the NES. What I find bothersome on the NES is that the sprites are always low color, meanwhile on the SMS you typically have more colorful sprites.

    Quote Originally Posted by A Black Falcon View Post
    That song sounds decently good, but it's got nothing on the better NES songs.
    I didn't say it did, is said it sounded decent. I'd say it could hold it's own against some of the NES's offerings, not the ones with expansion audio obviously, but then again standard NES songs pale in comparisong to SMS FM synth songs.

    Quote Originally Posted by A Black Falcon View Post
    Oh, and as for 'the SMS did have the FM chip', remember that the Mark III is the original model of the console there, and that doesn't have one. The Japanese SMS is a later model which surely sold less than the first version.
    But you didn't say Mark III, you said SMS.

    Quote Originally Posted by A Black Falcon View Post
    Which one looks better is a matter of opinion. I have never played either of the console versions of the game, only the PC original, so I don't think I can say which one I prefer based only on videos, not when so many are emulated... and N64 emulators change the graphical look of the games. Here's a short and quite bad, but real hardware (PAL though) video of Quake 64: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYQMMvCVzm4 The framerate is decent, not choppy like that other video.

    But based on those videos, each version has pluses and minuses -- the N64 version doesn't have pixelated textures, which is a big plus, but does have some simplified geometry and other things. Here's the classic version comparison article: http://www.curmudgeongamer.com/2002/...-quake-vs.html I'd need to play them to know which one I'd like more. The better quality of N64 3d that the article points out is a big plus, but the Saturn version does look impressive for the platform and I'd like to get it.
    First of all that article is terrible for visual comparisons. All the screenshots are in awful compressed gifs with low color. Second of all both youtube video's are from real hardware. I pointed out the frame rate issue on the N64 one was probably a capture issue, but frame rate wasn't what we were comparing here, it was texturing. And the Saturn version wins hands down with texturing, geometry, lighting, etc.

    As for the other video you posted, I was going to use it, but it didn't show enough of the level.

    Quote Originally Posted by A Black Falcon View Post
    the N64 version doesn't have pixelated textures,
    Neither does the Saturn version. When going between the two versions, the Saturn version looks like someone cranked the Texture Quality up to high, and the N64 version has them set to low.

    Quote Originally Posted by A Black Falcon View Post
    Really though, this isn't an ideal comparison, because the N64 can do far better than you see in Quake 1! For the Saturn it's one of the top 3d games for the platform, probably, but that's definitely not true on N64. Even not looking at other games, Quake II looks a lot better than the first one, for example.... and I've never found Quake II as impressive as Turok 3, TWINE, or Perfect Dark, certainly, as far as N64 FPS graphics go.
    I was comparing like to like. It's the easiest way to do a direct comparison of the way the two systems render. As for Perfect Dark, it's a tad unfair to compare a 1997 Saturn game to a 2000 N64 game. By that point we had the Dreamcast and PS2 after all. Let's not also forget it uses the Expansion Pak.

    Quote Originally Posted by A Black Falcon View Post
    Oh come on, you're being silly. What's the point? Better graphics, that's the point! Those features all make N64 graphics look better than they would look without them. N64 graphics with popping polygons, blocky textures, etc. would look a lot worse than they do.
    What's the point of heavy texture filtering if you're texture cache is so poor that you can't even put in good quality textures to benefit from said filtering? There are plenty of games on the Saturn that have great looking textures that are not pixelated, many of which I've brought up before. And the system doesn't need texture filtering to make them look nice. Would it be nice for the system to have it? Sure, but not at the cost the N64 paid for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by A Black Falcon View Post
    As for the Saturn textures, they are often pixelated. Good analyses of the game admit this reality -- see that article I linked (again I'm sure, it's old and has surely been linked before). The author talks about the advantages of N64 texture filtering for a reason, it's an advantage.
    Yet the Real Hardware capture I linked doesn't show any pixelated textures at all. So either the video I linked is of some super rare version with really good textures, or you and the person who wrote that article are extremely biased.

    Quote Originally Posted by A Black Falcon View Post
    Sure, but we know from developers that the cache, not space, was the main issue. And that thanks to compression you can fit a lot on an N64 cart.
    Cache was the main issue, but cart space didn't help either. You can fit even more on a CD, especially if you throw compression into the mix. By the time N64 carts started to use larger sizes and good compression, the generation was already over.

    Quote Originally Posted by A Black Falcon View Post
    On home consoles Nintendo did indeed set that standard. What arcades or computers were doing isn't directly relevant to consoles, of course they quickly got ahead of consoles.
    How can you set a standard for industry wide 3D rendering when other people are doing it before you? Platform is irrelevant here. When you have to start making rules and excuses for what's allowed to explain why Nintendo set a standard, you've already lost that argument. Consoles, PC gaming, and Arcades didn't exist in separate vacuums, they all were part of the same industry, gaming.

    Quote Originally Posted by A Black Falcon View Post
    A "massive" downside? No, there isn't. There is a midzsized downside that N64 critics, which of course there are many of here, massively overstate in order to try to make the system look worse than it is. The constant denial that better advanced features are better than not having any of that stuff is kind of absurd!
    When the entire screen looks like it was smeared with Vaseline, that's not a minor issue, that's a massive downside. No one is denying texture filtering isn't a good feature to have. What we're saying is the N64's implementation of it and the huge costs it paid to have it wasn't worth it in the end. Instead of being a major benefit to the system, it's instead used as a way to try and hide the extremely poor quality textures developers were forced to use on the system.

    I'd say the first system to really show the benefits of those advanced 3D features was the Dreamcast, not the N64.

    Quote Originally Posted by A Black Falcon View Post
    That performance hit was 1000000% worth it, to get rid of perspective issues. Requiring perspective correction in all N64 games was one of the best things Nintendo did with
    Yet the lack of a Z-Buffer and perspective correction didn't seem to hurt the Saturn in games like Quake. It doesn't appear to be an issue in Sonic Jam either:



    Or Virtua Fighter 2:


    Or Grandia:


    Quote Originally Posted by A Black Falcon View Post
    The Saturn version only sometimes has better textures, not always. See the article I linked above again, it makes it clear that that issue goes both ways at different points -- the author expresses surprise at a point where the Saturn actually wins on textures. The same goes for geometric detail, it seems, though I guess the N64 cuts in more places -- though again, the N64 can do FAR better than Quake 64, so that says a lot more about the mediocre quality of the N64 port of Quake 1 than it does anything else.
    The video I posted from real hardware shows the textures always look better on the Saturn. Yet all we have to go off of in the article you linked are some poor quality gifs and the authors word. Sorry but I'm going to believe what I see in the real hardware capture of the Saturn version. The Saturn version has better textures than the N64 version.

    Quote Originally Posted by A Black Falcon View Post
    Uhh... since when have later releases not counted? Talk about moving the goalposts just to suit your case and not for any other reason...
    Yet you love to play that card when it's in your favor. We both know there's no late 99-2001 releases on the Saturn to compare against those games. Would you be ok if we brought in Dreamcast games to compare against those?

    Quote Originally Posted by A Black Falcon View Post
    You almost always do. Maybe you're too used to it to see it, but it's all over the place in most PS1 and Saturn games.
    Or maybe you're too stupid to realize the difference between low resolution and pixelization. Just because you can see the individual pixels that make up an image, doesn't mean it's pixelated. Almost none of the games I've linked in this thread so far show signs of pixelation on the Saturn. I'd say you're either A) making it up or B) exaggerating.

    Quote Originally Posted by A Black Falcon View Post
    I watched that great video explaining how transparencies work on the Saturn. I presume you've seen it... And no, they are always limited; the Saturn cannot do free transparencies anywhere like the PS1 and N64 (and SNES) all can. I don't understand how Sega didn't realize that this would be an issue, but it is.
    Actually, the Saturn does transparencies the exact same way as the SNES. The issue that comes into play with that is the use of warped quads and the relationship between VDP1 and VDP2. I didn't say the system can do them the same way as the PS1. I said it's not always limited, which is true. You have them used all over the place in games like Grandia, Sonic R, Quake, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by A Black Falcon View Post
    Smooth vs. blocky is not something with an objective "right" answer, as far as personal opinions of which looks better goes.
    The Saturn games don't look blocky/pixelated. The point I was getting at was that the N64 game lacks detail both in texture quality and in overal geometry. Meanwhile the Saturn games have good detail in both textures and geometry. And there's the fact the Saturn games have a hell of a lot more going on.

    Quote Originally Posted by A Black Falcon View Post
    No. It's just a bad emulator video.
    Except it's not, the overscan bars are a dead give away. As I said, there was probably an issue in the capture device. The ghost frames seem to point to it being an interlacing issue. The main reason I used it again was not to compare framerate, it was to compare texture quality, which the video you posted didn't show the entire level.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jump Space View Post
    I didn't watch any videos or read any of the links above, so I'm just going from my experience playing these two games, but you can actually go into the options menu of the N64 version of Quake and turn off some of the graphics filtering. It looks noticably better when you do. The frame rate is choppy in either port however. It varies depending on the levels, but the Saturn one seems more stable. Maybe. It's been a while. The Saturn is missing some of the more nutty levels like Ziggarat Vertigo though.

    If I had to pick one as better, it would be the Saturn Quake because of the exclusive levels and the original soundtrack, but the N64 Quake is still basically Quake and I prefer it to most other N64 first-person shooting games. It is kind of neat having a version of Quake on a cartridge too.
    The Saturn version is missing the Secret levels, but instead replaces them with it's own new levels. The N64 version is missing levels to, but it's missing the the secret ones and regular ones if I remember correctly.

  10. #910
    Hard Road! ESWAT Veteran Barone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    7,044
    Rep Power
    151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by A Black Falcon View Post
    ... What? N64 games look much closer to PC games of the late '90s than anything you'll see on the PS1 or Saturn, certainly.

    Boy, I need to opened up some space in my sig.

    EDIT: Done. Yet another ABF quote preserved for posterity.

  11. #911
    Super Robot Raging in the Streets Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Pennsyltucky
    Posts
    4,160
    Rep Power
    57

    Default

    I'm so glad I was a PC gamer back then.

  12. #912
    Raging in the Streets
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,150
    Rep Power
    64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barone View Post
    Boy, I need to opened up some space in my sig.
    The PS2 quote in your sig makes my head hurt, how the hell could anyone hate on the PS2's library

  13. #913
    Super Flail Master.~ BonusKun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Age
    46
    Posts
    813
    Rep Power
    31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118 View Post
    That may be an issue with the way it was captured, but it's rather hard to find real hardware capture of N64 games. It seems most footage that pops up on youtube is emulated.
    Quake on the N64 was terrible. Shit even 32x Version of Doom played better.

  14. #914
    Hero of Algol TrekkiesUnite118's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Age
    29
    Posts
    7,769
    Rep Power
    106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gogogadget View Post
    The PS2 quote in your sig makes my head hurt, how the hell could anyone hate on the PS2's library
    Easy, Sheath. He despised everything not made by Sega.

  15. #915
    Super Flail Master.~ BonusKun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Age
    46
    Posts
    813
    Rep Power
    31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118 View Post
    Easy, Sheath. He despised everything not made by Sega.
    I was getting that vibe from him but I thought it was just me.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •