Why did Nintendo make the N64 anyway?

#31Apeman1813Posted 6/26/2012 9:18:54 AM
Shamrock99 posted...
We realize. But sometimes it's fun to write back and make TC look like a complete idiot. It's weird...it's like what's the point in trolling when everyone ends up making you look like a fool? How fun! lol


I see. Carry on then lol
---
On GameFAQs, one issue means the entire thing is broken. - EndofEternityxx
#32XyexPosted 7/3/2012 1:59:43 PM
FuzzyJello posted...
HeroFromKrypton posted...
SonofMetalGear posted...
Why the hell you bringing up the Xbox in this discussion? I'm saying that the graphics for Nintendo 64 games were pretty crappy except for Star Wars Shadows of the Empire.

Playstation had and it still has better graphics for the games but that's not what I care about the most for Playstation games. I care about the damn gameplay and storyline.


So why are you complaining about graphics if they don't matter?

Also, N64 looked better.


I've always wondered, what comparisons are made to prove this that this was practically the case?


I think it's largely due to the higher detail level and the stable polygons that the 64 had. Some of the PS1's games look absolutely stunning, like Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver, but the details aren't as crisp as what the (quality) N64 games could do, and textures and polygons would frequently warp/bend/move.

There were some really crappy looking N64 games, though. For example, Shadowman 64, with the EP, is so graphically muddy it's nearly unplayble, IMO. But if you compare the best N64 graphics (say, LoZ: OOT and MM, CBFD, etc) to the best PS1 (non-FMV) graphics, it's pretty clear the 64 is superior.

Hell, just a side by side comparison of RE2's in game graphics is a good example, especially if you've got an EP installed. Even more so in motion than in a static image. RE2 looks good in the PS1 but the models are cleaner and smoother on the 64, even if space constraints resulted in some compression issues with the textures.
---
DESTROY IT ALL
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4ck_rjyRNIY
#33XyexPosted 7/3/2012 2:04:18 PM
Xyex posted...
There were some really crappy looking N64 games, though. For example, Shadowman 64, with the EP, is so graphically muddy it's nearly unplayble, IMO.

Uh, that should be withOUT the EP. Oi.
---
DESTROY IT ALL
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4ck_rjyRNIY
#34trj22487faqsPosted 7/3/2012 3:56:01 PM
Xyex posted...
Xyex posted...
There were some really crappy looking N64 games, though. For example, Shadowman 64, with the EP, is so graphically muddy it's nearly unplayble, IMO.

Uh, that should be withOUT the EP. Oi.



Maybe he meant with....sometimes the Expansion Pak really did make the graphics/frame rate worse.....Excitebike 64 is a perfect example
#35Shamrock99Posted 7/3/2012 4:54:45 PM
Xyex posted...
FuzzyJello posted...
HeroFromKrypton posted...
SonofMetalGear posted...
Why the hell you bringing up the Xbox in this discussion? I'm saying that the graphics for Nintendo 64 games were pretty crappy except for Star Wars Shadows of the Empire.

Playstation had and it still has better graphics for the games but that's not what I care about the most for Playstation games. I care about the damn gameplay and storyline.


So why are you complaining about graphics if they don't matter?

Also, N64 looked better.


I've always wondered, what comparisons are made to prove this that this was practically the case?


I think it's largely due to the higher detail level and the stable polygons that the 64 had. Some of the PS1's games look absolutely stunning, like Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver, but the details aren't as crisp as what the (quality) N64 games could do, and textures and polygons would frequently warp/bend/move.

There were some really crappy looking N64 games, though. For example, Shadowman 64, with the EP, is so graphically muddy it's nearly unplayble, IMO. But if you compare the best N64 graphics (say, LoZ: OOT and MM, CBFD, etc) to the best PS1 (non-FMV) graphics, it's pretty clear the 64 is superior.

Hell, just a side by side comparison of RE2's in game graphics is a good example, especially if you've got an EP installed. Even more so in motion than in a static image. RE2 looks good in the PS1 but the models are cleaner and smoother on the 64, even if space constraints resulted in some compression issues with the textures.


Not sure if you've seen any of the N64 vs PSX topics of old that have been posted on this board, but I still believe PSX had more impressive graphics than N64. I'll take higher quality texture maps and some polygon distortion over simplistic (blurry) textures and anti-aliasing any day of the week. Especially considering most N64 games didn't even push that many more polygons on screen than PSX games.
---
My Backloggery: http://www.backloggery.com/Kajicat
#36castrejon04Posted 7/3/2012 9:27:05 PM
Don't forget that most of it was pre-rendered like the Final Fantasy games.
---
"Don't let it end like this...Tell them I said something." Pancho Villa
#37Shamrock99Posted 7/4/2012 9:48:02 AM
castrejon04 posted...
Don't forget that most of it was pre-rendered like the Final Fantasy games.


LMFAO no. "Most" of the graphics in PS1 games are real time polygons. Some games used 3D polygonal characters with pre-rendered backgrounds, sometimes cutscenes are pre-rendered CG video, but that's usually about it. Rarely was a game entirely pre-rendered CG, the horror game "D" being one example of a game that is entirely pre-rendered.

Spyro = completely real time 3D
Resident Evil = Real time 3D objects with pre-rendered backgrounds
D = entirely pre-rendered
---
My Backloggery: http://www.backloggery.com/Kajicat
#38XyexPosted 7/6/2012 12:41:46 PM
trj22487faqs posted...
Maybe he meant with....sometimes the Expansion Pak really did make the graphics/frame rate worse.....Excitebike 64 is a perfect example

No, I'd meant without.

And it's not really the EP that's causing the frame rate problems, the devs just pushed too much data in their HQ settings. The 64 coulnd't process and render it fast enough, even with the EP. I've never played Excitebike 64, but I have played Hybrid Heaven and it's almost unplayably choppy when set to full frame hi-res. In Shadowman's case, though, the EP helps. It makes it a little choppier, but not much, and it gets rid of all the bluriness so you can actually see things.

Shamrock99 posted...
Not sure if you've seen any of the N64 vs PSX topics of old that have been posted on this board, but I still believe PSX had more impressive graphics than N64. I'll take higher quality texture maps and some polygon distortion over simplistic (blurry) textures and anti-aliasing any day of the week. Especially considering most N64 games didn't even push that many more polygons on screen than PSX games.


Not sure if I've seen any of the debates on here or not, but I've seen them around before, and I honestly can't grasp how there's even a debate at all. Yeah, there are some really stunning looking PS1 games, some devs really pulled all they could out of that machine, but they're still not as good as even the more typical N64 graphical quality, IMO.
---
DESTROY IT ALL
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4ck_rjyRNIY
#39Shamrock99Posted 7/6/2012 2:00:52 PM
Xyex posted...

Shamrock99 posted...
Not sure if you've seen any of the N64 vs PSX topics of old that have been posted on this board, but I still believe PSX had more impressive graphics than N64. I'll take higher quality texture maps and some polygon distortion over simplistic (blurry) textures and anti-aliasing any day of the week. Especially considering most N64 games didn't even push that many more polygons on screen than PSX games.


I honestly can't grasp how there's even a debate at all. Yeah, there are some really stunning looking PS1 games, some devs really pulled all they could out of that machine, but they're still not as good as even the more typical N64 graphical quality, IMO.


THAT is exactly what I can't grasp. How people think things like typical N64 games looker better than the "really stunning" looking PS1 titles. How exactly does Ridge Racer 64 (2000) look better than Ridge Racer Type 4 (1998)? It doesn't, not in my eyes. Especially considering it came out well AFTER the PS1 game.

One of these looks smudgy with not nearly as good texture detail:

Ridge Racer 64 (2000):
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/screenshots/5/198475/ridgerace_screen051.jpg
Ridge Racer Type 4 (1998):
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/screenshots/1998_12/98_1202_vg_ryanr/screenshot_screen001.jpg

Not to mention the amount of polygons used to construct those car models look to be quite similar. It's not like we've got this crazy 64-bit vs. 32-bit thing going on like people tend to make it out to be, where N64 is constantly pumping out double the amount of polygons as PS1 or whatever wack claims people come up with...

But hey, everyone's got an opinion!
---
My Backloggery: http://www.backloggery.com/Kajicat
#40XyexPosted 7/11/2012 12:59:33 PM
Shamrock99 posted...
But hey, everyone's got an opinion!

Yeah, I think what it comes down to is what's more visually appealing to each person, and opinions like that always differ. Each system has its graphical pros and cons, there are some things I like better about the PS1's graphics. As you've pointed out, you tend to get a lot less blur, though I think the majority of the blur you find in N64 games is a result of poorly implemented 'filters' like the one in Quake 64 that I always switch off. They're supposed to make the game look better, but they don't. :/
---
DESTROY IT ALL
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4ck_rjyRNIY