Unfair bias against the N64 by reviewers or accurate?

[The Manimal]

I keep reading reviews for N64 versions of games that were on PS1 and I would think that with the one being a more powerful system (N64), the game would be better in most regards, graphically (obviously). But what I keep reading in N64 reviews is "get the PS1 version instead". Over and over again. Gex64, Madden, the list goes on. What is the deal here? Were many magazine writers biased or are many of the N64 versions worse? I figured I would purchase the "superior" N64 versions but now this is a big ? mark.

[sabre2922]

Honestly I would not know were to begin with this topic except to saythis: N64= muddy graphics,inferior sound, terrible control: mostly becuase of the absolutely horrid controller etc
besides that I guess the N64 versions arent all that bad :hmm:

[Ed Oscuro]

"Muddy graphics" isn't really an argument against the N64 when you consider the alternative in this instance LOL The N64's crappy MIDI is a drawback in many games, but you know you gotta work with what's available. No CD-ROM music obviously, so the PSOne's got it beaten there (in most instances).

The N64 controller versus the PSX Dual Shock joysticks is a running debate; I think there's no argument that the Dual Shock is the easier of the two to use but the N64's controller isn't exactly what I'd call "bad." It has a lot of buttons to map to, as well.

[SegaTecToy]

Most reviewers are dumb so their opinion aren't very reliable. The N64 graphics are good enough for most games at that ages. The only bad things about it were the small capacity and inferior sound. (actually I like N64 controllers and hate the PS1 ones. Go figure that!!)

And there is one thing about N64 that is really good: NO FREAKING LOAD TIMES!!

There should be something worse about games but until someone discover it, loading times will be the worst nightmare of CD based consoles.

[Happy_Dude]

I only own 1 cross platform N64 game
and I can safly say Resident Evil 2 is better on the N64 ;)

There should be something worse about games but until someone discover it, loading times will be the worst nightmare of CD based consoles.
Have you played a Cube lately ? What load times :)

[Sylentwulf]

Storage.

The PS1 games could hold a LOT more, so they were better, it's like comparing floppy's to CD's for a PC.
Yeah, load time SUCKS, but it's a price I'm willing to pay for now.

[anagrama]

Or of course, there's the fact that a lot of these games were probably originally written for the PS1, and then just lazily ported to the N64 afterwards.

[christianscott27]

i swear i havent got a bone of fanboy bias one way or the other and i always felt like the N64 was the inferior system. a few games broke the mold, like rogue squadron but most of the games had awful 3D. i know 3D is not the end all be all of gaming but when you'd roam around an N64 world and all the trees would be like cutout props...eh, not so good looking.

[Ed Oscuro]

I'd agree that the PlayStation's graphics are "sharper" (indeed, they're so sharp that textures can hardly stay constrained in their appropriate polygons). I sure wouldn't agree that the worlds consisted of "cardboard cutouts" any more than on the PlayStation. A lot of the PSX games people have fuzzy feelings for have a top-down perspective (Metal Gear Solid being the best example of that), which is hardly as demanding as a sights-on-the-horizon perspective.

Gran Turismo did pretty well graphics-wise and so did the original Tenchu, but in those the PlayStation's inferior polygon is very pronounced in comparison to a good N64 title. One of the better FPS titles on the PSX, Medal of Honor, looks plain awful in comparison to Goldeneye (which is pretty much superior to anything else I know of on the PSX). Remember the Goldeneye satellite sitting on one of the floors in the Silo level? Very high detail there. Remember how many guards you could run into at one time (five or six, sometimes more, with dropped weapons about the floor)? Compare that once again to the uniformly sheepish looking enemies in your average PlayStation title, which also showed up in scarce numbers. Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver is one of the system's more impressive titles sporting a relatively complete game world, but once again its few areas of sporty graphics are plagued by awful palettes and little interaction (I almost forgot there are enemies in the game demo, in fact) whatsoever.

I think it ironic that Mr. Scott uses the example of the original Rogue Squadron on the N64 as a "title that broke the mold" away from "cardboard' graphics, seeing how that is one of the few standout games I can think of (outside of some instances in Super Mario 64 and Mario Kart 64...) which utilized 2D graphics for small characters (pilots, stormtroopers) onscreen. Such tricks were only necessary for the title when one considers its large playfields with relatively detailed cities to fly through...the graphic "oomph" of Banjo Kazooie or Zelda 64 (whose surroundings can be inspected close up) is quite lacking, though; RS seems to have been an excellent programming job indeed.

The PlayStation does less math in using the affine texturing method compared to the N64's perspective-correct textures, making it obvious that the PlayStation pays for its CD-ROM capability with many tradeoffs. That said, the PSX wouldn't have been competitive if it had more RAM, graphics processors in general weren't that much better at the time of its release (1994) and the Nintendo 64 seems weak given its later release date. In fact the 1994 (Japanese) release date makes the PlayStation look like a marvel indeed; neither Quake or Duke Nukem had come out yet, and while most of the game's first generation games have fallen into obscurity they do have strengths in graphics that PC titles of the time did not.

Given that the N64 was its biggest effective competitor, though, it seems rather strange that people call the N64 "graphically inferior." I think people claiming that must've picked all the wrong titles or were oblivious to the glaring graphics glitches in every polygonal PlayStation game. For me, the PlayStation will always be the best console of 1994, and while advanced for the time its unrivalled superiority would soon rely almost solely on its CD-ROM drive and cheaper media, except in the case of the Saturn which just doesn't look much better to the untrained eye (especially noting the continuing advances in graphics throughout the Panzer Dragoon series up to the end of the system!) and was supposedly a devil to program effectively.

[Dridor]

this cross platform games thing crams everything about the way these systems work on the same level, but really i think that the truly great games for N64 were the ones that knew it's limits and worked within them, like OoT and stuff like that. these games didn't have cinematics or anything, they knew what the N64 could do, and they worked within it specifically to their advantage. these are games that i couldn't imagine being cross platformers, it just wouldn't work. well, it might WORK technically, but it just wouldn't feel right on a PS1 i don't think. so yeah when you're trying to convert a PS1 game over to an N64 one, you're going to reach limitations and the PS1 one is probably going to be better. but i think when a game is made specifically with a system in mind, (and they do a good job at it) it tends to work out alot better. and no i haven't touched my N64 for months. so was the N64 an inferior system? perhaps if you were expecting to play FF7 on it. but can you honestly imagine playing OoT or Mario 64 on a PS1?

neither can i.

[Gabriel]

Personally, I always thought it was the other way around. Games for the N64 seemed to have always been given orders of magnitude more credit and praise than they even remotely desereved.

And Next Gen MUST have taken an exceptional bribe from Nintendo for naming Mario 64 as the best videogame of all time before it was even released. Or, at least I hope they did. Hopefully they got something in return for discarding any semblance of journalistic integrity.

But I'm definitely not a fan of the N64. I was outside of Nintendo's publically admitted demographic for the machine (I was over 13 years old). I couldn't stand the blurry graphics featuring extremely low poly counts and very basic shapes only. I hated the controller, and rank it as one of the worst ever. I despised the medium which allowed Nintendo to charge double the price of any other game. And the library of the machine, which consisted of endless cartoonish 3d platformers and not a real RPG in sight, was and is pretty pathetic.

[Cmosfm]

Yeah, I feel the N64 is MAJORLY biased against it. It wasn't a bad system but I believe people have it set in there mind it was because it was a cartridge system. Maybe the graphics were a little blurry, but at least they weren't choppy like on the PSone.

Plus, N64 has some of the best games ever on it! Mario 64! Best. Game. Ever.

[asharru]

I've been playing thru tons of N64 games while taking screenshots for the next guide. I went and picked up an adaptoid (N64 to USB converter) so I could use the controller in Project 64. First off, I really like the N64 stick. I hate playing FPS's on consoles, but the controller does do a very good job of handing it. It's also good for 3d platformers like Banjo and DK64. Yes, the camera can be tuff to control at times, but I don't know of any system that handles that well. Also there are A LOT of N64 exclusives (many mentioned in this thread already) that alone make the system worth owning. The more I play the N64, the more I appreciate and love it. I feel that comparing the Nintendo to a Sony is like comparing apples to oranges.

[Gabriel]

I feel that comparing the Nintendo to a Sony is like comparing apples to oranges.

That's very true.

The N64 and PS1 had very different kinds of game libraries.

[Captain Wrong]

One thing that was a real eye opener for me was playing my first N64 game on an emulator. It was like all the time I'd been playing on the real console on a screen covered in Vaseline.

That said, I don't think reviewers were any more baised against the N64 than they were for any other system. I think if you look at things objectively, the criticisms (blurry gfx, weak library, etc.) are pretty fair.

[YoshiM]

The N64 also got a bad rap due to 3rd party timing. When the N64 came out, pretty much everyone, except I think Acclaim and maybe Midway, scoffed at going back to cartridges. After these companies saw that the N64 games were selling well they then jumped onto the bandwagon. The downside was that these new offerings were of "first generation" quality as these newcomers hadn't really gotten to grips with the hardware (see Body Harvest as an example). So that probably didn't help the N64 much.

Lazy ports were another reason or ports that relied too much on the capabilities of a CD (music, movies, whathaveyou). As time did go on the N64 started to get some pretty decent ports like Gauntlet Legends (the PS1 version just sucks).

However we (and those who knock it) should be thankful to the N64 as it created the standards in hardware and games we love today like standardizing analog control and the first to offer true game responsive "rumble".

[Nature Boy]

FYI: Back in the N64/PS1 generation I was an exclusive N64 owner earlier on and finally got a PS1 really late in the life cycle.

I don't think the comparisons are unfair (I'd even say they're accurate), but I never had any issues with the cross platform stuff I had for my N64. Yeah NHL 99 on N64 wasn't as good as the PS1 version, but it was still a good hockey game.

I also think that the PS1 is the latest in the line that includes the NES and the Atari 2600, so a certain amount of bias will always be inherent when discussing it's games.

[The Manimal]

Thanks for the input :)