Contrarian view - N64 has better graphics than PS1

[veronica_marsfan]

The "accepted viewpoint" is that the PS1 has the superior graphics, thanks to its massive CD storage (approximately 40 times more space).

Well.

I disagree. The polygon characters on the PS1 look terrible compared to the N64. PS1 characters typically are very tiny, with polygons that fail to properly match-up ("tearing" is the term most people use). I find the N64 characters such as Banjo, Mario, and Link to be far more...... not realistic, but definitely more beautiful. More solid and substantial.

The N64 graphics appear "more-advanced" and "64-bit" versus its 32-bit competitor.

What's your opinion?

[Kevincal]

I agree...I bought a PS1 on launch day and of course loved it because indeed it did have many killer games with great graphics. Then around mid 1996, I walked in Toys R Us and saw Mario 64 for the first time and was FLOORED by the graphics. Super smooth, no pixels, HUGE polygons. Awesomeness. Naturally, I pre-ordered an N64 right then and there and got one on launch day. On the other hand, I'd say the Playstations graphics evolved more than the N64's over time. But, none the less, I'd give the edge to the N64 in the graphics department over the PS. I love both systems though...

[Gamereviewgod]

The problem with the 64 was that for every game that used the hardware properly, you had a disaster like NBA In the Zone 98 that was so blurry, the game was literally unplayable. Even with the expansion pack in the 64, the PS1 pulled off some impressive hi-res titles in its day easily comparable.

Compare Ridge Racer 4 to the N64 Ridge Racer and you'll see why the somewhat chunkier look on the PS1 was beneficial. Details off in the distance are easier to make out instead of blending together in a blurry mess. The 64 was completely hit and miss, and while the PS1 suffered a ton here and there, I'd still give the edge to the PS1 in the end.

[Kitsune Sniper]

The PSX didn't blur everything to hell and back. Things were grainy but they were recognizable.

I don't want to play games that give me a headache.

[cessnaace]

The "accepted viewpoint" is that the PS1 has the superior graphics, thanks to its massive CD storage (approximately 40 times more space).

Well.

I disagree. The polygon characters on the PS1 look terrible compared to the N64. PS1 characters typically are very tiny, with polygons that fail to properly match-up ("tearing" is the term most people use). I find the N64 characters such as Banjo, Mario, and Link to be far more...... not realistic, but definitely more beautiful. More solid and substantial.

The N64 graphics appear "more-advanced" and "64-bit" versus its 32-bit competitor.

What's your opinion?


Actually, the Atari Jaguar was the better console. LOL!

[plantluvver]

Arrrrgh! The pitfalls of being a newbie! One more thing to consider in making game purchases! Is there a source of information comparing a game across platforms? I already have one web site I frequent for reviews and ratings (I don't know if they are consistent, or the best, but at least they list many PS1 titles.) I come here to evaluate rarity, so I don't pass on games that are more difficult to find, in favor of more popular games that are common as dirt, that I can pick uo later.

I only own one console now, PS1. But I don't want to fill my library with titles that I may want to purchase again on another platform. My collection is growing enormously, as a result of my fitness program: I buy myself a $2 game every day I walk to the pawn shop to buy it. Yeah, the titles are cheap, but I am concerned about the opportunity cost, as for every dud of a game I buy, there may be a terrific title that I am passing on. And a budget of about $48 a month is a little high for me to spend on video games. (This makes juggling the books and putting it under fitness plan really sweet.)

Thanks,
Mary

[Kevincal]

Actually, the Atari Jaguar was the better console. LOL!

Please don't mock the poor Jaggy... :( That system has been kicked while it was down far too much. :( In the end, the Jag had a handfull of games that redefined genres at the time...Not to mention atleast a dozen other high quality games.

[Kevincal]

Arrrrgh! The pitfalls of being a newbie! One more thing to consider in making game purchases! Is there a source of information comparing a game across platforms? I already have one web site I frequent for reviews and ratings (I don't know if they are consistent, or the best, but at least they list many PS1 titles.) I come here to evaluate rarity, so I don't pass on games that are more difficult to find, in favor of more popular games that are common as dirt, that I can pick uo later.

I only own one console now, PS1. But I don't want to fill my library with titles that I may want to purchase again on another platform. My collection is growing enormously, as a result of my fitness program: I buy myself a $2 game every day I walk to the pawn shop to buy it. Yeah, the titles are cheap, but I am concerned about the opportunity cost, as for every dud of a game I buy, there may be a terrific title that I am passing on. And a budget of about $48 a month is a little high for me to spend on video games. (This makes juggling the books and putting it under fitness plan really sweet.)

Thanks,
Mary

Welcome aboard Mary. :) If you are ever wondering about a certain game available on multiple systems, just do a search on the net first. You'd be surprised how many articles there are on just this topic. Or, you can just start a topic here at DP. There are hundreds of knowledgable game freaks here that'll give ya some good info.

[Habeeb Hamusta]

Well obviously N64 because of the better processor. But still it wasn't much better. Yeah crappy games like NBA looked horrible because not that much attention was put into them. But games that did recieve focus did look a lot better. But so did PSX, not to mention there was a lot more good titles to chose from for PSX...including a mass array of crap.

[petewhitley]

I didn't realize the "accepted viewpoint" was that PS1 games have better graphics than N64 games. The best-looking N64 games are noticably above what the PS1 is capable of; it just seems obvious to me, but I suppose many people didn't have the N64 experience to make a valid comparison.

[§ Gideon §]

I didn't realize the "accepted viewpoint" was that PS1 games have better graphics than N64 games.
Me, either. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's the opposite, and the OP's opinion isn't very "contrarian"--whatever that means.

[DigitalSpace]

Best reason ever, Gideon. LOL

</off-topic>

[Mayhem]

I didn't realize the "accepted viewpoint" was that PS1 games have better graphics than N64 games. The best-looking N64 games are noticably above what the PS1 is capable of; it just seems obvious to me, but I suppose many people didn't have the N64 experience to make a valid comparison.

Which is pretty much my view as well. The real choice was between smear-o-vision or jaggy-hell, I tended to think (with the RGB mod to the N64) that the former was easier on my eyes (maybe not through composite) compared to the PS1.

[AMG]

What's your opinion?

The N64 had better 3D graphics.

Games like Mortal Kombat 4 are a good example of this. The N64 version blows the PSX version away visually.

Games like Mario 64, Zelda OoT, Turok 1 and Star Wars:SotE looked pretty amazing back in the day.

[lordnikon]

I disagree with the idea that the N64 is visually more impressive than the PS1.

Besides Perfect Dark in hi-rez using the expansion pack, there isn't much on the N64 that compares to games available on the PS1.

Playstation 1 games that look absolutly amazing:
Omega Boost
Armored Core: Masters of Arena
Gran Turismo 2
R-Type Delta
Quake 2
Metal Gear Solid
R4: Ridge Racer Type 4
Wipeout 3

The games above not only look fantastic, but they run at a high framerate. Boot up Wipeout 3 if you need convincing. This game looks phenominal, and straddles the line between a PS1 and PS2 game.

N64 games not only often look blurry, but tend to have lower framerates. When you make the leap to hi-rez using the expansion pack, almost every game tanks even more. The framerate completly drops off the map. Sure the game looks great... if you don't move. I challenge anyone here to boot up Turok 2 in hi-rez. The game drops so many frames it is impossible to kill enemies. Like I said before, Perfect Dark is the one game that used the expansion pack, and runs well in hi-rez.

In-fact the ONLY N64 game that runs at 60fps is F-Zero X. This game runs butter smooth.

In the end Playstation 1 games have more visual detail, and a higher framerate performance. The 64 vs 32 bit discussions are a non-issue. They only hold water on paper. Once you compare the games side by side, the PS1 offers games with more visual opportunites, and at a higher framerate.

PS - AMG boot up Star Wars Shadows of the Empire today. See how bad its framerate is. Oh boy...

[jajaja]

I didnt play much N64 when it was new, i only had a PSX. I played Silent Bomber again some months ago for PSX and i cant remember the gfx being this bad hehe. I also played (well.. more like tested before selling hehe) some N64 within the last months and the games are damn blurry. But back in the days we didnt have much other stuff so this was great stuff, state of the art.

Here is the reason why the N64 games are so blurry.


The Nintendo 64 had some glaring weaknesses that were caused by a combination of oversight on the part of the hardware designers, limitations on 3D technology of the time, and manufacturing capabilities. One major flaw was the limited texture cache of 4 KiB.

This made it extremely difficult to load anything but small textures into the rendering engine, especially textures with high color depth, and was the primary cause of blurry graphics. The small texture limitation caused blurring because developers would stretch these small textures cover a surface and then the console's bilinear filtering would blur them even more.

To make matters worse, because of how the renderer was designed, if mipmapping was used the texture cache was effectively halved to 2 KiB. To put this in perspective, this cache could be quickly filled with even small textures (a 64×64 4-bit/pixel (bpp) texture is 2 KiB and a 128×64 4 bpp texture is 4 KiB). Modern video cards and consoles (2006) frequently deal with 1024 x 1024 8 bpp and larger textures, and have a more flexible texture cache (not always larger).

Towards the end of Nintendo 64's lifetime, creative developers managed to use tricks such as multi-layered texturing and heavily-clamped small texture pieces to simulate larger textures. Conker's Bad Fur Day is possibly the best example of this ingenuity. Games would often also use plain colored Gouraud shading instead of texturing on some surfaces, especially in games with themes not targeting realism (e.g. Super Mario 64).

[tom]

>>>>petewhitley said: it just seems obvious to me, but I suppose many people didn't have the N64 experience to make a valid comparison.<<<<

But also more the other way around, many N64 (Nintendo fanboys) never even used/played the PSX for a valid timeframe to make a fair comparison.
I run both side by side on hi-res monitors, N64 always look washy/fuzzy graphics, PSX more pixelated.

Both, even the N64, suffer from awful pop-ups.

>>>>cessnaace said: Actually, the Atari Jaguar was the better console.<<<<

Never a truer word spoken

[Dangerboy]

The PSX also whomped in the 2D area. Compare MK Trilogy on both. PSX all the way. And Yoshi's Island can be pitted against Rayman anyday.

[spunibard]

in my limited experience with psx (final fantasy and a few other popular squaresoft games) i was floored with how amazing it could render a whole 5 polygons at once (without anti aliasing) and got a feeling similar to the one i get when i'm forced to listen to all the crap they play on the radio.

i played a few other games with similar results, but grew bored with them very quickly. (not due to the gfx) soon after i sent the psx packing.

psx has higher res textures but terrible rendering. the 64 has better models rendered with gorgeous anti aliasing. the textures were blurred, not the rendering itself. (at least not in composite, the target audience of both machines) persons who value high res textures more might be inclined to prefer psx gfx.

[crazyjackcsa]

The PSX also whomped in the 2D area. Compare MK Trilogy on both. PSX all the way. And Yoshi's Island can be pitted against Rayman anyday.

To make a statment like that, is catagorically incorrect.and are you comparing the orginal Rayman to Yoshi's Island? Rayman that was originally on the Jag? Not a game that you should be using to express the system power.

[jajaja]

psx has higher res textures but terrible rendering. the 64 has better models rendered with gorgeous anti aliasing. the textures were blurred, not the rendering itself. (at least not in composite, the target audience of both machines) persons who value high res textures more might be inclined to prefer psx gfx.

What do you mean with terrible rendering and "not blurred rendering"? Blurrynes hasnt anything to do with blurrynes, its the textures and polygons it depends on.

[spunibard]

What do you mean with terrible rendering and "not blurred rendering"? Blurrynes hasnt anything to do with blurrynes, its the textures and polygons it depends on.

i mean the textures were blurry due to stretching / interpolation. the actual rendering, which the textures are only a part of, is not blurry. you can see the models, shading, and effects as clear as day.

[Ed Oscuro]

I didn't realize the "accepted viewpoint" was that PS1 games have better graphics than N64 games. The best-looking N64 games are noticably above what the PS1 is capable of; it just seems obvious to me, but I suppose many people didn't have the N64 experience to make a valid comparison.
Pretty much.

I imagine either system can give you a headache due to the low frame rate.

[jajaja]

i mean the textures were blurry due to stretching / interpolation. the actual rendering, which the textures are only a part of, is not blurry. you can see the models, shading, and effects as clear as day.

The models are also textured, but since they arent that big they arent stretched so much so it looks much better than the enviorment. It might be that the models in N64 games had more polygons too, dont know.

But when it comes to rendering, its the same with PSX :) Its other factors like no anti-aliasing, number of polygons, textures etc. that depends on how thing looks. Rendering is only how fast the things are being drawn.

[Ed Oscuro]

Well, apparently there is merit to the "PSX has larger textures" argument; the texture cache is 4 KBytes. There were other limits - actually, just check out the Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_64), it's a fascinating read.

Basically, I bet that if you had tons of time to program a N64 game, you could make it look amazing, even beyond the limit of the N64, but a lot of the common things that programmers use would not work there. No Z-buffering, for example, unless you were happy with awful performance.

Still - gouraud shading, represent

[jajaja]

Ye, i quoted from article earlier actually hehe. There is another interesting thing that i noticed, this:


Two of the SGI microcodes[9][12]

Fast3D microcode: < ~100,000 polygons per second
Turbo3D microcode: 500,000–600,000 polygons per second with PlayStation (much lower) quality. Nintendo never allowed this code to be used in shipping games.

Does this mean that N64 could do as much as 500k polygons pr. sec?

[alec]

Yes, I agree, N64 has better 3D graphics than PS or even SS. Of course the big gaming advancements of the time were 3D graphics, CD Audio, and FMV. The N64 sadly lacked the other 2.

[spunibard]

The models are also textured,

the texture is what is painted on the model, the model / polygons are only shapes. the shapes, the shadows those shapes make, the light that reflects off of the shapes, are all clear. i'm not denying at all that the 64s small textures, only in themselves, were blurry.

[Kevincal]

In my opinion, there isn't even a 3-D PS1 game that looks better than the very first 3 N64 games...Mario 64, PilotWings 64, and WaveRace 64 with its incredible water and lighting effects. I do love both systems but that's just how I feel.

[jajaja]

the texture is what is painted on the model, the model / polygons are only shapes. the shapes, the shadows those shapes make, the light that reflects off of the shapes, are all clear. i'm not denying at all that the 64s small textures, only in themselves, were blurry.

I talked to a friend whos a programmer. He said he ripped many N64 games and found out that basicly all models were textures. He ripped games like Mario 64, Zelda, Waveracer, Banjo Kazooe just to mention a few.

He explained why textures were used instead of painting. If you paint you need a surface, like surface for the eyes needs a special region (which causes more polygons) where you have to color. With texture you dont need that, and since more polygons require more juice from the hardware, texture is the best way to go :) There might have been a few models that were painted tho, but texture is better.

[spunibard]

... basicly all models were textures. ...

what is the difference between texture and painting? are you referring to solid color as painting? and i can't tell what the point is?

[theshizzle3000]

I didnt play much N64 when it was new, i only had a PSX. I played Silent Bomber again some months ago for PSX and i cant remember the gfx being this bad hehe. I also played (well.. more like tested before selling hehe) some N64 within the last months and the games are damn blurry. But back in the days we didnt have much other stuff so this was great stuff, state of the art.

Here is the reason why the N64 games are so blurry.

Very good point when I was a kid the Triple Play 2000 commercial was stunning I mean Sammy Sosa looked so real. Now I look back and laugh because the new NBA game on the PS3 is stunning. I would say its all about perspective though. For the most part the art in the N64 games was much brighter as where many of the games for the PS1 were directed at a older audience so its give or take.

[Ed Oscuro]

I talked to a friend whos a programmer. He said he ripped many N64 games and found out that basicly all models were textures.
Models are models. They may be shaded or textured, but they are not textures. A model is generally a wire frame (especially in the N64 days).

Did you mean to say: "all models are textured?" (and even that's in doubt)

[jajaja]

what is the difference between texture and painting? are you referring to solid color as painting? and i can't tell what the point is?

Well.. its mostly about detailed stuff as character and stuff. The way he explained it is that if you shall pain it you need many surface areas which uses much more polygons. Stuff that didnt need to be too detailed didnt need textures. From Wikipedia:


Towards the end of Nintendo 64's lifetime, creative developers managed to use tricks such as multi-layered texturing and heavily-clamped small texture pieces to simulate larger textures. Conker's Bad Fur Day is possibly the best example of this ingenuity. Games would often also use plain colored Gouraud shading instead of texturing on some surfaces, especially in games with themes not targeting realism (e.g. Super Mario 64).

But Mario were still textured because he needed to look "real" :)

[jajaja]

Models are models. They may be shaded or textured, but they are not textures. A model is generally a wire frame (especially in the N64 days).

Did you mean to say: "all models are textured?" (and even that's in doubt)

Of course i mean the finished model thats used in the games hehe :P Read my post above this. No, not all model were textured.

[Ed Oscuro]

That's not what you wrote, but okay. Basically, just what the article said.

[jajaja]

That's not what you wrote, but okay. Basically, just what the article said.

Huh? I recommend you to read the whole discussion so you get the whole picture, not just 1 post. Im not going to repeat the same things in every post. It originaly started with discussing the use of textures and the discussion follows around that. Again, read the whole discussion to get the full picture instead of quarreling :P

[6502]

I was a Playstation fan. Bought mine in 96 after being turned off by the N64's cartridges and the types of games that appeared to be coming when it launched (the FFVII announcement also swayed my decision). Anyway, I finally got an N64 when Ocarina of Time came out. I had just finished Metal Gear Solid, which was the big PS release at the time, and when I first booted up OOT there was no contest in my eyes. MGS was an amazing achievement for the PS, but OOT's graphics blew me away. The N64 fixed a lot of the things that annoyed me about PS1 graphics, such as texture warping and the lack of precision that led to "floaty" polygons. Looking back, I still think that the N64's best looking games were in another league compared to the PS1's best. I can't see the PS1 pulling off games like Rogue Squadron, Conker, Majora's Mask, etc. The N64 was the first 3D console that almost "got 3D graphics right" in my eyes. Only the excessive use of mip-mapping and the blurring it caused, as well as polygon counts that were a little low kept it from being the first really "good" 3D console (the DC was the first one to really get things right IMO).

[cessnaace]

Please don't mock the poor Jaggy... :( That system has been kicked while it was down far too much. :( In the end, the Jag had a handfull of games that redefined genres at the time...Not to mention atleast a dozen other high quality games.

Kevin,

As a Jag owner I am entitled. I use to play mine all the time, before it died in a freak lightning strike accident. I say 'freak' because I had my top loader NES, and my Model 1 SMS (both highly prized by me), and my Jag all plugged into the same surge protector. Only the Jag was fried. The others work fine. Good thing. The SMS was the first console that I bought brand new that I liked. Prior to that I had bought an Atari VCS (Heavy Sixer) when it was new, but found it a major disappointment.

I also feel alittle cheated. I had bought a sealed copy of Atari Karts for the Jag from Songbird Productions for $80 bucks, and never got to play it. Bad timing.

[j_factor]

It always seemed to me that, aside from the blur, N64 games tended to lack discernable detail. Most games just look simplistic.

Also, maybe this was more due to the cartridge format, but most N64 games seem to always take place in small areas. I remember wondering why the levels were smaller in Quake 64 when the Saturn version had the full-sized PC levels (on a supposedly inferior machine).

Also, why doesn't 2d count? I certainly never saw any impressive 2d games on N64. I think there are 2d games that came out before N64 even launched that surpass it.

[Emuaust]

its something i have always wondered, was the 64 capable of decent 2d?
I thought with the cartridge there could of been huge loading benefits.

[jajaja]

Very good point when I was a kid the Triple Play 2000 commercial was stunning I mean Sammy Sosa looked so real. Now I look back and laugh because the new NBA game on the PS3 is stunning. I would say its all about perspective though. For the most part the art in the N64 games was much brighter as where many of the games for the PS1 were directed at a older audience so its give or take.

I remember telling a guy in my class how good Goldeneye was, like when you went close up to the enemy you could see the details in his face etc. That was great! Now.. it looks damn crappy lol ;)

[Kevincal]

As for 2-D games on the N64, Yoshi's Story, Mishief Makers and Killer Instinct Gold were impressive to me.

[chicnstu]

Boot up Wipeout 3 if you need convincing

That's a racing game though.

[Nature Boy]

I bought an N64 in '97, and received a PS1 as a valentine's day gift in '99, and I have to be honest, I never really considered either of them to be graphically superior to the other.

Mind you I don't consider the Xbox to be superior to the PS2 or Gamecube . It might *technically* be superior, but for all intents and purposes I consider them all to look pretty much the same (they all shine at certain moments). And I don't give a rats ass as to which is technically superior (that's for the techheads amongst us)

[traser]

I only have one thing to say, and that is that for a so caled 64 bit machin.
The N64 dos a bad job of it all, it has mutch potanshal but gets so litel out of it.
I have both and have never mutch cared for the N64, but I love the PSX.

[Push Upstairs]

Neither the PSX nor the N64 can do 3D graphics "right".

PSX has a lot of pixels and some texture/polygon deforming (same can be said for the Saturn).

The N64 looks like it can do 3D better, but its overuse of blurring takes any advantage it had away.

Dreamcast is the first system to do 3D right.


This is probably the most civilized conversation i've ever had about an N64. It's one for the record books.

[Sweater Fish Deluxe]

As for 2-D games on the N64, Yoshi's Story, Mishief Makers and Killer Instinct Gold were impressive to me.
Those games all use polygons on a 2D plane, though, not true 2D sprite graphics. Even most of the 2D puzzlers on the N64 used this 2D polygon style. I would almost go so far as to say that the N64 couldn't do real sprite graphics (bitmapped backdrops yes, but I mean real tile-based sprites) if it weren't for Bangaioh, which looks for all the world like real 2D sprites to me unless someone knows better.


...word is bondage...

[Damaramu]

Back in the day, my friends and I always wondered if the N64 could do an arcade perfect Street Fighter II.

[Leo_A]

There were several non polygon 2d N64 titles, though nothing that can show its capabilities in that area. Midway Arcade's Greatest Hits Volume 1, Namco Museum, and the bonus games in Donkey Kong 64 come to mind.

[Kevincal]

Those games all use polygons on a 2D plane, though, not true 2D sprite graphics. Even most of the 2D puzzlers on the N64 used this 2D polygon style. I would almost go so far as to say that the N64 couldn't do real sprite graphics (bitmapped backdrops yes, but I mean real tile-based sprites) if it weren't for Bangaioh, which looks for all the world like real 2D sprites to me unless someone knows better.


...word is bondage...

Actually, they ARE all sprite based with very few polygonal background objects thrown in the mix ... The reason you think they aren't sprites is because they aren't just your plain old sprites...They use all of the neat effects the N64 is capable of to give them that smoothed over look.

[tom]

Mind you Nintendo always claims 'it's not the graphics that count, it's the game play'

That's why VCS was huge, Coleco not, that's why PSX is the world best selling console, and N64 is not.

[Anthony1]

I don't think you can equivocally say that the Nintendo 64 had better graphics or the PS1 had better graphics or whatever. They had strengths and weaknesses in different areas. At first blush, I would be inclined to say that the N64 was clearly superior, especially with 3D, but I'm not so sure I can really say that. If you compare WaveRace 64 to Jet Moto, it is pretty clear that WaveRace destroys it on a graphical level. No question about that. Having said that, the general blurriness of the N64 had such a negative effect on everthing, that in the end it's almost a draw. I think when you add the 2D capabilities of the PS1, with games like Oddworld and Rayman, I think you have to give the 2D advantage to the PS1. The 3D advantage would go to the N64, but the blurry factor negates much of that. Therefore, I think you are ultimately left with a tie. I guess one could say that one is above the other, and if I was to put one above the other, I would put the N64 slightly above, but the bottom line is there are tons of games that look like ass on the N64, and tons of games that look like ass on PS1, and they each have a number of games that look brilliant. If the N64 has slightly better graphics in general, then it's only by the slimmest of margins, and much of that has to do with the blurry factor. The overuse of fog and such to hide popup was also very disturbing.

[nebrazca78]

The PSX didn't blur everything to hell and back. Things were grainy but they were recognizable.

I don't want to play games that give me a headache.

That's funny, PS1's graphics cause my eyes to hurt but the blurrier N64 graphics are easy on my eyes. I always disliked the PS1's graphics so I definitely have to vote for N64.

[Sweater Fish Deluxe]

Actually, they ARE all sprite based with very few polygonal background objects thrown in the mix ... The reason you think they aren't sprites is because they aren't just your plain old sprites...They use all of the neat effects the N64 is capable of to give them that smoothed over look.
You think so? I can't speak for Killer Instinct since I never played it much, but the graphics in Yoshi's Story and Mischief Makers don't look anything like sprites, not plain old sprites or sprites with any kind of neat effect I can imagine applied to them. The Jaguar or the Saturn could put out sprite graphics with amazing effects, but the results were still recognizable as sprites, they didn't come out looking like flat polygons. Most of the 2D games on the N64 look more polygon-like than the fake 2D polygon games on the Playstation do. Unless that was a conscious decision on the part of the games' makers, I'm going to stick to the theory that Mischief Makers and Yoshi's Story are strictly polygon based, just like Paper Mario.

Now things like Midway's Greatest Hits are indeed sprite based, so even aside from Bangaioh, the N64 could obviously do real 2D. There's also a good deal of 2D homebrew stuff.


...word is bondage...

[swlovinist]

As for 3D graphics, I give the edge to N64. The first party games really showed the power of the system. Mario 64 redefined an entire genre. The PS1 had good graphics and could do great CG cutscenes, but its actual 3D engine I feel was limited compared to the N64. 2D, music, and framerates were all hands down better on the PS1.

[Kevincal]

You think so? I can't speak for Killer Instinct since I never played it much, but the graphics in Yoshi's Story and Mischief Makers don't look anything like sprites, not plain old sprites or sprites with any kind of neat effect I can imagine applied to them. The Jaguar or the Saturn could put out sprite graphics with amazing effects, but the results were still recognizable as sprites, they didn't come out looking like flat polygons. Most of the 2D games on the N64 look more polygon-like than the fake 2D polygon games on the Playstation do. Unless that was a conscious decision on the part of the games' makers, I'm going to stick to the theory that Mischief Makers and Yoshi's Story are strictly polygon based, just like Paper Mario.

Now things like Midway's Greatest Hits are indeed sprite based, so even aside from Bangaioh, the N64 could obviously do real 2D. There's also a good deal of 2D homebrew stuff.


...word is bondage...

The majority of the graphics for the 3 games are indeed sprites. One method of effects used on the sprites is called "tri-linear mip-mapped interpolation"...HA! Somehow I remembered that term from reading so many videogame magazines in the 90's! I own all 3 games as well. The characters in KI: Gold are very obviously sprites. Indeed the backgrounds do use some polygons...But overall the game appears mostly sprite based, to me anyway. Yoshi's Story uses very few polygons. Only a few objects are polygonal, but most of Yoshi's Story is a mass of sprites. Mischief Makers is about like Yoshi's Story, but maybe uses a bit more polygons for background objects.