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. !

[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. !

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.

</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.