Sign on Options
Theme: [Light Selected] To Dark»
ForumsLegacy Platforms › PSX vs. N64 or SNES vs. Genesis: Which w ...

Discuss legacy games and platforms.

Rules:
- Follow the Terms of Use.
- Legacy comparisons allowed. Respect others and they will respect you.
- Platforms should be mentioned in the topic title. Abbreviations such as PS, PS2, GBA, N64 - accepted.
- Illegal activities not allowed.

PSX vs. N64 or SNES vs. Genesis: Which war was better?

Forum Actions
  • Level 52
    Spoony Bard
    Posts: 30127
    Oct 5, 2012 10:44 pm GMT

    N64>Genesis>>>PS1>SNES.

    I'm well aware of the fact that I'm in the minority with this one though haha.

    I'm so damn hip; you should follow me on these Social Networking Sites.
    TumblrTwitter

    N64>Genesis>>>PS1>SNES.

    I'm well aware of the fact that I'm in the minority with this one though haha.

  • Level 28
    Bionic Commando
    Posts: 67
    Oct 6, 2012 1:20 am GMT

    PS1 - N64 wasn't a war.

    The N64 was a gen ahead, only Sony fanatics can't handle the truth.

    PS1 - N64 wasn't a war.

    The N64 was a gen ahead, only Sony fanatics can't handle the truth.

  • Level 49
    Kidd Thunder !!
    Posts: 13969
    User is Online
    Oct 6, 2012 4:16 am GMT

    Supertornado wrote:

    PS1 - N64 wasn't a war.

    The N64 was a gen ahead, only Sony fanatics can't handle the truth.

    In tech specs, yes.

    But it had very limited storage space due to cartridges and was hard to program for.

    I think if the N64 came out with the disc drive and the extra 4 megs of RAM the "Expansion Pak" offered and would be easier to code for (they should really have given the 3rd party devs more documentation and more freedom about the graphics settings which were otherwise limited by the microcodes) we would be seeing some amazing things on the console.

    [QUOTE="Supertornado"]

    PS1 - N64 wasn't a war.

    The N64 was a gen ahead, only Sony fanatics can't handle the truth.

    [/QUOTE]

    In tech specs, yes.

    But it had very limited storage space due to cartridges and was hard to program for.

    I think if the N64 came out with the disc drive and the extra 4 megs of RAM the "Expansion Pak" offered and would be easier to code for (they should really have given the 3rd party devs more documentation and more freedom about the graphics settings which were otherwise limited by the microcodes) we would be seeing some amazing things on the console.

  • Level 28
    Bionic Commando
    Posts: 67
    Oct 6, 2012 5:55 am GMT

    nameless12345 wrote:

    Supertornado wrote:

    PS1 - N64 wasn't a war.

    The N64 was a gen ahead, only Sony fanatics can't handle the truth.

    In tech specs, yes.

    But it had very limited storage space due to cartridges and was hard to program for.

    I think if the N64 came out with the disc drive and the extra 4 megs of RAM the "Expansion Pak" offered and would be easier to code for (they should really have given the 3rd party devs more documentation and more freedom about the graphics settings which were otherwise limited by the microcodes) we would be seeing some amazing things

    Sure, the N64 wasn't very easy to develop for and from what I've read the documentation was very weird but a skilled developer made wonderful things.

    A similar situation what we have now with the XBOX 360 and PS3. A well done made PS3 game featured always better graphics than anything on the XBOX 360, same goes for the N64 against the PS1 and Saturn, however the gap was a lot bigger.

    The N64 was a gen ahead for me, regarding on its graphics and games.

    [QUOTE="nameless12345"]

    [QUOTE="Supertornado"]

    PS1 - N64 wasn't a war.

    The N64 was a gen ahead, only Sony fanatics can't handle the truth.

    [/QUOTE]

    In tech specs, yes.

    But it had very limited storage space due to cartridges and was hard to program for.

    I think if the N64 came out with the disc drive and the extra 4 megs of RAM the "Expansion Pak" offered and would be easier to code for (they should really have given the 3rd party devs more documentation and more freedom about the graphics settings which were otherwise limited by the microcodes) we would be seeing some amazing things

    [/QUOTE] Sure, the N64 wasn't very easy to develop for and from what I've read the documentation was very weird but a skilled developer made wonderful things.

    A similar situation what we have now with the XBOX 360 and PS3. A well done made PS3 game featured always better graphics than anything on the XBOX 360, same goes for the N64 against the PS1 and Saturn, however the gap was a lot bigger.

    The N64 was a gen ahead for me, regarding on its graphics and games.

  • Level 20
    Metal Slime
    Posts: 1015
    User is Online
    Oct 6, 2012 11:38 am GMT
    Megavideogamer wrote:

    Sega Genesis/Sega MegaDrive Versus The Super Nintendo. The first console"war" Sega had a 2 year head start on Nintendo. Nintendo eventually won this "war" 49.10 million to 35million-40million for Sega. Sega did win in the U.S.A and for a short time was the number 1 videogame company in the world.

    Since this was a very close "war" that Nintendo won. It is the best of the videogame wars or races for top spot. The Playstation destroyed N64 103 million PSones to 33 Million Nintendo 64 consoles. Not a very close race at all.

    SNES VS Genesis is the "best" videogame system "war" Since it was very close.



    Wasn't the first "console war" Atari vs Mattel?
    Edited on Oct 6, 2012 11:39 am GMT Edited 2 total times.
    [QUOTE="Megavideogamer"]

    Sega Genesis/Sega MegaDrive Versus The Super Nintendo. The first console"war" Sega had a 2 year head start on Nintendo. Nintendo eventually won this "war" 49.10 million to 35million-40million for Sega. Sega did win in the U.S.A and for a short time was the number 1 videogame company in the world.

    Since this was a very close "war" that Nintendo won. It is the best of the videogame wars or races for top spot. The Playstation destroyed N64 103 million PSones to 33 Million Nintendo 64 consoles. Not a very close race at all.

    SNES VS Genesis is the "best" videogame system "war" Since it was very close.

    [/QUOTE] Wasn't the first "console war" Atari vs Mattel?
  • Level 32
    Snake Eater
    Posts: 7963
    User is Online
    Oct 6, 2012 3:27 pm GMT

    Supertornado wrote:

    nameless12345 wrote:

    Supertornado wrote:

    PS1 - N64 wasn't a war.

    The N64 was a gen ahead, only Sony fanatics can't handle the truth.

    In tech specs, yes.

    But it had very limited storage space due to cartridges and was hard to program for.

    I think if the N64 came out with the disc drive and the extra 4 megs of RAM the "Expansion Pak" offered and would be easier to code for (they should really have given the 3rd party devs more documentation and more freedom about the graphics settings which were otherwise limited by the microcodes) we would be seeing some amazing things

    Sure, the N64 wasn't very easy to develop for and from what I've read the documentation was very weird but a skilled developer made wonderful things.

    A similar situation what we have now with the XBOX 360 and PS3. A well done made PS3 game featured always better graphics than anything on the XBOX 360, same goes for the N64 against the PS1 and Saturn, however the gap was a lot bigger.

    The N64 was a gen ahead for me, regarding on its graphics and games.

    as an owner of both consoles, I never really noticed any differences

    as for the PS1 vs. N64, I always thought the PS1 had a better graphics progression, whereas the N64 had a smaller evolution in terms of graphics (not counting the ram expansion pack)

    Edited on Oct 6, 2012 3:28 pm GMT

    Click on my sig to vote for the best game on STEAM Greenlight

    [QUOTE="Supertornado"]

    [QUOTE="nameless12345"]

    [QUOTE="Supertornado"]

    PS1 - N64 wasn't a war.

    The N64 was a gen ahead, only Sony fanatics can't handle the truth.

    [/QUOTE]

    In tech specs, yes.

    But it had very limited storage space due to cartridges and was hard to program for.

    I think if the N64 came out with the disc drive and the extra 4 megs of RAM the "Expansion Pak" offered and would be easier to code for (they should really have given the 3rd party devs more documentation and more freedom about the graphics settings which were otherwise limited by the microcodes) we would be seeing some amazing things

    [/QUOTE] Sure, the N64 wasn't very easy to develop for and from what I've read the documentation was very weird but a skilled developer made wonderful things.

    A similar situation what we have now with the XBOX 360 and PS3. A well done made PS3 game featured always better graphics than anything on the XBOX 360, same goes for the N64 against the PS1 and Saturn, however the gap was a lot bigger.

    The N64 was a gen ahead for me, regarding on its graphics and games.

    [/QUOTE]as an owner of both consoles, I never really noticed any differences

    as for the PS1 vs. N64, I always thought the PS1 had a better graphics progression, whereas the N64 had a smaller evolution in terms of graphics (not counting the ram expansion pack)

  • Level 62
    Stylish Crazy Action
    Posts: 35252
    User is Online
    Oct 6, 2012 8:52 pm GMT
    glez13 wrote:

    PS vs. N64 wasn't even a war. It was a massacre. Only Nintendo fanboys think it was ever a real competition.



    Supertornado wrote:

    PS1 - N64 wasn't a war.

    The N64 was a gen ahead, only Sony fanatics can't handle the truth.



    Anyone else find this funny?
    [QUOTE="glez13"]

    PS vs. N64 wasn't even a war. It was a massacre. Only Nintendo fanboys think it was ever a real competition.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE="Supertornado"]

    PS1 - N64 wasn't a war.

    The N64 was a gen ahead, only Sony fanatics can't handle the truth.

    [/QUOTE] Anyone else find this funny? :P
  • Level 49
    Kidd Thunder !!
    Posts: 13969
    User is Online
    Oct 7, 2012 2:22 am GMT

    rilpas wrote:

    Supertornado wrote:

    nameless12345 wrote:

    In tech specs, yes.

    But it had very limited storage space due to cartridges and was hard to program for.

    I think if the N64 came out with the disc drive and the extra 4 megs of RAM the "Expansion Pak" offered and would be easier to code for (they should really have given the 3rd party devs more documentation and more freedom about the graphics settings which were otherwise limited by the microcodes) we would be seeing some amazing things

    Sure, the N64 wasn't very easy to develop for and from what I've read the documentation was very weird but a skilled developer made wonderful things.

    A similar situation what we have now with the XBOX 360 and PS3. A well done made PS3 game featured always better graphics than anything on the XBOX 360, same goes for the N64 against the PS1 and Saturn, however the gap was a lot bigger.

    The N64 was a gen ahead for me, regarding on its graphics and games.

    as for the PS1 vs. N64, I always thought the PS1 had a better graphics progression, whereas the N64 had a smaller evolution in terms of graphics (not counting the ram expansion pack)

    I disagree.

    Compare something like Top Gear Rally to World Driver Championship or Rush 2 to Rush 2049.

    [QUOTE="rilpas"]

    [QUOTE="Supertornado"]

    [QUOTE="nameless12345"]

    In tech specs, yes.

    But it had very limited storage space due to cartridges and was hard to program for.

    I think if the N64 came out with the disc drive and the extra 4 megs of RAM the "Expansion Pak" offered and would be easier to code for (they should really have given the 3rd party devs more documentation and more freedom about the graphics settings which were otherwise limited by the microcodes) we would be seeing some amazing things

    [/QUOTE] Sure, the N64 wasn't very easy to develop for and from what I've read the documentation was very weird but a skilled developer made wonderful things.

    A similar situation what we have now with the XBOX 360 and PS3. A well done made PS3 game featured always better graphics than anything on the XBOX 360, same goes for the N64 against the PS1 and Saturn, however the gap was a lot bigger.

    The N64 was a gen ahead for me, regarding on its graphics and games.

    [/QUOTE]

    as for the PS1 vs. N64, I always thought the PS1 had a better graphics progression, whereas the N64 had a smaller evolution in terms of graphics (not counting the ram expansion pack)

    [/QUOTE]

    I disagree.

    Compare something like Top Gear Rally to World Driver Championship or Rush 2 to Rush 2049.

  • Level 27
    Sheng Long
    Posts: 1660
    User is Online
    Oct 7, 2012 6:25 am GMT

    SNES vs Mega Drive

    These two consoles were very close and there wasn't a clear victor, ending in the stalemate.

    On the other hand,the PS1 vs N64 conflict wasn't even close but had a very clear victor right from the beginning.

    Edited on Oct 7, 2012 6:27 am GMT

    Current Consoles: PS3, Wii, Xbox, PS2, Dreamcast, PSP

    Current PC Specs:

    CPU: Intel i5-3570K (Quad-Core) @ 3.5 GHz (5.2 GHz overclocked)

    GPU: XFX Radeon HD 6850 (1 GB GDDR5 VRAM, 1.5 TFLOPS) @ 1 GHz (1.25 GHz overclocked)

    RAM: 16 GB DDR3 @ 1.6 GHz

    OS: Microsoft Windows 8 Pro x64

    HDD: 4 Hard Drives @ 8.5 TB

    SNES vs Mega Drive

    These two consoles were very close and there wasn't a clear victor, ending in the stalemate.

    On the other hand,the PS1 vs N64 conflict wasn't even close but had a very clear victor right from the beginning.

  • Level 71
    Castle Crasher
    Posts: 87111
    User is Online
    Oct 7, 2012 8:10 pm GMT
    SNES vs Genesis by far. PSX slaughtered N64. It wasn't even a fair fight. Basically, Nintendo just took a dive when they stuck with cartridges.

    Do not invite me to your union. Doing so will get you ignored.

    SNES vs Genesis by far. PSX slaughtered N64. It wasn't even a fair fight. Basically, Nintendo just took a dive when they stuck with cartridges.
  • Level 32
    Snake Eater
    Posts: 7963
    User is Online
    Oct 8, 2012 10:40 am GMT

    nameless12345 wrote:

    rilpas wrote:

    Supertornado wrote:
    Sure, the N64 wasn't very easy to develop for and from what I've read the documentation was very weird but a skilled developer made wonderful things.

    A similar situation what we have now with the XBOX 360 and PS3. A well done made PS3 game featured always better graphics than anything on the XBOX 360, same goes for the N64 against the PS1 and Saturn, however the gap was a lot bigger.

    The N64 was a gen ahead for me, regarding on its graphics and games.

    as for the PS1 vs. N64, I always thought the PS1 had a better graphics progression, whereas the N64 had a smaller evolution in terms of graphics (not counting the ram expansion pack)

    I disagree.

    Compare something like Top Gear Rally to World Driver Championship or Rush 2 to Rush 2049.

    yeah but then compare early PS1 games like jumping flash to mid-to-late gen games like Quake 2 or C-12, there's massive difference and it was all done without any RAM expansions

    Click on my sig to vote for the best game on STEAM Greenlight

    [QUOTE="nameless12345"]

    [QUOTE="rilpas"]

    [QUOTE="Supertornado"] Sure, the N64 wasn't very easy to develop for and from what I've read the documentation was very weird but a skilled developer made wonderful things.

    A similar situation what we have now with the XBOX 360 and PS3. A well done made PS3 game featured always better graphics than anything on the XBOX 360, same goes for the N64 against the PS1 and Saturn, however the gap was a lot bigger.

    The N64 was a gen ahead for me, regarding on its graphics and games.

    [/QUOTE]

    as for the PS1 vs. N64, I always thought the PS1 had a better graphics progression, whereas the N64 had a smaller evolution in terms of graphics (not counting the ram expansion pack)

    [/QUOTE]

    I disagree.

    Compare something like Top Gear Rally to World Driver Championship or Rush 2 to Rush 2049.

    [/QUOTE]

    yeah but then compare early PS1 games like jumping flash to mid-to-late gen games like Quake 2 or C-12, there's massive difference and it was all done without any RAM expansions

  • Level 49
    Kidd Thunder !!
    Posts: 13969
    User is Online
    Oct 8, 2012 12:23 pm GMT

    rilpas wrote:

    nameless12345 wrote:

    rilpas wrote:

    as for the PS1 vs. N64, I always thought the PS1 had a better graphics progression, whereas the N64 had a smaller evolution in terms of graphics (not counting the ram expansion pack)

    I disagree.

    Compare something like Top Gear Rally to World Driver Championship or Rush 2 to Rush 2049.

    yeah but then compare early PS1 games like jumping flash to mid-to-late gen games like Quake 2 or C-12, there's massive difference and it was all done without any RAM expansions

    I'm not sure why the RAM expansion shouldn't count but if you want so - compare Body Harvest to Jet Force Gemini or Mario 64 to Conker.

    The games I mentioned in my previous post didn't need the RAM pack either.

    [QUOTE="rilpas"]

    [QUOTE="nameless12345"]

    [QUOTE="rilpas"]

    as for the PS1 vs. N64, I always thought the PS1 had a better graphics progression, whereas the N64 had a smaller evolution in terms of graphics (not counting the ram expansion pack)

    [/QUOTE]

    I disagree.

    Compare something like Top Gear Rally to World Driver Championship or Rush 2 to Rush 2049.

    [/QUOTE]

    yeah but then compare early PS1 games like jumping flash to mid-to-late gen games like Quake 2 or C-12, there's massive difference and it was all done without any RAM expansions

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm not sure why the RAM expansion shouldn't count but if you want so - compare Body Harvest to Jet Force Gemini or Mario 64 to Conker.

    The games I mentioned in my previous post didn't need the RAM pack either.

  • Level 32
    Snake Eater
    Posts: 7963
    User is Online
    Oct 8, 2012 12:46 pm GMT

    nameless12345 wrote:

    rilpas wrote:

    nameless12345 wrote:

    I disagree.

    Compare something like Top Gear Rally to World Driver Championship or Rush 2 to Rush 2049.

    yeah but then compare early PS1 games like jumping flash to mid-to-late gen games like Quake 2 or C-12, there's massive difference and it was all done without any RAM expansions

    I'm not sure why the RAM expansion shouldn't count but if you want so - compare Body Harvest to Jet Force Gemini or Mario 64 to Conker.

    The games I mentioned in my previous post didn't need the RAM pack either.

    oh, you can count the RAM expansion if you want, but I just meant to say that we count the initial hardware on both consoles, it seems to me the PS1 evolved much more (even if it never did quite catch up to the N64)

    with that said I feel that body harvest is a poor example on your part, as there will always be poor looking games no matter how much you evolved

    a much better comparison would be Mario 64 to Conker, one is a launch game the other is a late gen game. Conker does look awesome, but now, try looking at the PS1's launch line-up, all of it's games look terrible then compare it some late gen games like C-12 or wipeout 3, the difference is night and day

    with that said, obviously N64 games look better

    Click on my sig to vote for the best game on STEAM Greenlight

    [QUOTE="nameless12345"]

    [QUOTE="rilpas"]

    [QUOTE="nameless12345"]

    I disagree.

    Compare something like Top Gear Rally to World Driver Championship or Rush 2 to Rush 2049.

    [/QUOTE]

    yeah but then compare early PS1 games like jumping flash to mid-to-late gen games like Quake 2 or C-12, there's massive difference and it was all done without any RAM expansions

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm not sure why the RAM expansion shouldn't count but if you want so - compare Body Harvest to Jet Force Gemini or Mario 64 to Conker.

    The games I mentioned in my previous post didn't need the RAM pack either.

    [/QUOTE]

    oh, you can count the RAM expansion if you want, but I just meant to say that we count the initial hardware on both consoles, it seems to me the PS1 evolved much more (even if it never did quite catch up to the N64)

    with that said I feel that body harvest is a poor example on your part, as there will always be poor looking games no matter how much you evolved

    a much better comparison would be Mario 64 to Conker, one is a launch game the other is a late gen game. Conker does look awesome, but now, try looking at the PS1's launch line-up, all of it's games look terrible :P then compare it some late gen games like C-12 or wipeout 3, the difference is night and day

    with that said, obviously N64 games look better

  • Level 3
    Mediator
    Posts: 36
    Oct 11, 2012 5:53 pm GMT
    rilpas wrote:

    nameless12345 wrote:

    rilpas wrote:

    yeah but then compare early PS1 games like jumping flash to mid-to-late gen games like Quake 2 or C-12, there's massive difference and it was all done without any RAM expansions

    I'm not sure why the RAM expansion shouldn't count but if you want so - compare Body Harvest to Jet Force Gemini or Mario 64 to Conker.

    The games I mentioned in my previous post didn't need the RAM pack either.

    oh, you can count the RAM expansion if you want, but I just meant to say that we count the initial hardware on both consoles, it seems to me the PS1 evolved much more (even if it never did quite catch up to the N64)

    with that said I feel that body harvest is a poor example on your part, as there will always be poor looking games no matter how much you evolved

    a much better comparison would be Mario 64 to Conker, one is a launch game the other is a late gen game. Conker does look awesome, but now, try looking at the PS1's launch line-up, all of it's games look terrible then compare it some late gen games like C-12 or wipeout 3, the difference is night and day

    with that said, obviously N64 games look better



    I disagree.

    The N64 was badly designed and suffered from many issues making it's specs actually over come the PSX.

    Late gen N64 games and late gen PSX games were pretty much on par with none going above the other or "looking" better. Each at that point was pushing the system limits and sacrificed one or more areas to achieve their results. As such, the fact people say the N64 blew the PSX out the water had never made sense. Going off launch titles you could claim the PSX looked better than the N64 since Crash looked better than Mario 64, the whole N64 looks better and a gen ahead is pointless when the system can't even use it's specs fully.
    [QUOTE="rilpas"]

    [QUOTE="nameless12345"]

    [QUOTE="rilpas"]

    yeah but then compare early PS1 games like jumping flash to mid-to-late gen games like Quake 2 or C-12, there's massive difference and it was all done without any RAM expansions

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm not sure why the RAM expansion shouldn't count but if you want so - compare Body Harvest to Jet Force Gemini or Mario 64 to Conker.

    The games I mentioned in my previous post didn't need the RAM pack either.

    [/QUOTE]

    oh, you can count the RAM expansion if you want, but I just meant to say that we count the initial hardware on both consoles, it seems to me the PS1 evolved much more (even if it never did quite catch up to the N64)

    with that said I feel that body harvest is a poor example on your part, as there will always be poor looking games no matter how much you evolved

    a much better comparison would be Mario 64 to Conker, one is a launch game the other is a late gen game. Conker does look awesome, but now, try looking at the PS1's launch line-up, all of it's games look terrible :P then compare it some late gen games like C-12 or wipeout 3, the difference is night and day

    with that said, obviously N64 games look better

    [/QUOTE] I disagree. The N64 was badly designed and suffered from many issues making it's specs actually over come the PSX. Late gen N64 games and late gen PSX games were pretty much on par with none going above the other or "looking" better. Each at that point was pushing the system limits and sacrificed one or more areas to achieve their results. As such, the fact people say the N64 blew the PSX out the water had never made sense. Going off launch titles you could claim the PSX looked better than the N64 since Crash looked better than Mario 64, the whole N64 looks better and a gen ahead is pointless when the system can't even use it's specs fully.
  • Level 49
    Kidd Thunder !!
    Posts: 13969
    User is Online
    Oct 12, 2012 9:19 am GMT

    Eliminatorcanon wrote:
    rilpas wrote:

    nameless12345 wrote:

    I'm not sure why the RAM expansion shouldn't count but if you want so - compare Body Harvest to Jet Force Gemini or Mario 64 to Conker.

    The games I mentioned in my previous post didn't need the RAM pack either.

    oh, you can count the RAM expansion if you want, but I just meant to say that we count the initial hardware on both consoles, it seems to me the PS1 evolved much more (even if it never did quite catch up to the N64)

    with that said I feel that body harvest is a poor example on your part, as there will always be poor looking games no matter how much you evolved

    a much better comparison would be Mario 64 to Conker, one is a launch game the other is a late gen game. Conker does look awesome, but now, try looking at the PS1's launch line-up, all of it's games look terrible then compare it some late gen games like C-12 or wipeout 3, the difference is night and day

    with that said, obviously N64 games look better

    I disagree. The N64 was badly designed and suffered from many issues making it's specs actually over come the PSX. Late gen N64 games and late gen PSX games were pretty much on par with none going above the other or "looking" better. Each at that point was pushing the system limits and sacrificed one or more areas to achieve their results. As such, the fact people say the N64 blew the PSX out the water had never made sense. Going off launch titles you could claim the PSX looked better than the N64 since Crash looked better than Mario 64, the whole N64 looks better and a gen ahead is pointless when the system can't even use it's specs fully.

    Or did it?

    It may be true that PSX had better texture detail, poly-counts and framerates in many cases, but that came at a cost.

    Namely, all PSX could do were low-rez, jaggies, pixely textures (if you come close to a texture you can see tiny squares - no such problem on the N64) and texture warping/distortion due to lack of Z-buffering (perspective corrected textures) whereas the N64 already gave a glimpse of next-gen console graphics with it's texture filtering/smoothing, mip-mapping, Z-buffering/perspective correction, anti-alliasing, reflection mapping and high-rez if you added the memory expansion.

    Personally, my only gripe with the N64 were the low framerates in many graphically intensive games.

    But as far as the quality of the graphics go, the N64 could outdo the PSX (because of the above mentioned reasons).

    [QUOTE="Eliminatorcanon"][QUOTE="rilpas"]

    [QUOTE="nameless12345"]

    I'm not sure why the RAM expansion shouldn't count but if you want so - compare Body Harvest to Jet Force Gemini or Mario 64 to Conker.

    The games I mentioned in my previous post didn't need the RAM pack either.

    [/QUOTE]

    oh, you can count the RAM expansion if you want, but I just meant to say that we count the initial hardware on both consoles, it seems to me the PS1 evolved much more (even if it never did quite catch up to the N64)

    with that said I feel that body harvest is a poor example on your part, as there will always be poor looking games no matter how much you evolved

    a much better comparison would be Mario 64 to Conker, one is a launch game the other is a late gen game. Conker does look awesome, but now, try looking at the PS1's launch line-up, all of it's games look terrible :P then compare it some late gen games like C-12 or wipeout 3, the difference is night and day

    with that said, obviously N64 games look better

    [/QUOTE] I disagree. The N64 was badly designed and suffered from many issues making it's specs actually over come the PSX. Late gen N64 games and late gen PSX games were pretty much on par with none going above the other or "looking" better. Each at that point was pushing the system limits and sacrificed one or more areas to achieve their results. As such, the fact people say the N64 blew the PSX out the water had never made sense. Going off launch titles you could claim the PSX looked better than the N64 since Crash looked better than Mario 64, the whole N64 looks better and a gen ahead is pointless when the system can't even use it's specs fully.[/QUOTE]

    Or did it?

    It may be true that PSX had better texture detail, poly-counts and framerates in many cases, but that came at a cost.

    Namely, all PSX could do were low-rez, jaggies, pixely textures (if you come close to a texture you can see tiny squares - no such problem on the N64) and texture warping/distortion due to lack of Z-buffering (perspective corrected textures) whereas the N64 already gave a glimpse of next-gen console graphics with it's texture filtering/smoothing, mip-mapping, Z-buffering/perspective correction, anti-alliasing, reflection mapping and high-rez if you added the memory expansion.

    Personally, my only gripe with the N64 were the low framerates in many graphically intensive games.

    But as far as the quality of the graphics go, the N64 could outdo the PSX (because of the above mentioned reasons).

  • Level 32
    Snake Eater
    Posts: 7963
    User is Online
    Oct 12, 2012 10:07 am GMT

    Supertornado wrote:

    orginal footage made by me

    D9oNCnC22gIEqx0rBkz-tfuiq8TwOj4v9x9ePNob

    x2BhO2xfxnykioNUzM_niwEMyHU0ozsJTUa6-8-o

    nCFVH3mS4mIPKwhMeTzc48R_rpzWqeO1QF7c2wrd

    DTtWGvuui4zPLX81mzaMR2_2qCrwFPOKZY3fgtuH

    oht1p-5LpiqAZ9LQxK7c4OrQoMen2rCfTlyD70VX

    cMr5QEmSsZUsoRlDRsEhlK-v3JpKWovoaA464jqz

    25AH3zrItl6AlyU_YOHvQAANNdVjPHbKWwSfc4xd

    I think N64 was a gen ahead

    can't see anything

    Click on my sig to vote for the best game on STEAM Greenlight

    [QUOTE="Supertornado"]

    orginal footage made by me

    D9oNCnC22gIEqx0rBkz-tfuiq8TwOj4v9x9ePNob

    x2BhO2xfxnykioNUzM_niwEMyHU0ozsJTUa6-8-o

    nCFVH3mS4mIPKwhMeTzc48R_rpzWqeO1QF7c2wrd

    DTtWGvuui4zPLX81mzaMR2_2qCrwFPOKZY3fgtuH

    oht1p-5LpiqAZ9LQxK7c4OrQoMen2rCfTlyD70VX

    cMr5QEmSsZUsoRlDRsEhlK-v3JpKWovoaA464jqz

    25AH3zrItl6AlyU_YOHvQAANNdVjPHbKWwSfc4xd

    I think N64 was a gen ahead

    [/QUOTE]can't see anything

  • Level 32
    Snake Eater
    Posts: 7963
    User is Online
    Oct 12, 2012 10:08 am GMT

    nameless12345 wrote:

    Eliminatorcanon wrote:
    rilpas wrote:

    oh, you can count the RAM expansion if you want, but I just meant to say that we count the initial hardware on both consoles, it seems to me the PS1 evolved much more (even if it never did quite catch up to the N64)

    with that said I feel that body harvest is a poor example on your part, as there will always be poor looking games no matter how much you evolved

    a much better comparison would be Mario 64 to Conker, one is a launch game the other is a late gen game. Conker does look awesome, but now, try looking at the PS1's launch line-up, all of it's games look terrible then compare it some late gen games like C-12 or wipeout 3, the difference is night and day

    with that said, obviously N64 games look better

    I disagree. The N64 was badly designed and suffered from many issues making it's specs actually over come the PSX. Late gen N64 games and late gen PSX games were pretty much on par with none going above the other or "looking" better. Each at that point was pushing the system limits and sacrificed one or more areas to achieve their results. As such, the fact people say the N64 blew the PSX out the water had never made sense. Going off launch titles you could claim the PSX looked better than the N64 since Crash looked better than Mario 64, the whole N64 looks better and a gen ahead is pointless when the system can't even use it's specs fully.

    Or did it?

    It may be true that PSX had better texture detail, poly-counts and framerates in many cases, but that came at a cost.

    Namely, all PSX could do were low-rez, jaggies, pixely textures (if you come close to a texture you can see tiny squares - no such problem on the N64) and texture warping/distortion due to lack of Z-buffering (perspective corrected textures) whereas the N64 already gave a glimpse of next-gen console graphics with it's texture filtering/smoothing, mip-mapping, Z-buffering/perspective correction, anti-alliasing, reflection mapping and high-rez if you added the memory expansion.

    Personally, my only gripe with the N64 were the low framerates in many graphically intensive games.

    But as far as the quality of the graphics go, the N64 could outdo the PSX (because of the above mentioned reasons).

    to be fair, the N64 suffered from very blurry textures

    Click on my sig to vote for the best game on STEAM Greenlight

    [QUOTE="nameless12345"]

    [QUOTE="Eliminatorcanon"][QUOTE="rilpas"]

    oh, you can count the RAM expansion if you want, but I just meant to say that we count the initial hardware on both consoles, it seems to me the PS1 evolved much more (even if it never did quite catch up to the N64)

    with that said I feel that body harvest is a poor example on your part, as there will always be poor looking games no matter how much you evolved

    a much better comparison would be Mario 64 to Conker, one is a launch game the other is a late gen game. Conker does look awesome, but now, try looking at the PS1's launch line-up, all of it's games look terrible :P then compare it some late gen games like C-12 or wipeout 3, the difference is night and day

    with that said, obviously N64 games look better

    [/QUOTE] I disagree. The N64 was badly designed and suffered from many issues making it's specs actually over come the PSX. Late gen N64 games and late gen PSX games were pretty much on par with none going above the other or "looking" better. Each at that point was pushing the system limits and sacrificed one or more areas to achieve their results. As such, the fact people say the N64 blew the PSX out the water had never made sense. Going off launch titles you could claim the PSX looked better than the N64 since Crash looked better than Mario 64, the whole N64 looks better and a gen ahead is pointless when the system can't even use it's specs fully.[/QUOTE]

    Or did it?

    It may be true that PSX had better texture detail, poly-counts and framerates in many cases, but that came at a cost.

    Namely, all PSX could do were low-rez, jaggies, pixely textures (if you come close to a texture you can see tiny squares - no such problem on the N64) and texture warping/distortion due to lack of Z-buffering (perspective corrected textures) whereas the N64 already gave a glimpse of next-gen console graphics with it's texture filtering/smoothing, mip-mapping, Z-buffering/perspective correction, anti-alliasing, reflection mapping and high-rez if you added the memory expansion.

    Personally, my only gripe with the N64 were the low framerates in many graphically intensive games.

    But as far as the quality of the graphics go, the N64 could outdo the PSX (because of the above mentioned reasons).

    [/QUOTE]to be fair, the N64 suffered from very blurry textures

Forum Actions
ForumsLegacy Platforms › PSX vs. N64 or SNES vs. Genesis: Which w ...