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?
N64>Genesis>>>PS1>SNES.
I'm well aware of the fact that I'm in the minority with this one though haha.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- 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.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 6, 2012 4:16 am GMT

[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.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 6, 2012 5:55 am GMT
[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.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- [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?- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
[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)
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 6, 2012 8:52 pm GMT
[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- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 7, 2012 2:22 am GMT

[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.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 7, 2012 6:25 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.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 7, 2012 8:10 pm GMT

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.- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
[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
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 8, 2012 12:23 pm GMT

[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.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
[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
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 11, 2012 5:53 pm GMT[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.- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 12, 2012 9:19 am GMT

[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).
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
[QUOTE="Supertornado"]
orginal footage made by me
I think N64 was a gen ahead
[/QUOTE]can't see anything
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
[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
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.






