Why doesn't N64 look better than PS1?

[Reaperman]

I've been on an N64 kick for the last couple weeks, and have been playing through some of my favorites on the system. One thing's been bugging me, though--the games on this system have never looked as good as I think they should.

 

On paper, n64 should *flatten* ps1, right? 64-bit, 90mhz (IIRC), access to faster storage media--what am I missing? Why are N64 games composed of larger polygons covered in substandard textures? Somebody help me here, because I really don't know. Ps1 generally had more room to store texture variety, and while that's a nice to have, I figure that I should still see *some* good texturing on n64. Why not tile smaller textures?

 

Even 'back in the day' I thought this. N64 was the first console I bought with money from my first job--within a month I was buying a ps1 because I had trouble with immersion because of the n64's gargantuan polygons. I thought I'd come back to the system later on when the library was better (which I certainly did) but even then, on the best high-budget, late-release games, it seemed like they were still fighting a lack of detail.

 

Has anybody else been bothered by this? What's the reason?

Edited January 27, 2013 by Reaperman

[fiddlepaddle]

I also like the N64 games. Only a few used the extra RAM you could plug in, which seems to be a limiting factor regarding the graphics. Also, a higher capacity cartridge at the time would have cost too much compared to a CD, where the media cost (for much more space) is almost nothing. I am put off by the PS1 load times, but I like the richness provided by extra storage space. Both units have their charms.

[shadow460]

Ever play Conker's Bad Fur Day? There's more than one reason why it commands $60, even when loose.

 

Really, though, it depends on what you consider "good" graphics. If you're looking for simple but clean 3D, then the N64 is your console. If you're looking for detail at the expense of claity, that's found on the PS1 or even the Saturn.

 

I second the above post. All three of the major systems of that time have their strengths and weaknesses. I was all over the Saturn for ports of my favorite arcade games at the time. All my game saves still fit on a single memory card to this day. The 2D graphics were the best back then, bar none. The N64 had the best 3D graphics IMO, especially with the RAM expansion, the load times were almost non existent, and analog control was standard. As for the PS1, you could find almost anything on it. Want a board game? It's there. Want an arcade game? Yep, got it. Wanna go fishing? It's here. Racing game? Check. Although there's really nothing technically special about the PS1, the sheer mass of stuff it had makes it an important part of any game collection even now.

Edited January 27, 2013 by shadow460

[Reaperman]

I also like the N64 games. Only a few used the extra RAM you could plug in, which seems to be a limiting factor regarding the graphics.

I'm not sure why, if it's on cart, you don't need RAM for it, right? I must be missing something there.

 

Today I spent a couple hours on Star Wars EP1 Racer--what I consider to be the prettiest game on the system, and my personal favorite. Even with the extra ram pack, the polygons were huge and covered in low-quality textures. Using art direction and level design, they did their best to hide it, but it's still there.

 

Ever play Conker's Bad Fur Day? There's more than one reason why it commands $60, even when loose.

Yes, I own it and many dozens of other games. Even everybody's beloved shit-moster is made of what? maybe 60 poorly-textured polygons. Does not look stellar. Memorable scene, but the texture stretching...

 

I mean just look at it:

 

Edited January 27, 2013 by Reaperman

[mbd30]

The N64 has more polished 3D capabilities than the PS1 which is to be expected. On the other hand, it's handicapped with the limited space of carts and by not being quite fast enough... so games often have sluggish framerates and blurry textures.

 

The use of carts is a boon to collectors now though. You'll run across a lot of scratched discs when collecting used games for CD based systems but you don't have that problem with the N64.

[kid_vidiot]

Back in the day I owned a ps1 but not N64 and I thought the N64 graphics were "better" than ps1 while ps1 graphics were "more interesting". I've recently purchased an N64 and so far the graphics look worse than I remember. My memory was always that the N64 graphics used bigger character models that were smoother but a little less detailed. Ps1 graphics were grainier, messier, etc. Like comparing Wave Race 64 to Jet Moto...everyone would agree Wave Race destroys it in the graphics department, right?

Edited January 27, 2013 by kid_vidiot

[fiddlepaddle]

Not sure about the N64 architecture, but in general, RAM is usually used for intermediate computations, and is usually accessed much faster than ROM. ROM is also normally accessed serially (or less parallel-ly anyway) than RAM. Having a large ram scratch pad can be extremely useful when doing manipulations on tables or other large blocks of memory, which is a model often used for graphic manipulation, especially when larger word size and parallel processing is involved.

 

Another example where large RAM makes a difference is when you preload a computer operating system onto a RAM disk before booting you will probably see your computer run much, much faster at run time (because accessing the RAM disk is much faster than accessing a hard disk).

[shadow460]

I'm not sure why, if it's on cart, you don't need RAM for it, right? I must be missing something there.

 

Today I spent a couple hours on Star Wars EP1 Racer--what I consider to be the prettiest game on the system, and my personal favorite. Even with the extra ram pack, the polygons were huge and covered in low-quality textures. Using art direction and level design, they did their best to hide it, but it's still there.

 

 

Yes, I own it and many dozens of other games. Even everybody's beloved shit-moster is made of what? maybe 60 poorly-textured polygons. Does not look stellar. Memorable scene, but the texture stretching...

 

I mean just look at it:

 

 

I do have to agree--Racer is very impressive on the N64, but the arcade version leaves this cart in the dust. Both Zelda titles were also quite impressive graphically, IMO. So was wipEout 64. Other staples like Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, and extreme-G were ... well ... uglier.

And yes, that monster look like crap! I haven't played through to that part yet.

[Reaperman]

Like comparing Wave Race 64 to Jet Moto...everyone would agree Wave Race destroys it in the graphics department, right?

Certainly, I'd go as far as saying that Wave Race destroyed Jet Moto in *every* department. Probably even Jet Moto 2&3 as well, but I'd have to refresh my memory on those. Comparing Wipeout 64 to Wipeout XL didn't go well for the 64, though. (IIRC 64 was based more on XL, rather than the first one)

[Reaperman]

On the other hand, it's handicapped with the limited space of carts and by not being quite fast enough... so games often have sluggish framerates and blurry textures.

I've noticed the framerate issue, but N64 was nearly 3x the speed of ps1--why wasn't it enough? I mean it just seems like n64 should be walking all over the playstation, and it just doesn't.

 

I'm checking wikipedia, and it looks like ps1 only has 2mb of ram compared to n64's 4mb/8mb

 

 

Actually...checking wikipedia for those ram numbers did give me this likely answer:

However, the smaller storage size of ROM cartridges limited the number of available textures, resulting in games that had blurry graphics. This was caused by the liberal use of stretched, low-resolution textures, and was compounded by the N64's 4,096-byte limit^[28] on a single texture. Some games, such as Mario Party 2, use a large amount of Gouraud shading or very simple textures to produce a cartoon-like image. This fit the themes of many games, and allowed this style of imagery a sharp look. Cartridges for some later games, such as Resident Evil 2, Sin & Punishment, Mission: Impossible, and Conker's Bad Fur Day, featured more ROM space,^[29] allowing for more detailed graphics.

4096-byte limit on a single texture. If I'm understanding that correctly, that's just tiny. It can't be that small, right? Those huge polygons would look a lot better with more than 4k worth of texture stretched over them.

Edited January 27, 2013 by Reaperman

[StoneAgeGamer]

Honestly all the original 3D systems are very dated. It really wasn't until the Dreamcast where 3D games really started to look good IMO. That being said I always felt the N64 games looked better than PS1 and Saturn because it always seemed smoother, probably due to anti-aliasing. Yes textures were often blurry, but personally I prefer the way the N64 handled textures over the PS1 and Saturn which were often very pixelated.

[sqoon]

For that generation of systems, it really is pick your poison when it comes to graphics.

 

N64 - Blurriness and foggy look

PSX - Triangulated and somewhat grainy, choppy polygonal (especially on early titles) look

Saturn - Very grainy and pixelated visuals on many games

 

I have all three systems and appreciate the games within the confines of what the respective systems could do. I have never been one to try to equate good graphics with a good game, so enjoying all three systems from that generation comes easy.

[Atariboy]

To me, a well programmed Nintendo 64 game after programmer's grew used to the platform does look better than the equivalent on the Playstation.

 

Even early games like Wave Race shame the graphics of most of the Playstation's 3D library (Although there are many exceptions that looked great like Ridge Racer Type IV and Crash Team Racing).

 

Honestly all the original 3D systems are very dated. It really wasn't until the Dreamcast where 3D games really started to look good IMO.

 

In general, I'd agree. I'd even take it a step further and say that most of these game's were ugly the day they came out. I at least never considered the bulk of the early 3D releases on the Playstation and Saturn as being anything but insulting to the eye's and an embaressment after being used to beautiful 2D gaming like Link to the Past during the 16 bit generation.

 

But there are some legitimately attractive 3D games across all three platforms. Those two Playstation games I mentioned for instance don't took too far removed from being next generation material. With a bit of polish they could've passed for Playstation 2 games with no trouble at all.

Edited January 28, 2013 by Atariboy

[+Gemintronic]

Storage space for textures is the reason. That's why Square defected to Sony.

[TheGameCollector]

I'm just glad they didn't go 3D with every single game. This generation still had some nice looking 2D games like Oddworld, Yoshi's Story, Gex, Tomba!, Rayman, and Mega Man 8 as well as plenty of 2D fighting games, puzzle games and RPGs.

[high voltage]

For that generation of systems, it really is pick your poison when it comes to graphics.

 

N64 - Blurriness and foggy look

PSX - Triangulated and somewhat grainy, choppy polygonal (especially on early titles) look

Saturn - Very grainy and pixelated visuals on many games

 

I have all three systems and appreciate the games within the confines of what the respective systems could do. I have never been one to try to equate good graphics with a good game, so enjoying all three systems from that generation comes easy.

 

Those consoles make Atari Jaguar games look good

[Reaperman]

Those consoles make Atari Jaguar games look good

Oh come now, really?

[roland p]

I like the perspective more on the n64. The ps1 has a strange perspective when textures come close to you.

Also, on the n64, the corners of the textures are not aligned on the pixel-grid. Which make them move more fluid when they move slowly. This difference is really clear once you emulate the n64. PS1 will remain choppy (moving a 320x240 pixel at a time instead of sub-pixels). In that part, the N64 was more future-proof

[+Gemintronic]

I like the perspective more on the n64. The ps1 has a strange perspective when textures come close to you.

Also, on the n64, the corners of the textures are not aligned on the pixel-grid. Which make them move more fluid when they move slowly. This difference is really clear once you emulate the n64. PS1 will remain choppy (moving a 320x240 pixel at a time instead of sub-pixels). In that part, the N64 was more future-proof

 

The PSX had unfixed hardware issues when released. Programmers were forced to use software to correct what should have been fixed in hardware

http://www.gamepilgrimage.com/PS1flaws.htm

[kid_vidiot]

The PSX had unfixed hardware issues when released. Programmers were forced to use software to correct what should have been fixed in hardware

http://www.gamepilgr...om/PS1flaws.htm

nice web site...that's going to kill a couple of hours later (wish the pictures still loaded).

[mbd30]

Those consoles make Atari Jaguar games look good

 

Atari fanboy alert.

 

"Club Drive" vs. "Ridge Racer Type 4" hmmm....

[Master Phruby]

That's the one thing I hate about the Jaguar is the untextured huge polygons. At least the N64 textured them.

[Reaperman]

That's the one thing I hate about the Jaguar is the untextured huge polygons. At least the N64 textured them.

Yes, and apparently N64 textured them with up to a whopping 4k worth of texture. *lol*

What an odd limit though--any idea why such a limit would exist? What (if anything) is ps1's per-poly texture limit? Or am I reading all that wrong?

 

The more I look at it, that's 100% of the n64 problem I was seeing. Textures on the big polys appear less detailed than on the little ones, and it creates quite an unattractive mess. For example in the poo-shot above, some of the poo-textures are a lot more stretched than others, creating an odd mix of perceived texture quality. If the poo texturing was closer to the same consistency on everything, it would look a lot better and they could paint in some extra detail. The more I play ps1, the more I notice that the poly counts aren't so far off, they just do a fair bit of their details with nice textures.

Edited January 28, 2013 by Reaperman

[Reaperman]

Holy jeez, the texture replacement projects look pretty darn good. (link) I'm not much of an emulation fan, but it's nice to see what can be done on the same polygons. If only n64 could have supported textures just half that nice:

 

Edited January 29, 2013 by Reaperman

[OldSchoolRetroGamer]

Holy jeez, the texture replacement projects look pretty darn good. (link) I'm not much of an emulation fan, but it's nice to see what can be done on the same polygons. If only n64 could have supported textures just half that nice:

 

 

Even without the texture replacements (which is awesome) that is one thing I like about good emulators is the ability to play the games at much greater resolutions with additional features using your PC video card to achieve filters and effects you never saw on the original consoles. PJ64 on my PC with my adaptoid USB to use original N64 controller is really cool. I have seen even some PS2 emulation running at 1080p look amazing though that does require a decent PC setup.

Edited January 29, 2013 by OldSchoolRetroGamer