SNES vs N64 Graphics

[Mike 01Hawk]

Recently getting back into enjoying my oldschool consoles... I swear, I'm enjoying the SNES graphics more. Other than the polygon count, is the N64 that much more of an improvement over the SNES, or is this just a fall out of 3D's 'teething' stage?

Edited December 4, 2007 by Mike 01Hawk

[ckrtech]

I didn't like the N64's graphics (or the Playstations graphics) at all for that matter. It was a move into the 3D era, but it was a move brought about too quickly. The SNES's graphics, art style, and sound synthesizer stand the test of time. The N64's certainly does not.

[chrisbid]

I didn't like the N64's graphics (or the Playstations graphics) at all for that matter. It was a move into the 3D era, but it was a move brought about too quickly. The SNES's graphics, art style, and sound synthesizer stand the test of time. The N64's certainly does not.

 

 

when they started adding textures to early 3D games, things got fugly in a hurry.

[DragonmasterDan]

the SNES was several generations into 2D. 2D games were well developed by that time and technology allowed for great things to be done for it. The N64 was one of the earlier systems where 3D was an emphasis (obviously later than the Jaguar, 3DO which was more FMV heavy, PSone and Saturn) and as a result its early gen 3D games don't hold up as well aesthetically as do the well polished SNES 2D titles.

 

Added in quick edit: I should specify I don't mean fully 3D starting with that era but rather just polygonal. In re-reading it I thought I should be more specific.

Edited December 4, 2007 by DragonmasterDan

[zach1845]

Have you seen super Mario RPG for the snes it looks more like a n64 game

althougth super mario kart 64 and mario kart for the super there is quite a difference.

[DragonmasterDan]

Have you seen super Mario RPG for the snes it looks more like a n64 game

althougth super mario kart 64 and mario kart for the super there is quite a difference.

 

Super Mario RPG like Donkey Kong Country for SNES features prerendered graphics. The polygonal character models aren't being rendered by the SNES, but rather they are digitized and then animated back frame by frame on the system.

 

There are 3D rendered SNES games but most use some sort of accelerator chip like Star Fox for example.

[A Sprite]

What DragonmasterDan said. It would be more fair to compare the N64 to the Intellivision - though more advanced than previous systems, both were actually near the bare minimum of their primary graphics types, in order to come in at a reasonable price - to the point where it affected the types of games they could realistically achieve.

 

Since then, both have been made obsolete.

 

But if we compare the SNES to the N64 2d to 2d, 3d to 3d, there is a clear generational leap in every case.

 

And in some genres, like Wrestling, Extreme Sports, and Racing, the N64 wins out over the SNES just due to the superior amounts of animation a polygon model can present vs a sprite set.

[DragonmasterDan]

What DragonmasterDan said. It would be more fair to compare the N64 to the Intellivision - though more advanced than previous systems, both were actually near the bare minimum of their primary graphics types, in order to come in at a reasonable price - to the point where it affected the types of games they could realistically achieve.

 

Since then, both have been made obsolete.

 

But if we compare the SNES to the N64 2d to 2d, 3d to 3d, there is a clear generational leap in every case.

 

And in some genres, like Wrestling, Extreme Sports, and Racing, the N64 wins out over the SNES just due to the superior amounts of animation a polygon model can present vs a sprite set.

 

Well, just a note the N64 wasn't necessarily at or around the bare minimum due to price but rather due to technology restraints. While the system was cartridge based in order to come in at a reasonable price this didn't actually directly effect its ability to produce quality graphics. The problem had more to do with the fact that real time 3D technology was just past its infancy and reaching toddler stages. yes, the N64 could have used more RAM (and this was eventually addressed with the RAM expansion later in the systems life) but that wasn't the reason for the relative ugliness.

 

Also if we're comparing the N64's position in 3D to older systems in 2D, I think maybe the 5200 or Colecovision would be a more fair comparison. The reason being there were a number of systems with large 3D libraries (and hardware in the console designed for 3D) as I stated before being the Jaguar, 3DO, Saturn and Playstation that came prior to it (and had inferior hardware).

 

Like Sprite mentioned if you compare 2D to 2D from SNES to N64 or 3D to 3D there's a HUGE difference with 3D. Watch StarFox for SNES and then compare it to StarFox 64. With 2D the SNES was pretty far along so while the N64 was a lot better (more colors, more sprites, higher video output resolution, more RAM) it's not as noticeable because the differences are far more minor with what can be done with a 2D title.

[Rybags]

You could effectively say the PS1 and N64 did 3rd generation 3D effects.

 

1st: wireframe

2nd: filled polygons with solid colour or basic texture

3rd: hardware accelerated with texture mapping

 

The problem with the old 3D stuff is 1- the machines had very little RAM, so the textures were basic at best and 2- the 3D hardware itself wasn't exactly fast.

 

As an effect of both, games often had low resolution textures stretched over objects. So, even despite the graphics being 640x480 (or whatever), the chunky textures actually made it look worse. Also, the early hardware had very little ability to do the stuff we now take for granted like dynamic lighting effects, haze, complex transparency etc.

[Gregory DG]

The N64's graphics always looked blurry to me. On the other hand, the SNES was usually pretty crisp looking.

[A Sprite]

What DragonmasterDan said. It would be more fair to compare the N64 to the Intellivision - though more advanced than previous systems, both were actually near the bare minimum of their primary graphics types, in order to come in at a reasonable price - to the point where it affected the types of games they could realistically achieve.

 

Since then, both have been made obsolete.

 

But if we compare the SNES to the N64 2d to 2d, 3d to 3d, there is a clear generational leap in every case.

 

And in some genres, like Wrestling, Extreme Sports, and Racing, the N64 wins out over the SNES just due to the superior amounts of animation a polygon model can present vs a sprite set.

 

Well, just a note the N64 wasn't necessarily at or around the bare minimum due to price but rather due to technology restraints. While the system was cartridge based in order to come in at a reasonable price this didn't actually directly effect its ability to produce quality graphics. The problem had more to do with the fact that real time 3D technology was just past its infancy and reaching toddler stages. yes, the N64 could have used more RAM (and this was eventually addressed with the RAM expansion later in the systems life) but that wasn't the reason for the relative ugliness.

 

Also if we're comparing the N64's position in 3D to older systems in 2D, I think maybe the 5200 or Colecovision would be a more fair comparison. The reason being there were a number of systems with large 3D libraries (and hardware in the console designed for 3D) as I stated before being the Jaguar, 3DO, Saturn and Playstation that came prior to it (and had inferior hardware).

 

Like Sprite mentioned if you compare 2D to 2D from SNES to N64 or 3D to 3D there's a HUGE difference with 3D. Watch StarFox for SNES and then compare it to StarFox 64. With 2D the SNES was pretty far along so while the N64 was a lot better (more colors, more sprites, higher video output resolution, more RAM) it's not as noticeable because the differences are far more minor with what can be done with a 2D title.

 

A thoughtful response - you're raising my respect for the professional writers.

 

I originally was going to use the N64/Colecovision comparison, but thought better of it when considering that aside from the Vectrex, which wasn't as influential as it was a farewell to vector technology, the previous generations of 3D console games were usually novelties, dungeon quests, space sims, basic shooters, and tech demos. Combining them all together, you probably have the same amount of 3D games as there were 2D games seen in University computers, dedicated consoles (like the Odyessey), and transitional systems few remember today after Atari conquered the market. (I'd compare the Jag to the Fairchild more than the 2600 - most programmers were abusing it's 68k chip, transforming it into an incredibly colorful Amiga.)

 

For better or for worse, the Playstation, the Saturn, and the N64 were the true pioneers into 3D gaming.

 

As far as price vs. technology is concerned, we've always had the technology to create more powerful gaming systems if price wasn't an issue. Take the Bally Astrocade - with a few modifications and extra ram into what was basically crippled arcade hardware, people could have brought the arcade experience home for just a couple hundred more.

 

Later SNK would try that very idea.

 

Same with the N64 - the technology existed for better texture mapping, but you'd at least double the price, on a consumer base that would be apathetic to the slight improvements, while resenting the need to pay more for it. At some point, common sense has to take over, and acceptable compromises made.

Edited December 4, 2007 by A Sprite

[DragonmasterDan]

A thoughtful response - you're raising my respect for the professional writers.

 

I originally was going to use the N64/Colecovision comparison, but thought better of it when considering that aside from the Vectrex, which wasn't as influential as it was a farewell to vector technology, the previous generations of 3D console games were usually novelties, dungeon quests, space sims, basic shooters, and tech demos. Combining them all together, you probably have the same amount of 3D games as there were 2D games seen in University computers, dedicated consoles (like the Odyessey), and transitional systems few remember today after Atari conquered the market. (I'd compare the Jag to the Fairchild more than the 2600 - most programmers were abusing it's 68k chip, transforming it into an incredibly colorful Amiga.)

 

For better or for worse, the Playstation, the Saturn, and the N64 were the true pioneers into 3D gaming.

 

As far as price vs. technology is concerned, we've always had the technology to create more powerful gaming systems if price wasn't an issue. Take the Bally Astrocade - with a few modifications and extra ram into what was basically crippled arcade hardware, people could have brought the arcade experience home for just a couple hundred more.

 

Later SNK would try that very idea.

 

Same with the N64 - the technology existed for better texture mapping, but you'd at least double the price, on a consumer base that would be apathetic to the slight improvements, while resenting the need to pay more for it. At some point, common sense has to take over, and acceptable compromises made.

 

Well, I basically agree with that assessment. I think it is worth noting that to make a substantial difference in the quality of graphics would have far more than doubled the price at which point the platform wouldn't have been a consumer viable product.

 

Where the N64 was in terms of 3D rendering capabilities at its release in 1996 wasn't that far behind much much much higher priced PCs. The only step up that would have made a measurable difference would have been to SGI type hardware which would have made the price astronomical. The technology did technically exist to make a noticeable difference, but my comments earlier with regard to its specifications not being the bare minimum for 3D due to price were but rather due to the technology were made with regard to technology that was available at a consumer market viable cost.

 

To make a system with significantly better 3D performance would have minimally quadrupled the price since as I mentioned earlier the technology to make a significant difference in 3D rendering wasn't even being shipped with PCs at the time

 

Added in edit: Also with regard to placement in the comparative timeline. There were 3D 16-bit games. The AH3 Thunderstrike, Virtual Racing, Star Fox, among other titles that appeared on 16-bit systems to me represent the Fairchilds of 3D gaming. The Jaguar and 3DO being perhaps the 2600s and the Saturn and Playstation being the Intellivisions and the N64 being around the 5200 or Colecovision. Again it's all a matter of perception

Edited December 4, 2007 by DragonmasterDan

[A Sprite]

A thoughtful response - you're raising my respect for the professional writers.

 

I originally was going to use the N64/Colecovision comparison, but thought better of it when considering that aside from the Vectrex, which wasn't as influential as it was a farewell to vector technology, the previous generations of 3D console games were usually novelties, dungeon quests, space sims, basic shooters, and tech demos. Combining them all together, you probably have the same amount of 3D games as there were 2D games seen in University computers, dedicated consoles (like the Odyessey), and transitional systems few remember today after Atari conquered the market. (I'd compare the Jag to the Fairchild more than the 2600 - most programmers were abusing it's 68k chip, transforming it into an incredibly colorful Amiga.)

 

For better or for worse, the Playstation, the Saturn, and the N64 were the true pioneers into 3D gaming.

 

As far as price vs. technology is concerned, we've always had the technology to create more powerful gaming systems if price wasn't an issue. Take the Bally Astrocade - with a few modifications and extra ram into what was basically crippled arcade hardware, people could have brought the arcade experience home for just a couple hundred more.

 

Later SNK would try that very idea.

 

Same with the N64 - the technology existed for better texture mapping, but you'd at least double the price, on a consumer base that would be apathetic to the slight improvements, while resenting the need to pay more for it. At some point, common sense has to take over, and acceptable compromises made.

 

Well, I basically agree with that assessment. I think it is worth noting that to make a substantial difference in the quality of graphics would have far more than doubled the price at which point the platform wouldn't have been a consumer viable product.

 

Where the N64 was in terms of 3D rendering capabilities at its release in 1996 wasn't that far behind much much much higher priced PCs. The only step up that would have made a measurable difference would have been to SGI type hardware which would have made the price astronomical. The technology did technically exist to make a noticeable difference, but my comments earlier with regard to its specifications not being the bare minimum for 3D due to price were but rather due to the technology were made with regard to technology that was available at a consumer market viable cost.

 

To make a system with significantly better 3D performance would have minimally quadrupled the price since as I mentioned earlier the technology to make a significant difference in 3D rendering wasn't even being shipped with PCs at the time

 

Added in edit: Also with regard to placement in the comparative timeline. There were 3D 16-bit games. The AH3 Thunderstrike, Virtual Racing, Star Fox, among other titles that appeared on 16-bit systems to me represent the Fairchilds of 3D gaming. The Jaguar and 3DO being perhaps the 2600s and the Saturn and Playstation being the Intellivisions and the N64 being around the 5200 or Colecovision. Again it's all a matter of perception

 

Fair enough. <---accidentally edited out my manners.

 

Either way, our side wins. The N64 should be thought of as a new beginning, not an evolution of the SNES.

 

Edit: Just because it's fun to imagine what might have been - improved textures and higher polycounts would have knocked the N64 into nearly a grand, but consumer grade PCs at the time could display games at a resolution equal to a NTSC television screen - for the cost of just enough built in ram to pull off Zelda in high definition without access delays, the N64 would have been the only system not actively assaulting anyone's eyes at the time. On the other hand, $500 and only two games at launch, I wouldn't want to be their media liason.

Edited December 4, 2007 by A Sprite

[+atari2600land]

The N64 has 2D games. Mischief Makers and Yoshi's Story are two examples. And Yoshi's Story looks wonderful.

[kevincal]

I think people tend to over-exaggerate the amount of bluriness N64 games have. I have always been obsessed with tuning my tv's brightness, color and sharpness. I just have a feeling some of your tv's sharpness isn't turned up enough or a combination of your tv's effects have the N64 games appear overly blurry. I was BIG into gaming throughout the 90's. It was NES in the very early 90's for me, then I got a Genesis in 1992 or so, then 32X, then Jaguar, then PS on launch day, then N64 on launch day. So I saw firsthand how 3D graphics evolved. Personally, I was blown away with Mario 64, Pilotwings 64, and Waverace 64, the N64's first 3 games. NO PIXELS first of all. Ya, there was SOME bluriness, but I like that more than a pixelated mess to be honest. I liked the smooth look. Waveraces water effects would not have been NEAR as good without the SMOOTHING effect the N64 produces. To this day, the water effects in Waverace 64 are incredible. That was over 10 years ago. The N64 has great graphics for the time it came out.

[fdurso224]

I would say the Super NES Graphics were Better then N64, thanks with the help of the Patient Mode 7. Yet, Mode 7 was nothing more then a "Graphical Illusion" pure & simple. It gave you an idea once you were Scaling & Rotating in a Flat Surface or Background that it made a player believe that you were in a 3D Environment, but your actually in a 2D world. Because the key word I mention was "FLAT". In Mode 7, there's no hills, mountains, anything with bumps was not particularly part of there environment.

 

Also, The art looked like it was beautifully done by humans, Objects moving look like they were coming towards you, instead of you moving towards them, & you looked like your always standing still. Prime examples are Pilotwings, F-Zero, & Super Mario Kart. Those games were Mode 7 exclusives & convince many about the Super NES'S power capacity.

 

Mode 7 was certainly a technological breakthrough, but leave it to Nintendo to capture our Imaginations, and play with our emotions.

 

Anthony....

[fdurso224]

N64 was good to.

 

Anthony....

[vdub_bobby]

I agree with kevincal - many of the N64 games looked spectacular then and still look good today.

 

Waverace 64, GoldenEye 007, Perfect Dark, Zelda, Super Mario 64, etc.

[Segataritensoftii]

Added in edit: Also with regard to placement in the comparative timeline. There were 3D 16-bit games. The AH3 Thunderstrike, Virtual Racing, Star Fox, among other titles that appeared on 16-bit systems to me represent the Fairchilds of 3D gaming. The Jaguar and 3DO being perhaps the 2600s and the Saturn and Playstation being the Intellivisions and the N64 being around the 5200 or Colecovision. Again it's all a matter of perception

So, would the 8-bit 3D games be akin to the RCA Studio II, graphics wise? RCA Studio II games were extremely simple, even to the point of boredom. Much like many of the 3D games back in the early to mid '80s, which were mostly boring maze games and flight sims. Elite would have been much like Baseball for the system. A very rich, very complex, perhaps a bit too complex for the system to handle, gaming experience. If so, I imagine that the Isometric 3D titles would be, gameplay wise, akin to the ZX81/Timex Sinclair 1000. Very simple, but got the job done, and was at least fun enough to keep you occupied.

[DragonmasterDan]

Added in edit: Also with regard to placement in the comparative timeline. There were 3D 16-bit games. The AH3 Thunderstrike, Virtual Racing, Star Fox, among other titles that appeared on 16-bit systems to me represent the Fairchilds of 3D gaming. The Jaguar and 3DO being perhaps the 2600s and the Saturn and Playstation being the Intellivisions and the N64 being around the 5200 or Colecovision. Again it's all a matter of perception

So, would the 8-bit 3D games be akin to the RCA Studio II, graphics wise? RCA Studio II games were extremely simple, even to the point of boredom. Much like many of the 3D games back in the early to mid '80s, which were mostly boring maze games and flight sims. Elite would have been much like Baseball for the system. A very rich, very complex, perhaps a bit too complex for the system to handle, gaming experience. If so, I imagine that the Isometric 3D titles would be, gameplay wise, akin to the ZX81/Timex Sinclair 1000. Very simple, but got the job done, and was at least fun enough to keep you occupied.

 

Yeah, I was actually thinking about some of the old vector 3D games as well as being the Space Wars of 3D gaming.