Atari Jaguar is FAR from the best console..

[Lost Dragon]

6 hours ago, 5200Fanatic said:

Yeah yeah, but come on -- am I the only one who thinks the Jag games are typically dark?

Defender 2000

 

Darkly coloured sprites moving over dark backgrounds.

[marcio_napoli]

Guys, ok I'll give you that.   Of course I'm being a bit on the optimistic side, after all even the worst DC titles are running on hardware several times faster than the n64.   Of course the DC has to be more impressive on average, it's an obligation given the hardware difference.

 

Yes, I had them all at the same time, DC, PS2, Gamecube, Xbox.   Not really defending the N64 because I wanna hate on the DC, I had it too and loved it.

 

My point is that the N64 deserves far better respect than it being "a blurry mess", it really does.

 

The best N64 titles are much closer to DC quality (closer, ok? Can I use that expression now? Are we cool now?) than the best PS1 titles.

 

To put them both (N64 and PS1) in the same bag is not right, and to simplify the N64 by its worst titles (the really blurry ones) is absolutely not right either.

 

Hope this clarifies my point, but them again if yours is different, fine. We're just happy to move on with our own opinions them.

[Lost Dragon]

1 hour ago, marcio_napoli said:

Guys, ok I'll give you that.   Of course I'm being a bit on the optimistic side, after all even the worst DC titles are running on hardware several times faster than the n64.   Of course the DC has to be more impressive on average, it's an obligation given the hardware difference.

 

Yes, I had them all at the same time, DC, PS2, Gamecube, Xbox.   Not really defending the N64 because I wanna hate on the DC, I had it too and loved it.

 

My point is that the N64 deserves far better respect than it being "a blurry mess", it really does.

 

The best N64 titles are much closer to DC quality (closer, ok? Can I use that expression now? Are we cool now?) than the best PS1 titles.

 

To put them both (N64 and PS1) in the same bag is not right, and to simplify the N64 by its worst titles (the really blurry ones) is absolutely not right either.

 

Hope this clarifies my point, but them again if yours is different, fine. We're just happy to move on with our own opinions them.

3DO had it's own blurry look at times due to the way the hardware internally upscaled imagery, before outputting it to the TV, a trick Metal Gear Solid 3:Snake Eater used on PlayStation 2.

 

 

UK Press described Blue Stinger and Shadow Man as looking like N64 titles on the Dreamcast, due to limited textures. 

 

 

I went from a PlayStation to the Dreamcast, launch day buys on both. 

 

It was the higher resolution graphics that immediately put the Dreamcast apart from any late era PlayStation game which had been running in the higher resolution modes on the Sony platform. 

[Warmsignal]

As is often the case, there were some 5th gen projects that didn't see eventual release until the 6th gen. No doubt some PS2 games look a bit like the previous gen. There were some 360 games that looked PS2. I generally don't take that to be demonstration of the power of the older consoles, but rather the lackluster graphics of a particular game that has been either in development for some time, or is a budget title. Time Splitters development began immediately following the release of Perfect Dark by some of very same ex-Rare developers which founded Free Radical Design. I think you are correct, Time Splitters doesn't look particularly great for a PS2 game.

I feel N64's graphics are hit and miss taking the entire library into account. Of the gen 5 consoles, sure N64 had some of the best looking games, but I don't feel that this was always a general "rule" as some others do, especially looking back at them now. I kinda think that more PS1 games aged better due to the N64 filtering effects. I find some PS1, Saturn, even Jag offerings comparable, even preferable to some N64 visuals. As where back in the day, I would have sworn that N64 was better every time. However, graphics don't mean so much to me now, as they did then. The fact that Saturn and Jag have more 2D sprite based games, I see that as a kind of a good thing.

Edited May 29, 2020 by Warmsignal

[agradeneu]

30 minutes ago, Lost Dragon said:

3DO had it's own blurry look at times due to the way the hardware internally upscaled imagery, before outputting it to the TV, a trick Metal Gear Solid 3:Snake Eater used on PlayStation 2.

 

 

UK Press described Blue Stinger and Shadow Man as looking like N64 titles on the Dreamcast, due to limited textures. 

 

 

I went from a PlayStation to the Dreamcast, launch day buys on both. 

 

It was the higher resolution graphics that immediately put the Dreamcast apart from any late era PlayStation game which had been running in the higher resolution modes on the Sony platform. 

Some Dreamcast games like Shadow Man (?) were multiplatform ports from PS1 and N64 with slight improvements in res and better textures. That means they did not use the DC hardware to its full capabilities. 

[JagChris]

5 hours ago, agradeneu said:

The worst of all them "offensive european feel and look" must be Rayman.?

Haha goddamn autocorrect. That's supposed to be offbeat

[Lost Dragon]

2 hours ago, Warmsignal said:

As is often the case, there were some 5th gen projects that didn't see eventual release until the 6th gen. No doubt some PS2 games look a bit like the previous gen. There were some 360 games that looked PS2. I generally don't take that to be demonstration of the power of the older consoles, but rather the lackluster graphics of a particular game that has been either in development for some time, or is a budget title. Time Splitters development began immediately following the release of Perfect Dark by some of very same ex-Rare developers which founded Free Radical Design. I think you are correct, Time Splitters doesn't look particularly great for a PS2 game.

I feel N64's graphics are hit and miss taking the entire library into account. Of the gen 5 consoles, sure N64 had some of the best looking games, but I don't feel that this was always a general "rule" as some others do, especially looking back at them now. I kinda think that more PS1 games aged better due to the N64 filtering effects. I find some PS1, Saturn, even Jag offerings comparable, even preferable to some N64 visuals. As where back in the day, I would have sworn that N64 was better every time. However, graphics don't mean so much to me now, as they did then. The fact that Saturn and Jag have more 2D sprite based games, I see that as a kind of a good thing.

Think it was Games tm that in the review, said PS2  God Of War II could pass for a launch 360 title. 

 

Time Splitters, Ring Of Red, Extermination were among the first PS2 titles i had and really didn't impress, especially as i was still very much a Dreamcast fan. 

 

It wasn't until Silent Hill 2, MGS II and GTA III, i started to see the true potential of the hardware. 

 

I recently saw Sarah Jane Avory saying something along the lines of Sony had promised developers it had all the processesing power they would ever need, how disappointed she was to have it on it's knees within the first days coding on it. 

 

?

[Lost Dragon]

2 hours ago, agradeneu said:

Some Dreamcast games like Shadow Man (?) were multiplatform ports from PS1 and N64 with slight improvements in res and better textures. That means they did not use the DC hardware to its full capabilities. 

Soul Reaver was another. 

 

Picked it up after completing it on PlayStation, really loved that game. 

 

Dreamcast version simply improved the framerate and resolution. 

 

As for Shadow Man ?

 

Even playing with a guide in front of me, it never clicked, just felt so aimless. 

[marcio_napoli]

3 hours ago, Warmsignal said:

As is often the case, there were some 5th gen projects that didn't see eventual release until the 6th gen. No doubt some PS2 games look a bit like the previous gen. There were some 360 games that looked PS2. I generally don't take that to be demonstration of the power of the older consoles, but rather the lackluster graphics of a particular game that has been either in development for some time, or is a budget title. Time Splitters development began immediately following the release of Perfect Dark by some of very same ex-Rare developers which founded Free Radical Design. I think you are correct, Time Splitters doesn't look particularly great for a PS2 game.

I feel N64's graphics are hit and miss taking the entire library into account. Of the gen 5 consoles, sure N64 had some of the best looking games, but I don't feel that this was always a general "rule" as some others do, especially looking back at them now. I kinda think that more PS1 games aged better due to the N64 filtering effects. I find some PS1, Saturn, even Jag offerings comparable, even preferable to some N64 visuals. As where back in the day, I would have sworn that N64 was better every time. However, graphics don't mean so much to me now, as they did then. The fact that Saturn and Jag have more 2D sprite based games, I see that as a kind of a good thing.

Many new comments, I'll go from here!

 

I completely agree the N64 is hit and miss, because it really was.  Just like the Jag, the 64 was hard to program for as legends say, and as such only some few select developers took full advantage of its power.

 

What Nintendo, Rare, Factor 5, Acclaim and Ubisoft did with the N64 was what it really could do.  Rare for example rewrote the microcodes (please any programmer here, correct me if I'm wrong) which allowed to use higher res textures than the infamous native N64 texture cache limit.

 

That small texture cache + cartridges size + some developers being lazy or not fully understanding the hardware is what gave the N64 its infamous blurry reputation.

 

When developers said "naah, I'll extract every ounce this baby can do", graphics were far closer to DC than the other developers' poor atempts would lead you to believe.

 

In short, I'd say the N64's library is:  65% sub PS1 graphics (those lame attempts) and 35% masterpieces (by Rare and the better bunch).  But you really should focus on those 35%.  Those are using the actual N64 power.

 

When properly programmed, the N64 was insanely powerful and miles ahead the 5th generation. It's just that, sadly, few times it had its full potential unleashed (much like the Jag).

 

The Jag is a similar story.

 

I'll never judge the Jag because of lesser attempts like Aircars, Cybermorph (even though this has its followers), Checkered Flag (although I LOVE it, don't ask me why)...

 

What defines the Jag is AVP, Rayman, Skyhammer, Iron Soldier 1 - 2, Battlesphere, Raiden, Wolfenstein, etc. This is the Jag being properly programmed, and should be measured by that.

 

Those hard-to-program-for consoles have loads of hit and miss.

 

We should judge them by games which really utilized the full power.

Edited May 29, 2020 by marcio_napoli

[Arcadia]

5 hours ago, marcio_napoli said:

My point is that the N64 deserves far better respect than it being "a blurry mess", it really does.

I'll give you one thing, my RGB modded de-blurred N64 spits out HEAPS better graphics than the blur I get from my un-modded one. 

[marcio_napoli]

1 minute ago, Arcadia said:

I'll give you one thing, my RGB modded de-blurred N64 spits out HEAPS better graphics than the blur I get from my un-modded one. 

Yup, have the same, with Tim Worthington deblur RGB mod.

 

It's downright amazing, and not too many people have been exposed to N64s being so clean and sharp like that.

 

I know it's not "native" N64 graphics at this point, but internally that's the gorgeous graphics the hardware is rendering, unfortunately we need mods to get access to this gorgeous sharpness. 

 

I wonder if the UltraHDMI mod is even sharper... although it costs an island and 10 Ferraris these days.  

[Warmsignal]

Most of you guys probably already get what I've been jabbering about regarding the N64 visuals, but just in case it wasn't clear (no pun) - here ya go. I used to be of the opposite opinion, but nowadays I prefer the look of PS1 and Saturn.

 

 

[marcio_napoli]

2 hours ago, Warmsignal said:

Most of you guys probably already get what I've been jabbering about regarding the N64 visuals, but just in case it wasn't clear (no pun) - here ya go. I used to be of the opposite opinion, but nowadays I prefer the look of PS1 and Saturn.

 

 

I know what you mean and even someone like me who deeply loves the N64, I'd going the extra mile to get rid of that anti-aliasing.   

 

I have an RGB modded with deblur feature which was very expensive, and I wish I had invested in the Ultra HDMI mod before prices went nuts.

 

But here's a fact not too many people are familiar with:

 

N64's anti aliasing gets a lot of hate today, with sharp digital displays we have now.

 

I was doing 3d animation since 1994, and anti-aliasing was a very, very time consuming feature. It required very powerful hardware.

 

When the N64 was released, I remember being wowed to no end realizing it could do f##ing anti-aliasing in real time.

 

People hardly realize how impressive that was for 96's hardware because A) Nintendo honestly chose a bad implementation, over doing the amount of blur, and B) today's computers are so powerful that people no longer realize anti-aliasing was, at some point, an impressive feature to be had in real time.

 

To put in short terms:  it looks awful now. But that is NOW, in today's context.

 

In 1996 it was mind blowing this little 250 bucks SGI-born console could do such a feature in real time. From a technical POV, it was amazing.

 

It just looks lame now because of sharp displays, and how Nintendo sadly overdid it.

 

It may not look the case, but the really lacking ones are Saturn and PS1 which couldn't dream of such hardware intensive feature in real time.

[JagChris]

I remember playing mk4 on our friends N64. Then we'd go over my place and play it on my girlfriend's PSX. At first you could really notice the lack of filtering and AA. After a few minutes you no longer noticed it. So I really don't let those things bother me too much. Your mind compensates, fills in the blanks at a certain point. So if you enjoy the game, enjoy the game. Everything else is just ego. 

[philipj]

1 hour ago, marcio_napoli said:

I was doing 3d animation since 1994, and anti-aliasing was a very, very time consuming feature. It required very powerful hardware.

 

When the N64 was released, I remember being wowed to no end realizing it could do f##ing anti-aliasing in real time.

 

People hardly realize how impressive that was for 96's hardware because A) Nintendo honestly chose a bad implementation, over doing the amount of blur, and B) today's computers are so powerful that people no longer realize anti-aliasing was, at some point, an impressive feature to be had in real time.

I think AA was such a novelty for the average person in the early 90s, one had to be in the computer graphics field to pull off antialiasing. I know for me the only time I saw 3D graphics was at the mall arcade. Reading this reminded me of the "Ultra 64 Demo" I saw on YouTube with them talking about how smooth texture-mapping was back them, which implied it was a very big deal in those days. The Atari Jaguar object processor can possibly mimic smooth textures (AA) using the OP's transparency feature.

 

 

[high voltage]

The Atari Jaguar might have been the best console, but, most of the programmers weren't.

[JagChris]

They got some pretty clean polygons out of hover strike CD

[Zerosquare]

9 hours ago, philipj said:

The Atari Jaguar object processor can possibly mimic smooth textures (AA) using the OP's transparency feature.

No.

[philipj]

1 hour ago, Zerosquare said:

No.

Whatever...

[philipj]

7 hours ago, JagChris said:

They got some pretty clean polygons out of hover strike CD

Games like Hover Strike and Native is what encouraged me into the Jag scene... When I saw what the system could actually pull off was close to Playstation 1 graphics with limitations of course. 

[Lost Dragon]

I actually had a soft spot for the cartridge version of Hoverstrike, runt of the litter as it was.

 

Unconquered Lands featured some nice organic and more varied textures, clean polygons etc, but by development teams own admission moving code to the GPU only increased frame rate by between 3 and 5 fps.

 

It still lagged behind Saturn titles like Daytona USA and Wipeout (both 20 fps i believe) 

 

It seemed a little too ambitious for the Jaguar hardware.

 

PlayStation Ridge Racer and Wipeout pushing 30 fps and for the time, looked amazing.

 

Hated original Wipeout to play though,  Wipeout 2097 was the series pinnacle for myself, until they rebooted it on PSP.

 

Wipeout Fusion on PS2 just lacked any real feeling.

 

 

Wasn't until Pandemic rebooted Battlezone on PC,i really felt the game had been properly rebooted. 

 

 

Edited May 30, 2020 by Lost Dragon

[agradeneu]

2 hours ago, philipj said:

Whatever...

Dunning Kruger!

[+CyranoJ]

7 hours ago, philipj said:

Whatever...  You are absolutely correct. I have no clue what I am talking about and hadn't cleared my verbal nappy this morning.

Fixed it for you.

[5200Fanatic]

the best thing about old generation consoles is that they handled graphics differently and the images looked different. You could look at a screen and often could guess which console it was. 

Edited May 31, 2020 by 5200Fanatic

[philipj]

3 hours ago, CyranoJ said:

Fixed it for you.

I see you still get a kick out of putting words into other people mouths when you know better... But this coming from a person who some how finds a way to slip insults by way of sarcasm underhandedly. There's always a way to do things, it's how you do it that others are looking at including myself... Coding is great for games and ST pirating, but it doesn't build character, which is something you tend to lack, but then again character means nothing to some people... There's you verbal nappy.

Edited May 31, 2020 by philipj