This.Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Tiger
Printable View
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Tiger
So Barone is a Crystal Dynamics fanboy? Huh. But really, you can't possibly expect people to take you seriously after you say something crazy like "Gex is better-known than Banjo".
Sure, I did, but that doesn't mean that it is only a negative term. It isn't; it can be either way depending on context.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118
That is one thing it means, but it isn't the only thing.Quote:
In the case of these 5th generation systems, Pixelated means exactly what myself and others in this very thread are calling it. A texture so low resolution that any and all detail is lost, resulting in nothing but a mess of large pixels.
If you don't care how the term is actually used and won't even consider that your definition is outdated and wrong, then there's no point in discussing anything with you about this.Quote:
I don't give a shit about what hipster indie devs think Pixelated means. I don't care what the posters on NeoGAF think it means. And I don't care if Digital Foundry uses it in that context when addressing idiots. In this conversation right here and now, the term pixelated means what it's dictionary definition says it is. Because that is what the term meant when these systems were having games made for them. When people refer to pixelated textures when referring to 5th Generation systems, they mean so pixelated that all detail is lost.
Besides that, there is no substance to your position besides arguing about semantics (whether the term low-rez or pixelated should be used is not exactly some huge issue) and hating on the N64's hardware.
Of course, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Tiger
Certainly there are many hardware factors involved in why graphics look as they do beyond just the screen resolution (Playstation has hardware transparencies and Saturn only does in a very limited way, to make one of the most obvious examples, and quads vs. triangles), but the games are as they are; we can only compare what was mde.Quote:
32-bit games don't use textures so detailed that the resolution obscures some of the detail from every angle. If Croc for PSX has the exact same assets and hardware, but an option to run in a lower resolution, then the lower resolution would affect the detail you see. But there are so many factors involved with that generation's hardware and software, as far as how textures appear.
Sure, though all three systems can have better-looking 3d graphics in emulation than they can in the real hardware. I generally prefer the look of real hardware over emulation, but there's no question that emulator shots look a lot cleaner than the actual systems can do.Quote:
Playstation game textures are more detailed before being fed through the PSX hardware, this is why they can look better through emulation.
Sure, if the textures are higher resolution. However, in cases of a multiplatform game where the game runs at a lower resolution on one system than another, the entire screen is going to be a bit more pixelated (in a bad way) on the lower-resolution version. That's what I was pointing out there. This is equally true for something like the Saturn version of Croc or current-gen games, since many games run at lower resolutions on the Xbox One than they do on PS4. People can tell. This is a different issue from pixelated textures and is probably a bit more subtle of a thing -- you have to be comparing the different versions to really notice the difference, usually -- but it is worth mentioning.Quote:
A port running in a lower resolution than another version can still have much more detailed textures. The biggest factor is: the detail of the actual textures.
So then what the hell are you trying to say? Is it good or bad in the context of this conversation? You're derailing this discussion into a pointless discussion over semantics when the definition you're talking about isn't even the one that's relevant here.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
But it's the definition that is actually relevant to this conversation. Therefore the only one that matters here.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
And if you don't see the flaw in using a modern hipster definition of pixelated when we're talking about 20 year old gaming hardware, thus making the definition from 20 years ago more relevant to the conversation, then there's no point in talking to you either.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
And there's no substance to your position other than you love the N64 and are incapable of seeing the severe cost those lovely filters, z-buffers, and perspective correct rendering came with.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
I can say some of the N64 games Soulis mentioned look good, as there are a few that do. You however are too blinded by your own fanboyism to even once admit "Yeah, those Saturn shots look cleaner and sharper than what I see on the N64. Yeah, those textures are better too." This is why you're labeled an idiot and a fanboy on this forum. This is why no one takes you seriously. This is why you're a laughing stock around here and on other forums where you're equally infamous.
I said it WAS at the time and it surely was, you little twerp.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
Crystal Dynamics was a great developer back in the '90s. It's interesting to see you trying to making fun of me for giving them credit, you're just making yourself look even worse at this point.
By far, the most impressive thing I've ever seen is A Black Falcon's ability to bend reality around his fixed interpretation of the video gaming world. I've never met someone so adamant and yet at the same time so slippery as a fish. You cannot pin his statements or responses down.. for anything. His ability to ignore even his own statements, is impressive. It's like he mentally shuts down, or some kind of mental block. And I've dealt with some serious delusional people in real life, to the point that I think they might seriously be mentally dysfunctional/disabled, and yet ABF still amazes me. He's well written and his structure of communication is fine. It has to be some kind of abnormal denial/defensive mechanism. I mean, I expect him, after a hundred pages of this nonsense across forums, to eventually rage out call everyone assholes. That would probably be the normal thing to do at this point. But he doesn't. He continues on.. and on.. and on. I don't know how you guys have the energy to continue the good fight. I can only read so much of his threads. Yet, I still pop in from time to time. ABF, if you're reading this.. I really do wonder if you're like this in real life - or if this is just a retro game thing/quirk. Of course, if you really are delusional as some of the people I've met - you'll simply dismiss all of this anyway. (I feel like an asshole for writing this, but.. it's the honest truth).
Anyways, continue on.
There's a reason why Banjo is still a fondly-remembered classic, and a series with games released until a few years ago that may still come back, while Gex didn't make it out of the '90s. Maybe the Gex games sold well on PS1 because of lacking competition, but that's about it. Gex also peaked with its first game -- the first one got the highest scores (~80% average on gamerankings), while the sequels scored lower, with the N64 versions being the worst review-wise: http://www.gamerankings.com/browse.h...numrev=3&site= It's also worth mentioning that only the first Banjo game released in the '90s, while all the rest of the games are from the '00s. But still, I have never thought of Gex as a character that was actually popular. I don't remember knowing anyone who cared about Gex, he wasn't licensed all over, etc. Rare's characters were more visible, though for Banjo a lot of his popularity was after the '90s, while the Gex series of course died after the last release in '99.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barone
Crystal Dynamics was an okay developer, but never really great. They've never made a game with a 90% or higher review average (Gamerankings, Metacritic, Mobygames, what have you), as far as I can tell, for example. As far as their '90s games go I can understand why 3DO or Legacy of Kain series fans would like them, but those are both somewhat niche audiences. I presume you're in one or the other. Of course their most successful games are their Tomb Raider games that they now have been working on for some years, but that's well after the '90s.Quote:
Crystal Dynamics was a great developer back in the '90s. It's interesting to see you trying to making fun of me for giving them credit, you're just making yourself looking even worse at this point.
You started the semantic argument when you reposted that post full of Saturn screenshots. Is it good or bad here? Mostly bad, but not entirely.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118
Definitions shouldn't change based on where you use them. The definition of something should be the same anywhere. Who cares if you're talking about current-gen or 20 year old systems? There is no reason to use different terms for each, that's confusing.Quote:
But it's the definition that is actually relevant to this conversation. Therefore the only one that matters here.
And if you don't see the flaw in using a modern hipster definition of pixelated when we're talking about 20 year old gaming hardware, thus making the definition from 20 years ago more relevant to the conversation, then there's no point in talking to you either.
You sure do love to exaggerate the "severe cost" of N64 graphics, yes. We know.Quote:
And there's no substance to your position other than you love the N64 and are incapable of seeing the severe cost those lovely filters, z-buffers, and perspective correct rendering came with.
I know you have clearly convinced yourself that this false statement is true, but it is, of course, false.Quote:
I can say some of the N64 games Soulis mentioned look good, as there are a few that do. You however are too blinded by your own fanboyism to even once admit "Yeah, those Saturn shots look cleaner and sharper than what I see on the N64. Yeah, those textures are better too."
First, if you've read my posts, you would know that I have said that I prefer the filtered N64 look to the sharper look of PS1 or Saturn graphics. I think it looks better. You just need to admit that people can disagree about things -- this stuff is all opinion, not objective truth. So there's nothing to "admit" here; of course PS1/Saturn graphics are sharper, but it doesn't make them look better; quite the opposite. The whole point of complaining about pixelated Saturn/PS1 textures while praising filtered N64 textures is saying "I like the blurry filtered look more than the sharp pixel-accurate look", though other factors like perspective correction and such are important as well, it's certainly not only about texture filtering.
As for "clean", I, again, don't think of the 3d graphics of any of the consoles that generation as looking "clean". That's something you don't see until late '90s PC games and the Dreamcast. Unless you mean 'clean' as a synonym for 'sharp'? If so see above. I know you said this for a few high-res Saturn games, but do you think PS1 graphics are "clean", popping, warping polygons and all? The texture warping alone should pretty much rule the term out. That's not a clean look. And of course the N64 has its own issues (textures, framerates).
Textures - Of course PS1/Saturn games usually have higher resolution textures than N64 games do, I say this constantly so I don't know what you are talking about here. It's just that I put more importance on things like getting rid of warping textures, lines between polygons like you see on the PS1, those hard edges that N64 smoothing gets rid of, etc. than I do high-res textures.
The personal attacks need to stop. It's not okay to lie about people like that. Here's a hint -- just because you have a big circle of N64-haters here does not mean that you are objectively right. It's mostly matter-of-opinion stuff. Admit that and stop the insults and these threads would go much better.Quote:
This is why you're labeled an idiot and a fanboy on this forum. This is why no one takes you seriously. This is why you're a laughing stock around here and on other forums where you're equally infamous
(This is one reason why I often mention that the N64's hardware graphics features require more power than the PS1 or Saturn could ever match -- the N64's powerful hardware and graphics features are an objective advantage for the system. The other systems have their own advantages as well, but that's a big one for the N64. This kind of discussion is of course mostly going to be about matters of opinion, but it's nice to try to find SOMETHING more objective to discuss sometimes, whether it is review scores or hardware power.)
No not really at all . Quite a lot of N64 games run at really low res and almost every N64 game (other than Mario 64) suffered from blury textures and washed out colours look, even with a mod RBG N64 . I like the N64 a lot and some of it's games looked amazing and were amazing to play but when it came to textures and a clean display both the PS and Saturn did better for most games (though they had other issues of their own tbf, like with polygon folding)Quote:
Not low screen resolution, low texture resolution. It's not about screen resolutions, all three systems are quite similar there
Most N64 racers didn't look great or even run at 30 fps , it's a one aera the PS really had the N64 beat. And while its quite sad to always go on and on about Sega Rally . It looked and run way better than most N64 racers tbh .Quote:
Then you haven't played many N64 racers. From very early in N64's life Top Gear Rally eliminated the pop up in racing games for me altogether. Later racing games like TG Overdrive (i forgot to mention this in my list), WDC, Bettle A Racing, were pretty much pop up free and smooth. Dunno why you bring up Rush. Or maybe i know why. Because it looks crap. Or because ABF brings it up. But for me it's just an ugly looking game, like Cruisin USA and not a representative of good looking N64 racers.
"Highest score", "gamerankings"? What the heck are you talking about?!?!Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
Again, what the heck are you talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
I posted shots of Saturn games with good, clean, crisp textures that are better than what you see on the N64. You tried to claim they were pixelated which was complete BS. When called out you went down this rabbit hole of trying to redefine what pixelated meant.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
This is what we call context. It's also why English is one of the most confusing languages for people to learn. It's not going to change anytime soon just because you don't like it.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
Since the majority of us in THIS thread on THIS forum see pixelated as being when an image is so low res it loses detail and clarity and becomes Pixelvomit, let's just stick with that definition shall we? Why don't you pick a different word to describe what you really mean and what you actually find bad about those Saturn shots.
Well let's see, on the Saturn we put up with occasional texture warping, and some occasional polygon glitches. But overall the good games look solid with minimal glitches, and they typically have really good quality textures. And it's all presented in a very clean and crisp image. The occasional issues that only rear their ugly heads on early titles or titles that are either bad or pushing things too far isn't really that big of an issue when they're not present in the bulk of the systems good games. In this case cutting out texture filtering and z-buffering was worth the better image and texture quality.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
On the N64 however, we have a large majority of games suffering from very blurry, poor quality textures. On top of that alot of games just look blurry on top of this. So not only are the textures blurry, but the edges of character models are rather blurry. You can't get away from it, there's maybe only a handful of games on the system that don't suffer from this issue. Was the hardware Z-Buffer and Texture filtering really worth the cost of being able to have better quality textures and render in higher resolutions more easily? Especially when in many cases the Saturn and even the PS1 are able to use software and art style implementations to avoid those issues?
In my opinion it wasn't worth it. It wasn't worth doing until the Dreamcast came along, and we could have both at the same time.
If this was just your opinion, we wouldn't be having this issue. The issue here is you keep bashing your opinion over our heads as though it's correct and absolute fact. You claim that Saturn and PS1 games look pixelated when in reality it's that you're so used to blurry N64 games that you think any level of sharpness, clarity, or detail is a bad thing. Those games that are being brought up are not pixelated by any means. It's not just me pointing this out to you, it's almost everyone else in this conversation every time it happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
If you you prefer blurry N64 graphics that's fine. That's your preference. But don't sit here and bash the other two systems by calling their games pixelated just because you don't like clean image quality. Don't sit here and try to say N64 games have better textures when the factually do not. Don't sit here and try to say the textures look good or fine when they don't. Again if it was just filtering we wouldn't be having this discussion. The issue with the N64 is that it's heavily filtering very poor quality textures to try and hide just how bad they are. You claim my Ryu example was too extreme. Well here's what your N64 games look like with the filtering turned off:
http://i.imgur.com/cz6IJ.png
Notice how awful it looks? Those are poor quality pixelated textures. The heavy filtering is used to try and hide that.
Meanwhile here's Sonic Jam on the Saturn:
http://info.sonicretro.org/images/d/..._Jam_world.png
Notice how much better the textures are? Yeah, you can see the tiny pixels that make up the textures. But you can also make out what they hell they are supposed to be. If the N64 was using those kind of textures, no one would be complaining here.
And on the Saturn you don't see those issues very often. I'd rather have hard edges, and crisp textures than have the entire screen look like it's smeared in vaseline. I'd rather be able to clearly see objects than have to wait for my eyes to adjust to the constant blur that's going on on the N64.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
We do not hate the N64. We simply don't see it has this mythical system you see it as. We like it's games, we just don't like it's poor image quality and other issues brought about by it's bottlenecked design.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
And again this is why we get annoyed with you. This is no longer opinion. This is you trying to state it as a technical fact. You ignore the fact that late PS1 games implemented Software Z-Buffers. You ignore the fact that many games on both systems got around the blocky texture issue by simply using better quality textures and rendering in a higher resolution. You ignore the fact that that the Saturn wasn't really pushed to it's limits.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
You are an N64 fanboy who can't deal with criticism of his favorite system. You can't accept the flaws the system has. You can't accept that maybe most of us here prefer cleaner image quality. When we bring up "Yeah, but we don't like blurry images" you try to pass it off to us as this major technical achievement that's so incredible that we should be in awe of those extremely blurry games, instead of disgusted by them. It's delusional and annoying.
If this was just casual opinions being debated it'd be one thing. But you bring this up in TECHNICAL HARDWARE discussions. That's part of the issue.
The reason that the N64's generation-exclussive hardware features aren't the objective advantage they might seem to be completely out of context is:
Most of the filtering was intended to compliment computer graphics which were already well rounded and balanced. Nintendo decided to toss them into a console, but took away the base feature they were supposed to polish off. Filtering a lack of detail results in the exact opposite of the intention of their invention.
The straighter edges, minimalized warping and bluuring of textures only draws attention to how blocky the low polygon models are and how poor the texture map detail often is. So it not only wound up causing the opposite of the effect these filters were designed for, but it also had the opposite effect of what Nintendo was hoping for.
Some developers learned how to balance things out as much as could be done, especially later on in the console's lifespan, but like the SNES it launched so late that it's straddling generations and by the time more games were being balanced and the most impressive ones were coming out, the standard was Dreamcast and PS2.
On top of all this, the 32-bit generation was a breakthrough for 2D gaming. Even if Nintendo had created an environment friendly for 2D games, all of those filters have a much more negative effect on 2D graphics than unbalanced 3D while providing no benefit.
Im sorry but i will disagree with you here. Sega Rally is one of the few Saturn Games i own and play all the time and in no way it looks better than something like WDC, Top Gear Rally or TG Overdrive. These N64 racers run at smooth 30 fps and don't suffer from pop-up. Sega Rally has a lot of visual problems. The dithering is very annoying even on a small CRT, the dust effects are so ugly that look almost buggy and become distracting to me, there is a very noticeable pop-up and the textures, are nice at some parts but they also look too low res and sharp at the same time, too sharp for it's own good. Sometimes i'm not sure what i'm looking at in the distance, i only see fat pixels changing colors. A tiny amount of filtering in the distance would help this game a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Andromeda
It may look better than Cruisin USA, Rush or MRC. Or Mario Kart (although Mario Kart has infinite draw distance in all levels except Rainbow Road). But compared to the good looking N64 racers is far behind. Only the good looking PS1 racers can look as good or better than those games.
Beatle Adventure Racing is also very impressive with huge levels and no pop up that the Saturn could never handle. The car itself even has some neat real time environmental reflections that look great even now. Sega Rally Saturn couldn't even handle the glass on the windows right. It doesn't even look like the car is made out of a shiny metal because of the complete lack of visual effects on the body.
Sure, maybe Sega Rally plays better of feels better (that's a matter of taste). But looking better than the good looking N64 racers (considering Sega Rally is also one of the best looking Saturn Racers)? I just can't see how.
Again, i'm not going to argue that Sonic Jam has better textures than Mario 64. It's obvious. But again, you are making this look worse by making the Sonic picture look as good as possible and the Mario picture as bad as possible. Look how the camera in Mario is close to the ground, showing big surfaces without features and how you are using a fly by view for Sonic showing more objects at higher distance. Even the size of the pictures are different, making Mario look as bad as possible compared to the tiny Sonic pic.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118
Of course it would look better this way. Even if Mario 64 had better textures (which it does not) Sonic would still look better using these 2 particular pictures. You also pick Mario 64 and say "here's what your N64 games look like with the filtering turned off" and yet, a few post before you admit that Mario 64 "avoids the issue by almost not using textures", thus you know it's not a representative for good looking Textures on the machine, while comparing it with the no1 BEST looking Saturn game when it comes on textures.
Now, here's how easily i can defend Mario 64, even with it's shitty textures, with one similar unfiltered pic (since you use unfiltered images from emulators to show off the textures behind):
http://s10.postimg.org/ykcnmk7nt/Untitled.png
What is this sorcery? This example looks almost as good as your Sonic example by only using a different scene and camera. Only thing missing is a Sonic Jam picture showing a big surface from up close and BAM. Suddenly Mario 64 has better textures according to my carefully made post. I can definitely make Mario 64 look nice and hide it's imperfections by choosing good scenes and camera angles, just as you can make a good looking game look like shit using the same method.
You always exaggerate one's problems and try to shine the best light possible on the other's strengths. There is a difference, yes, but you try so hard to make it look like the gap is bigger than it really is. I don't see how other's can't see this problem with your posts here.
Ah and Sonic Jam was an exception in the Saturn library and i think we also already covered how the small scale, lack of enemies and lack of things to do and see overall help things. It feels exactly like a graphics demo and nothing more.
Now, lets see how some N64 games on a similar tier as Sonic Jam as far as graphics representation for each system goes look while being unfiltered (obvious emulation shots, to show textures behind filters obviously):
http://s9.postimg.org/req53tdun/fddgdfg.png
http://s30.postimg.org/evjygkt0h/dgdffgf.png
http://s12.postimg.org/rgu2v6hlp/hgfhhf.png
http://s10.postimg.org/l4se5cssp/hgfhhf.png
These look way better than Mario 64 and closer to the likes of Sonic Jam, even in pictures that show big surfaces and no features. Using further camera angles, they can look extremely beautiful texture wise or in whatever aspect you want to look at. Some textures are still too low detail (like the grass) but yeah, not all textures can look nice without filtering i guess since some of them relied a bit too much on that. But overall, it's not as bad as you try to make it look.
Resolution affects pixellation, yes. That is not the same thing as saying that the resolution determines pixellation. There are other factors that go into it -- and not just filtering. This should be really really obvious and really really easy to understand. It really depends on the particulars of the game. In some cases, lower resolution textures will actually look less pixellated, because there's fewer aspects to pixellate. A good example of this is Dead or Alive, which has higher resolution textures in the Saturn version, but the Playstation version has a generally less-pixellated appearance with its combination of minimal textures and gourad shading. Or look at Assault Rigs for an example within the same game. It has a gimmick where it starts off with a low-detail Tron-inspired look, and as you progress, more and more objects are given more detailed "realistic" looking textures. Unfortunately the "upgraded" textures are more pixellated and, contrary to developer intent, the game ends up looking worse at the end than at the beginning.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
I don't think Croc has lower resolution textures on the Saturn (nor do I think that was ever "often" the case for multiplatform games). It looks more pixellated primarily because the character models are larger relative to the environments, resulting in the viewing angle of the environments being closer. It also has higher (too much) contrast in the lighting, which further accentuates the appearance. And it lacks transparencies, which makes the relevant specific objects look more pixellated, although the Playstation version didn't feature tons of transparency to begin with so it's not a huge factor.
Here's a screen comparison from the intro. (Youtube shot but good enough for the point I'm making here.) This shot is particularly unflattering to the Saturn version IMO. The light and shadows are absurd, looking as if it's nighttime but with someone shining a worklight on the scene. But look at that boulder. The details are the same. It appears more pixellated because it occupies more of the screen, but it's clearly the same textures.
http://puu.sh/lMK5r/5a19a0b420.jpg
If the textures in the Saturn version there were lower resolution, they'd be distorted. They wouldn't look the same at all.
Oh my god, that is not more detail. Did you just invent your own definition of the word "detail"?Quote:
I just explained what I was talking about there, and yes, in effect it does. On the N64, the pixels in the base texture you can't see are MUCH larger and much more visible than the pixels in the textures as you see them with full effects on in the game. So, those filtering effects are a form of detail which does not exist in the base texture. If you look at the base texture, areas which are shaded in what you see on screen are actually made up of large, blocky pixels. The filtering smooths that out, adding (blur) detail to what is seen. The Playstation and Saturn just display the texture as drawn, but on N64 the texture that was drawn is not what you see; you see a filtered version of it.
think we can all agree the N64 clearly had more bits, numerically speaking
frankly i wish the PS4/XBONE were measured in bits
Man, I wish that someday it will be possible to mod a N64 with a switch that turns just the texture filtering on and off. Even that Mario 64 shot looks and feels so much better unfiltered.
The problem though is that the biggest filter the N64 has is the terrible video quality. I finally got a working RGB mod and it is the minimum image quality everyone should play the games with. You can also see all kinds of imperfections in the rendering and how dithered shading and transparencies tend to be and how bands of patterns form. Some games remind of the fullscreen dithered haze of Playstation games.
From the games I've tested so far in RGB, there also always seam holes in random places, like a sliver in the middle if a rockface that shows the 2D background behind all the 3D. These are always popping in and out of view, but aren't a major problem. The edge filtering also has artifacts that appear as chips cut into or protruding off of the models. It just shows how the graphics aren't perfectly solid, they're just a step slightly further past good Saturn games. Even with a crystal clear video signal though, games that layer every fliter and effect at once (like Conker) appear very muddy and look like an old VHS tape or low quality streaming video.
These things don't ruin my idea of N64 graphics, but what the games really look like behind the filter of blurry video output or in emulation are both different than what the console is actually rendering.
I wasn't trying to do anything. I simply googled Sonic Jam and Mario 64 with Filtering disabled and picked the first shots that came up. However, the Camera in that Mario shot is still pretty far away. Look at Mario's size and compare it to the size he is in your shot. It's almost the same, meaning the camera is the same distance away. The glaring issue there is that it's a very low res texture being stretched across a very wide area.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulis
It doesn't use a lot of textures, therefore I'd expect what few textures it does use to be decent. They're not. And Sonic Jam is no where near the best Saturn game out there, even when it comes to textures. I simply chose those games for comparison because it seemed fitting to compare 3D Sonic to 3D Mario.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulis
The pixels are still pretty noticeable in that shot, More so than the SOnic Jam shot. As for a close up, I don't have the time to take one right now, but here's one I found on google that's a little better:Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulis
http://www.powersonic.com.br/games/c...2bits/jam7.jpg
Notice the textures on Sonic, the floor, and the wall all still look fine, even when the camera is closer. Here's some video footage for you too:
Notice how when the camera get's close to things the textures still look leaps and bounds better than the textures in Mario 64. So no, they don't just go BAM and look equally bad.
Or I did a quick and crude comparison with what I had available. But the point still stands, even with the camera further away, those textures are still lower quality and look worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulis
Sonic R:Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulis
Sonic 3D Blast:
Burning Rangers:
Quake:
Powerslave:
Duke Nukem 3D:
Shining Force III:
Are you noticing a trend here? All these games have really good quality textures that still look good even when the camera get's up close and personal. So are these all extreme exceptions that are just graphical demos? Or is it possible that the Saturn typically has better quality textures than the N64.
While yes they look better than Mario 64, they still look worse than any of the games I've posted footage of above. They're all still pretty low res and you can still see the pixels easily even when the camera is far away. If anything you've just proven that even some of the best looking N64 games still have textures that are well below your typical Saturn game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulis
Ahh-hahahahaha... "blur detail". That's a new one.Quote:
Originally Posted by j_factor
Does this mean if we smear our TVs with Vaseline we'll get the equivalent 16K resolution?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomaitheous
No. I just proven that the difference is not as big when making comparisons vs good looking games. Does the N64 has lower quality textures in general? Sure, but that's because most devs didn't care much about the system and there are less good looking games on the N64 vs the other 2 consoles. But the good looking games still have good enough quality textures.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118
Also, The Sonic Special stage and Burning Rangers examples are bad. Both seem to have very simplistic and cartoony textures that feature large areas of solid colors in them, thus no visible pixels at all. They don't seem to have the natural looking bumping "noise" of the textures in Sonic Jam or Banjo-Kazzoie/Tooie. I hope you get what i'm saying.
Edit: Oh and one more thing. One of the reasons i believe Banjo has superior textures than, say, Sonic Jam is because they have more varied art in them and don't look like tiles, at least it's not so obviously tiled. Sonic has all these... square thingies. Which is no different than a brick wall or something. I mean all they have to do is make a small texture of high quality and repeat it infinite times to cover large parts of the map.
Banjo has a much bigger variety of different textures at any given time, with nice looking figures on the walls for instance (as you can see in the pictures). These cover much larger surfaces before they get repeated again, giving a much more natural look. But this is more a matter of art style than a technical thing i suppose. But still, texture variety is just as important as quality in some cases like this. And the end result is just better in Banjo for me. I mean how many times you have to see the same tiled texture in Sonic Jam before it gets boring?
Those "Good enough" textures in those N64 shots are still a substantial step down from the textures in all the examples I've posted so far. They're lower resolution and quite blocky looking. This isn't the same as when ABF was saying just because he could tell the image was made of pixels it was pixelated. Those textures actually are on the verge of being overly pixelated. The pixels are the size of legos and there's a significant loss in detail, even when the camera is not right up in front of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulis
And if Sonic 3D Blast and Burning Rangers aren't good enough, then how about Grandia?:
How about Taromaru?:
Thunder Force V?:
Mass Destruction?:
Um... i don't think some of the games i already gave as examples like Doom 64, Goemon's Adventure or the starting area in EWJ 3D look like they have "substantially" worse textures overall. Apart from the added blurriness of the filters, the textures themselves are pretty comparable. I could post some unfiltered shots if you like but i'm kinda tired of this tbh.
Also:
I'd like your opinion on this. I really do believe that Banjo games are among the best looking games in that generation, even texture wise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulis
Someone should do some filter-less screen caps of Resident Evil 2 on the N64. I'm curious how it compares.
Everything looks a bit more compressed. Pre-rendered backgrounds take a lot of space and it's not an ideal situation for a cartridge based console, plus they tried to fit all the FMVs and content of both CDs in there. The end result is amazing to say the least. But the PS1 version is still superior if you count out the somewhat less stable 3D models.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomaitheous
http://s24.postimg.org/krcs90a1x/Untitled.png
Meanwhile, here is another game with good textures (unfiltered shots) for your consideration:
http://s12.postimg.org/hgf7bwvh9/dfgdfg.png
http://s3.postimg.org/qc76qf2wj/hjhjgjg.png
Well, Sonic World is a small little demo area that is trying to replicate the look of Green Hill Zone:Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulis
https://info.sonicretro.org/images/1/1b/Ghz.png
Of course it's not going to have as much texture variety. It's not like it's a system limitation though. I mean the system uses CDs, they could easily put a buttload of different textures on the disc if they made it a full game.
Look at titles like Sonic R if you want an idea of more texture variety on the same level of quality. Every stage in that game has gorgeous textures that aren't pixelated and have good detail. Honestly when people bring up Banjo, Donkey Kong, Conker, etc. on the N64, my first thought of a Saturn equivalent is always Sonic R, because the art style is very similar.
And games like Doom do look nice and on par with Saturn and PS1, they are the exception. Many of these games have poor quality textures, even good ones like Banjo have textures below Saturn quality when we remove the filtering.
You know with that all turned off it actually does look pretty close to the PS1 version. The Pac-Man game looks ok too, though I do see some poor quality textures here and there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulis
I think we could also bring up Ninpen Manmaru on the Saturn:
http://i.imgur.com/Ifi69oN.jpg
The floor seems to be as low res as the worst floor parts of Banjo Kazooie but the walls don't look bad at all IMO.
Not a high profile title by any means though.
Hmm, the textures in this game don't look quite higher res than Banjo, even on the walls. If anything, the pixels on the left wall are even bigger/blockier. However, the game manages to look good because it uses nice, contrasting colors. The brick wall on the right isn't of higher quality, resolution wise, than your average brick wall tile, but they gave the bricks more different colors and it also looks like each brick has it's own texture pattern which makes it look less repeated. Which is nice.
I think in this case it's more about art direction > graphical capabilities.
I enjoy unfiltered graphics too. Wish all games had this option too, including modern day released games...Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Tiger
At the time filtering made sense on the PC but not so much on consoles IMO due to their video outputs and the CRT TVs already smoothing out the graphics and reducing the definition of the image.
I also would like to know if there's a way to disable the texture filtering on the N64 through a hardware mod.
But isn't texture variety on screen limited by the RAM or VRAM? I mean, you could have a billion different textures on the storage medium but that doesn't mean the system could display them all at once.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118
True, but I don't think Sonic World is really the limit of that. You're forgetting the entire floor of that level is being done by VDP2 which has it's own dedicated memory for it's textures/tiles/bitmaps. I think it's really just a case of art style trying to replicate Green Hill zone. We have plenty of examples of games with equally good textures and more variety on the system. Some of which I've brought up. NiGHTS into Dreams is a good example here. It has texture qualtiy on par with what we see in Sonic Jam, but it also has a lot more variety:Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulis
Another good example of good quality textures and good variety is Sonic R:
Interesting thing with the Saturn, while the PS1 has a 2kB Texture cache, and the N64's is 4kB, the Saturn has 0kB of Texture Cache. However, due to it having dedicated hardware framebuffers and VDP1 being able to read from VRAM and write to the buffers simultaneously, the Saturn effectively has 512KB of memory it can use for a combination of command lists and texture cache. This is why when you look at Sega's official specs you have VRAM written as follows:
1.5MB VRAM:
2x 256KB Dual Frame Buffers (VDP1's Frame Buffers)
512KB Cache for Textures (VDP1's 512KB of VRAM)
512KB VRAM for VDP2.
Now how much of an impact that has on texture variety I don't know, someone with more knowledge and experience should weigh in on this. But it should give it a clear edge in texture quality I'd imagine. The Saturn does have less total RAM than the N64, so the N64 might be able to have more texture variety, but it comes at a cost of them all being really poor quality due to the poor texture cache size.
With analog controls maybe NinPen Manmaru could have been better, but it's d-pad only, sadly, and doesn't control well. That's not good, for a 3d platformer. The graphics are not great either. I bought it anyway though because I like platformers and wanted to try it. The controls really hurt it though, unfortunately. And as for the graphics, levels are all pretty small arenas, with none of the scale of a Mario 64 or Spyro or something.
Also, that no-filtering Mario 64 shot looks so so bad... it's kind of mid-'90s-charmingly bad, but it's bad and the real Mario 64 looks far better. The Banjo shots are a little better, but still look really rough compared to the real game. Those hardware effects are incredibly important parts of what make N64 games look good.
I should note though, it's worth mentioning again that if Nintendo had allowed N64 games to totally turn off all the effects, including z-buffering for perspective correction, etc., the N64 would be able to display FAR more polygons on screen than it does. Lots of potential polys are used up by the hardware drawing all of those effects. So yeah, a no-effects N64 game wouldn't look like that exactly, it could have more polygons.
Also, I've said for a long time that one of the worst things Nintendo did was not offer alternate microcodes. Not allowing one with the effects off in 3d I'm fine with, but there definitely should have been a 2d-centric microcode option with more pixel-accurate graphics; 2d games are often more hurt than helped by all those effects they must use. The N64 was designed for alternate microcodes, but only some first and second-party games and a bare handful of third-party games from top teams who convinced Nintendo to let them change the microcode -- Boss Games and Factor 5, most notably -- are known to mess with such things. I know most teams weren't as good as those two at programming, but even just the default one and a 2d one would have been great, and also more documentation and support for teams who did want to tackle trying their own, instead of not talking about it and mostly keeping it as an in-house-only thing. First parties not giving good documentation to third parties is a common problem on a LOT of classic consoles, though, of course; Sega did it as well at times, certainly.
But still, it is interesting to see what N64 games look like with the filtering off... and the results sure are ugly. Of course though, had the N64 not had filtering I'm sure Nintendo would have made sure to allow for larger textures; it's only because of the filtering that Nintendo thought that this level of texture cache was enough, I'm sure.
Or maybe it's that the cost of the filtering was cutting back on texture cache? Even after they're filtered those textures aren't great by any means. They have little detail and just look poor. The unfiltered screenshots prove the point myself and others have been making. Texture Filtering on the N64 is not used as some technical advantage as you try and claim. It's instead used as a crutch to try and hide just how poor the texture quality is.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
Yeah, there are some hardware limitations that reduce the amount of cache you can actually use most of the time, that is true.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118
Prove what? Everyone knows that the N64 usually has lower-rez textures than the other systems. All it really does is show that fact in a picture... though as Ninpen Manmaru shows, some PS1 or Saturn games don't have textures any better than that. :pQuote:
Even after they're filtered those textures aren't great by any means. They have little detail and just look poor. The unfiltered screenshots prove the point myself and others have been making.
Every time you make this false claim you insult Nintendo, Silicon Graphics, and everyone there who worked on the N64. It is not a "crutch". It is not there to "hide" anything. It is a design intended to get rid of visible pixels by smoothing them out. That is its purpose. There is no other reason it exists, besides probably also to push forward console graphics technology in ways the other consoles could not match -- Yamauchi-era Nintendo cared very much about having powerful hardware, after all.Quote:
Texture Filtering on the N64 is not used as some technical advantage as you try and claim. It's instead used as a crutch to try and hide just how poor the texture quality is.
PS1 - Texturing not limited by the texture cache, so whatever can be loaded into the VRAM is usable AFAIK, you can have some huge textures loaded there. The real limit here is how fast you're able to update those textures. It's not prone to stalls like the N64's and more than twice as fast as the Saturn's AFAIK.
Fillrate is said to be higher than the N64's when the latter is using Z-Buffering (most games due to Nintendo's policy and dev tools) and lower than the N64's when the Z-Buffer is not used. Significantly higher fillrate than the Saturn (supposedly 3-6 times higher on most cases for what I've read).
SAT - Big texture cache but slow compared to both the N64 and PS1. Fillrate is significantly lower than both PS1 and N64. Better looking scenes are achieved when the VDP2 can be used. VDP1 can render in 256 color mode (which would save RAM) but it wasn't used in most of its 3D games AFAIK.
N64 - Limited by the 4 KB texture cache and the stalls on texture updates. Most games use 15-bit color mode (like the PS1), but 24-bit color mode is possible (especially when using the expansion pack) (unlike on the PS1) and used by some games. Fillrate is significantly improved when Z-Buffering is not used.
Texture quality gets worse with mip mapping (optional) (practically reduces the texture cache to 2 kB). Texture quality can be improve when more complex texture maps are used (ex: Banjo Kazooie).
I think in shorter draw distances and/or at lower frame rate (like 20 fps vs 30 fps) the Saturn could push significantly better detailed textures than the N64.
PS1 would have the edge over the N64 in such aspect in most cases.
Best bet for the N64 would be to get rid of the Z-Buffer setup and push hard the artists to produce assets with its texture cache limitation in mind. Also, the expansion pack usage should have been focused on expanding the color space instead of increasing resolution like most games did, at higher res the N64's weaknesses only became worse and it already had AA support so no really need for that IMO.
Yeah spot on, but I have to say anyone who makes out that any Platform game on the PS or N64 looks better than Mario 64 is kidding themselves. Mario 64 looks amazing (even now) has better draw distance than quite a lot of DC and PS2 games (never mind any PS or Saturn game) features a perfect 3D camera system and it plays and controls like a joy; Its also one of the few N64 games not to feature dull blury washed out coloures and low res display.Quote:
The problem though is that the biggest filter the N64 has is the terrible video quality. I finally got a working RGB mod and it is the minimum image quality everyone should play the games with. You can also see all kinds of imperfections in the rendering and how dithered shading and transparencies tend to be and how bands of patterns form. Some games remind of the fullscreen dithered haze of Playstation games
But when it came to clean crisp display and textures the Saturn and PS were far better systems most of the time
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5792/...9845e949_b.jpg
I'm not so sure about that. Back in the day, the heavy pixellation of textures and the messy appearance of big pixels when up-close was a pretty popular annoyance about textured 3D graphics for every system. And it was pretty much unavoidable without some kind of hardware implementation to get rid of it. Many people and magazine reviewers were promoting the N64 as the "cure" for this plague.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118
I remember this being a very strong selling point and i also remember early reviews of Mario 64 raving happily about the fact that the pixellation of surfaces when you get close is completely eliminated. And while it's true that Mario 64 had poor textures behind that filter, i don't remember a single magazine or user review mentioning it or having a problem with it. I guess the lack of pixellation alone was such a new and impressive thing to see (without having an expensive PC+Voodoo combo) that people didn't even notice or care about the textures behind. I only started to hear complaints much later, when better textured games started to appear on the console. In fact, i wasn't even aware of this problem until i played Banjo Kazooie, which looked better than anything i had played on the console up to that point and i wondered why. And i admit that even playing games on PS1 didn't really make me notice the difference in texture quality because everyone was too busy complaining about the pixellation and texture warping.
So i think it was the other way around. Making surfaces look smooth was the first thought. The poor texture cache probably appeared after this, maybe they thought that since there is going to be filtering anyway, they can get away with even lower resolution on the textures.
Damn, with so much time spent blabbering about obsolete graphics technology, you guys could've learned all the basic kanji by now. Go figure.
:p
Here's one funny thing about Goldeneye:
Remember this part with the modem?
http://s11.postimg.org/px8rynx8j/image.png
Here's how that little modem looks when i go full zoom in with the sniper:
http://s24.postimg.org/ta823kn6t/image.png
Yeah, thats pretty... weird to say the least. They went overkill with the detail of such a small object for whatever reason... :confused:
Edit: Sorry for not using the pixel accurate plugin for a more accurate representation of the real thing but Goldeneye is too slow with it (like 20% of the speed slow) and it will take me too long to do this :?
Game mags are infamous for their ridiculous opinions and falling for hype worse than any regular person. I remember pixelated sections of Mario 64 being noticed by non-hardcore gamers and comments asking if the equivalent of "can this do texture mapping like normal consoles?". I don't remember people or magazines complaining that current graphics were unbearable by current standards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulis
The only people I ever knew or heard of at the time who played the N64 were young adult women, kids whose parents bought them the system or hardcore gamers who already had at least a Playstation. Everyone else was playing Playstation games and not complaining about them. This was memorable to me because things like the warping, loose seams and dithering in PSX games stood out to ne. But I wasn't a regular/casual game player (who still played as much 16-bit as 32-bit games).
Yeah, one low budget Saturn game has poor quality textures. Clearly this proves the N64 is superior. :roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
The point was that most Saturn and PS1 games have better quality textures than the N64. The unfiltered N64 shots prove this. All those shots that were posted have significantly worse quality textures than any of the Saturn and PS1 examples that have been brought up.
Again, any hopes to make some innovation for console 3D graphics is completely ruined by the poor texture cache. It instead just ends up being used as a crutch to hide poor texture quality. As a result Saturn and PS1 games end up looking better in the texture department most of the time. This is because they use higher quality textures that look cleaner, sharper, and more detailed. It wasn't until the Dreamcast that we would have a console show us the true benefit of texture filtering and all the other graphical features the N64 tried to pioneer while falling flat on it's face.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon