Yeah, one low budget Saturn game has poor quality textures. Clearly this proves the N64 is superior. :roll:
It's not only that one game and anyone who's played many games on both systems knows it.
Also, you didn't answer my question from earlier. Do you think the Saturn has better graphics than the Playstation? Because if you do, you are in a very distinct minority there... and it sure sounds like you do from everything you say.
Quote:
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.
Any objective analysis of N64 hardware would say that the N64's other advantages more than make up for the textures. But you're obsessed with hating the N64's hardware, so you focus 100% on the one hardware feature it loses on and exaggerate to insane degrees how much of a problem it is.
Quote:
Again, any hopes to make some innovation for console 3D graphics is completely ruined by the poor texture cache.
Repeating false statements over and over does not make them true. Saying "just because of this one thing EVERY OTHER THING IS IRRELEVANT" is completely ridiculous. For example, as much as I hate warping textures and perspective-correction issues, the PS1's horrible texture-warping problems do not stop many PS1 games from still looking pretty nice, or from having better graphics overall than the Saturn even if the Saturn has far less warping.
Quote:
It instead just ends up being used as a crutch to hide poor texture quality.
And once again, repeating false statements does not make them true. Just because you are obsessed with hating N64 graphics to a somewhat comical degree doesn't mean your invented conspiracy theory about it being a "crutch" has even the slightest truth to it; it does not.
And you are obsessed with hating N64 textures -- you resurrected this argument in this thread specifically that purpose. My Genesis reviews thread I'm working on? Who cares, ignore it, I need to go bash the N64 again and start up that stupid argument instead! I'd much rather discuss those Genesis summaries than this.
Quote:
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.
So just because of textures N64 graphics "fall flat on their face"? So to you, higher resolution textures = better graphics. The only thing needed for a system to have better graphics than another one is higher resolution textures, apparently; everything else is nearly irrelevant. Resolution? Irrelevant. Polygon count? Irrelevant. Texture warping? Irrelevant. Transparencies? Irrelevant. Etc. Seriously, you have some pretty bad myopia on this subject, that's for sure. And conveniently it's on the ONLY graphical category the N64 clearly loses on. How convenient. (Yes, there are some other things where other systems have an advantage on average over the N64 -- PS1 has more 60fps games, etc. -- but on a hardware level, only textures are a clear loss.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Andromeda
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.
Trekkies's posts are a good example of this "kidding themselves" attitude.
12-09-2015, 03:17 AM
TrekkiesUnite118
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
It's not only that one game and anyone who's played many games on both systems knows it.
Yes, it's not the only low budget game on the system. However, I'd say the majority of quality titles have better textures than what you see on the N64. Throwing in the PS1 and the number of games with better textures becomes pretty much a one sided in the Saturn and PS1's favor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
Also, you didn't answer my question from earlier. Do you think the Saturn has better graphics than the Playstation? Because if you do, you are in a very distinct minority there... and it sure sounds like you do from everything you say.
It depends. The use of quads significnatly reduces the texture warping the PS1 suffers from, and some games do have better textures on the Saturn than on the PS1. The amount of games running in High Res mode is another plus too. VDP2 also gives a nice advantage when used properly.
However when it comes to things like lighting and transparency effects, the Saturn is at a clear disadvantage and the PS1 comes ahead. So I'd say a game that plays to the Saturn's strengths will look better on the Saturn, one that plays to the PS1's strengths looks better on the PS1.
The N64 though is a bit of a different issue. It's games look bad because of it's "advantages". Texture filtering and anti-aliasing on that system results in very blurry textures and a very poor image quality. Yeah, I guess it looks better than it would without those effects, but if given the choice between filtering or better textures, I'd go with better textures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
Any objective analysis of N64 hardware would say that the N64's other advantages more than make up for the textures. But you're obsessed with hating the N64's hardware, so you focus 100% on the one hardware feature it loses on and exaggerate to insane degrees how much of a problem it is.
Because the benefits don't help with that flaw. If anything they make it more apparent and more frustrating. A clean image on the N64 is such a rare treat that it I find myself constantly double and triple checking to make sure I'm not looking at some doctored emulation shot whenever the few examples pop up.
The texture filtering isn't used to the best of it's abilities because it's not being used on good quality textures. So instead it ends up being used to blur really shitty textures in hopes of hiding how poor they really are. Even games with good textures like Banjo are still a step down from typical Saturn and PS1 quality. If the N64 had good texturing capabilities I'd be in 100% agreement with you about the importance of those features. But in reality the implementation comes up short. It instead comes off as a crutch to hide poor quality textures, than to overcome scaling issues. Again, the Dreamcast would be a much better example of a console showing the benefits of Anti-Aliasing and Texture Filtering.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
Repeating false statements over and over does not make them true. Saying "just because of this one thing EVERY OTHER THING IS IRRELEVANT" is completely ridiculous. For example, as much as I hate warping textures and perspective-correction issues, the PS1's horrible texture-warping problems do not stop many PS1 games from still looking pretty nice, or from having better graphics overall than the Saturn even if the Saturn has far less warping.
The same can be said about you. You just regurgitate the same N64 fanboyism every so many months in hopes we all either forget the last time or just no one notices.
Being able to filter textures, apply anti aliasing, etc. isn't worth shit if you have the worst textures of the generation and are rendering in 240p. It just results in a very blurry mess. Just because you have the option to apply some advanced effect doesn't mean you necessarily should.
And I agree, when it comes to lighting, transparency, etc. most PS1 games do look better than Saturn games. However quite a few Saturn games I'd say win out in things like resolution, textures, VDP2 effects, etc. This would be a very good example of the Saturn doing something the PS1 would probably struggle with due to the use of VDP2:
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
And once again, repeating false statements does not make them true. Just because you are obsessed with hating N64 graphics to a somewhat comical degree doesn't mean your invented conspiracy theory about it being a "crutch" has even the slightest truth to it; it does not.
I don't hate the N64 or it's graphics. I'm just bluntly honest about them. And what conspiracy? Do you even know what that word means? I'm not making some crackpot theory here on it being used as a crutch. I'm not saying that's what developers actually said. I'm describing how the use of the effect actually came off to most of us rather than how it was intended to be some massive innovation.
Instead of showing us how good of an effect it could be, it instead just comes off as a way to hide the poor texture quality of most N64 games.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
And you are obsessed with hating N64 textures -- you resurrected this argument in this thread specifically that purpose. My Genesis reviews thread I'm working on? Who cares, ignore it, I need to go bash the N64 again and start up that stupid argument instead! I'd much rather discuss those Genesis summaries than this.
You resurrected this with your snide remark about how we're all N64 haters here. We do not hate the N64. We're just not blind fanboys like you.
And why do I hate N64 Textures? Gee maybe because most of them are extremely shit quality that would be laughably bad if they were being used on the Saturn or PS1. Blurring them to death doesn't make the situation better either. It just makes it worse because now it just looks like a blurry mess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
So just because of textures N64 graphics "fall flat on their face"? So to you, higher resolution textures = better graphics. The only thing needed for a system to have better graphics than another one is higher resolution textures, apparently; everything else is nearly irrelevant.
I've been going about this as PS1/Saturn vs N64. Not Saturn vs the World. Though it's obvious you're now trying to push it that way just because that makes it easier for you to attack me as being crazy rather than address the arguments. The main reason I've been using the Saturn is because I don't own a real PS1 anymore, only a PS2. So while I can get S-Video shots of my Saturn and N64, I can't do the same for the PS1. Secondly, the Saturn is just really good for this issue because it produces a really clean image. I'd honestly say it wins that category for the Generation.
But yes, I would say higher resolution textures = better graphics when we're talking about 5th generation consoles. I'd prefer to have both higher resolution textures and texture filtering, but none of the systems give us that. So I'll pick the better of the two, higher quality textures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
Resolution? Irrelevant.
Well there's quite a few Saturn games that run at higher resolutions than a lot of N64 games. And the PS1 has quite a few too. So again this is a win for the Saturn and PS1 over the N64.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
Polygon count? Irrelevant.
You are aware that most Saturn and PS1 games are pushing more polygons than most N64 games right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
Texture warping? Irrelevant.
I wouldn't say irrelevant, but it's honestly minor. If putting up with some warping here and there is the price I have to pay for good textures and cleaner image quality then so be it. It doesn't bother me that much. And on the Saturn it's almost a non-issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
Transparencies? Irrelevant.
Ah, the Saturn's mortal weakness. Though, in some cases it can pull off some pretty nice ones with VDP2, or if it can get away with VDP1 transparency. And with Burning Rangers we were seeing developers finding ways to pull it off. So if the Saturn did have better support we probably would have seen more ways around that issue.
Though yes, the Saturn probably is the worst for transparencies of that Generation. But at the same time the N64 isn't much better. It simply just doesn't have the buggy quirks the Saturn has with it. The PS1 is the king of that effect for that generation. So again, this isn't a point for the N64. It's a point for the PS1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
Etc. Seriously, you have some pretty bad myopia on this subject, that's for sure. And conveniently it's on the ONLY graphical category the N64 clearly loses on. How convenient. (Yes, there are some other things where other systems have an advantage on average over the N64 -- PS1 has more 60fps games, etc. -- but on a hardware level, only textures are a clear loss.)
The N64 loses on Textures, Image Quality, Transparencies, Framerate, and in most games polygon counts.
The Saturn wins over the N64 on Textures, Image Quality, Framerate (Yes, even the Saturn has more 60fps games than the N64), and in some cases polygon counts.
The PS1 Wins over the N64 on Textures, Image Quality, Transparencies, Framerate, and Polygon counts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
Trekkies's posts are a good example of this "kidding themselves" attitude.
I'd honestly love to see how that brain of yours works.
12-09-2015, 04:01 AM
Soulis
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118
The N64 loses on Textures, Image Quality, Transparencies, Framerate, and in most games polygon counts.
The Saturn wins over the N64 on Textures, Image Quality, Framerate (Yes, even the Saturn has more 60fps games than the N64), and in some cases polygon counts.
The PS1 Wins over the N64 on Textures, Image Quality, Transparencies, Framerate, and Polygon counts.
Interesting. So the N64 doesn't win in any category, huh? Poor N64...
With this logic it would mean that both Saturn and PS1 would be able to handle every N64 game easily. Do you honestly think that the Saturn would be able to handle the 3D environments of Banjo-Kazooie/Tooie, Conker, Shadowman, WDC, Battle of Naboo and the rest of the better looking N64 games, with no sacrifices? Really now, be honest for a moment. Try to imagine these games being created for this machine, with improved textures and all if you will. You've played those games, you know how they look, right? If you think that the Saturn can handle those games with no sacrifices to geometry, view distances, visual effects, frame rates or whatever, then you are just kidding yourself. Lets be real here for a few seconds.
So, doesn't that mean that the N64 wins somewhere? I mean, if it can render these huge environments with all that texture variety, infinite draw distance, good frame rate, solid/stable 3D objects, etc, then there has to be a category where the N64 is superior. If it's inferior in every single category then those games shouldn't exist at all. Or they would have to look worse, with pop up, missing visual effects and the like. It just doesn't add up.
Also what's the deal with frame rate? A console can't "win" in this category... it's not a hardware feature. Its a design choice on the developers part. Its a different priority depending on the developer or game. All consoles have smooth and jerky games. It's not up to the console. Does the PS1 have more 60fps games? Well yeah, the PS1 has at least 5 times as many games as the N64 in general. It has more of everything. More 60fps games, more jerky games, more good games, more shitty games. There are more than 2300 games on PS1 and less than 400 on the N64. And no decent Japanese 3rd party support at all (so too much shovelware from Japan). Even the Saturn has more games counting almost 600 releases...
Just look at everything this game throws at you visually (like the animated backgrounds) and tell everyone that the console is inferior in every category again while keeping a straight face :D.
12-09-2015, 05:06 AM
A Black Falcon
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118
Yes, it's not the only low budget game on the system. However, I'd say the majority of quality titles have better textures than what you see on the N64. Throwing in the PS1 and the number of games with better textures becomes pretty much a one sided in the Saturn and PS1's favor.
Well, the PS1 has 2200 games, versus 600 or so for the Saturn and 385 for the N64, so of course. But on the other hand the PS1 also surely has far more games with worse textures than you usually see on N64. It's got far more games period.
Quote:
It depends. The use of quads significnatly reduces the texture warping the PS1 suffers from, and some games do have better textures on the Saturn than on the PS1. The amount of games running in High Res mode is another plus too. VDP2 also gives a nice advantage when used properly.
However when it comes to things like lighting and transparency effects, the Saturn is at a clear disadvantage and the PS1 comes ahead. So I'd say a game that plays to the Saturn's strengths will look better on the Saturn, one that plays to the PS1's strengths looks better on the PS1.
What settles it for me is that the best Saturn games don't come close to the best PS1 games. Yes, I know the Saturn has a much shorter life, but if you look at the later Saturn games, they don't match up to what the PS1 could do at that same point... and multiplatform 3d games almost always look better on Playstation. Sure, Saturn is much harder to program for, but still.
Quote:
The N64 though is a bit of a different issue. It's games look bad because of it's "advantages". Texture filtering and anti-aliasing on that system results in very blurry textures and a very poor image quality. Yeah, I guess it looks better than it would without those effects, but if given the choice between filtering or better textures, I'd go with better textures.
Of course you would.
Quote:
The same can be said about you. You just regurgitate the same N64 fanboyism
I don't focus on one graphical feature to the exclusion of all others, no. And I don't constantly talk about the N64 either -- I only end up doing that here because so many people here like to insult it. I rarely start these things, and didn't in this case -- looking back, this thread was resurrected when IrishNinja said bad things about how the N64 compares to the Saturn, visually. You exaggerate as usual in order to defend your obsession with bashing N64 textures.
Quote:
Being able to filter textures, apply anti aliasing, etc. isn't worth shit if you have the worst textures of the generation and are rendering in 240p.
It matters very much, and this is proof of your extreme, and nonsensical, texture-myopia.
Quote:
And I agree, when it comes to lighting, transparency, etc. most PS1 games do look better than Saturn games. However quite a few Saturn games I'd say win out in things like resolution, textures, VDP2 effects, etc. This would be a very good example of the Saturn doing something the PS1 would probably struggle with due to the use of VDP2:
[YOUTUBE]iUyhbhJ5jqI
The Saturn doesn't beat the PS1 on average on resolution, it's quite the opposite. As for textures I'd think that is just an art-styles thing. But overall, sure there are a few 3d games which push the Saturn's hardware and wouldn't, or don't, look as good on the PS1, but most go the other way.
Quote:
I don't hate the N64 or it's graphics. I'm just bluntly honest about them.
:lol: :lol:
Come on, at least be honest about this. Anyone who reads your posts in any of these arguments knows better than to believe you when you say things like this.
Quote:
And what conspiracy? Do you even know what that word means? I'm not making some crackpot theory here on it being used as a crutch.
You pretty much are, though, by constantly using that term.
Quote:
I'm not saying that's what developers actually said. I'm describing how the use of the effect actually came off to most of us rather than how it was intended to be some massive innovation.
Instead of showing us how good of an effect it could be, it instead just comes off as a way to hide the poor texture quality of most N64 games.
Except the exact opposite is true. The textures exist as they do because of the filtering. By reversing the order, you try to make Nintendo look bad. It's not going to work because we know that the filtering (and some other effects) are the reasons why the textures are what they are. Nintendo overlooked the importance of high-resolution textures when designing the system because they thought that lower-rez filtered textures, with a lot of shaded polygons, would be all the generation needed. The N64 has been accused since, like, 1995 of being designed around Mario 64, in its hardware capabilities, cartridge medium, controller, the works. There is probably some truth to that -- Mario 64 uses the controller perfectly, shows off the advantage of carts over CDs (large level size with no loading!), uses a lot of shaded polygons, and shows how filtered low-rez textures, in levels full of shaded ones, look great.
Quote:
And why do I hate N64 Textures? Gee maybe because most of them are extremely shit quality that would be laughably bad if they were being used on the Saturn or PS1. Blurring them to death doesn't make the situation better either. It just makes it worse because now it just looks like a blurry mess.
It makes the situation better because they're not all pixelated anymore! In everything other than 2d games, getting rid of visible pixels has been one of the main aims of 3d graphics ever since at least the early '90s. Nintendo took a step in that direction. It was an imperfect step to be sure, thanks to the flawed texture cache design, but it was one. All you need to do is look at those Mario and Banjo shots and almost anybody knows that the filtering makes a huge difference versus the original textures. Versus Playstation or Saturn textures it's a matter of opinion, but in terms of technical advancement it's an important step forward regardless of personal opinion about the results.
Quote:
I've been going about this as PS1/Saturn vs N64.
The PS1 and Saturn are not the same. PS1/Saturn, PS1/N64, and Saturn/N64 are each different things.
Quote:
But yes, I would say higher resolution textures = better graphics when we're talking about 5th generation consoles. I'd prefer to have both higher resolution textures and texture filtering, but none of the systems give us that. So I'll pick the better of the two, higher quality textures.
See what I mean?? You've got an excessive focus on one element of graphics, and not one of the more important ones; that's your problem here. There are many things more important than textures -- framerate, polygon count, most importantly of all perspective correction, etc. Screen resolution is also at least as important as textures, and may be more important than them. The Saturn loses against either the N64 or PS1 in all of those categories. Textures matter, but not as much as other things. And I think that filtered textures usually look better than visible-pixels ones, anyway -- though of course again for textures it's the late '90s PC that wins hands-down. When I got my N64 in 1999 I thought that the graphics were quite mediocre compared to what my PC could do, that's for sure, and that impression as accurate. Those rock walls in Ocarina of Time look so bad compared to a late '90s PC game... but PS1 games with their popping polygons are worse, and the Saturn has issues too.
Quote:
Well there's quite a few Saturn games that run at higher resolutions than a lot of N64 games. And the PS1 has quite a few too. So again this is a win for the Saturn and PS1 over the N64.
Yeah, there are Saturn games that do... in menus, something which is essentially irrelevant, while lots of Saturn games run at lower resolutions than comparable PS1 games. Anyway, in the higher-res ones, who cares if the menu runs at 700xwhatever? Actual GAME resolution is what matters. And very few Saturn games run at that high a resolution. More N64 games have 640x480 support. As for who "wins", that'd depend on who has the most high-resolution (640x480 or higher) games. It's not Sega, and probably is Sony in first with Nintendo in second, but I don't remember the list offhand.
Quote:
You are aware that most Saturn and PS1 games are pushing more polygons than most N64 games right?
PS1 often is yes, but I doubt that for the Saturn. Of course, with effects off the N64 is way more powerful, Nintendo just chose to use some of that power for badly-needed things like getting rid of perspective problems, instead of polygons. It was a very good, essential choice.
Quote:
I wouldn't say irrelevant, but it's honestly minor. If putting up with some warping here and there is the price I have to pay for good textures and cleaner image quality then so be it. It doesn't bother me that much. And on the Saturn it's almost a non-issue.
Texture warping and other perspective issues like popping polygons is #1 on my list of the things which matter most about 3d graphics. Think of it going in the place where you put texture quality. Texture warping and polygon popping are HORRIBLE and ruin the look of any game which has lots of those issues. If jaggies are the PS2's main graphical problem, and they are, perspective problems are the PS1s, and it's really, really bad. The Saturn is better, but it still has noticeable issues. That Nintendo fixed this problem is the best thing they did that generation.
[quote]Ah, the Saturn's mortal weakness. Though, in some cases it can pull off some pretty nice ones with VDP2, or if it can get away with VDP1 transparency. And with Burning Rangers we were seeing developers finding ways to pull it off. So if the Saturn did have better support we probably would have seen more ways around that issue.
Quote:
Though yes, the Saturn probably is the worst for transparencies of that Generation. But at the same time the N64 isn't much better. It simply just doesn't have the buggy quirks the Saturn has with it. The PS1 is the king of that effect for that generation. So again, this isn't a point for the N64. It's a point for the PS1.
There's no "probably" about it, here, for PS1 v. Saturn in textures. And why are you saying the N64 is so bad at transparencies? It doesn't have the Saturn's numerous limitations obviously, and can do transparencies. I do agree that flashy special effects are something the PS1 is pretty good at, though.
Quote:
The N64 loses on Textures, Image Quality, Transparencies, Framerate, and in most games polygon counts.
For game polygon counts, the N64 beats the Saturn hands-down, and only loses to the PS1. Transparencies are similar of the PS1 has something the N64 doesn't; I forget if it does. N64 certainly crushes Saturn here, anyway. For image quality, you have a very particular definition of "image quality" so we can ignore that one; I would say the N64 has by far the best image quality of the generation. The perspective correction alone ensures this. For framerate, that's only in some games, and the other systems have lots of games that run just as slowly. So yeah, it's only textures that the N64 clearly loses on.
On image quality, the z-buffer to get rid of perspective issues was an incredibly important thing. Neither of the other systems wins over the N64 in image quality (particularly not the PS1), not if you look at gameplay and not only still screenshots -- those popping polygons hurt image quality immeasurably! Still pictures are not too representative in a medium about moving ones. Again you show your myopic "textures are the only thing that matters" nonsense; getting rid of perspective correction problems 100% is HUGE as far as image quality goes. It's the most important thing that the N64 did. And yes, the Saturn and 3DO DO have some perspective issues; I know you like to minimize them, but they exist. Who cares about the textures on the polygons, when your polygons can't even stay in place? Priorities!
Beyond that, saying that the other two win on framerate is, again, misleading; the N64 is perfectly capable of 60fps. There is no hardware reason to say that the other systems win on framerate.
And finally, as Soulis points out well, it's quite notable that you list absolutely no advantages for the N64. It has bad textures, so no good things about its visuals are possible, according to you.
12-09-2015, 05:08 AM
Team Andromeda
Quote:
Also, you didn't answer my question from earlier. Do you think the Saturn has better graphics than the Playstation?
For outright 3D graphics no . But when you combine 3D graphics with 2D effects and playfields the Saturn is in class of it's own.
Quote:
Trekkies's posts are a good example of this
He's posting some good examples, though I do think its silly to try and make out some of its flittering effects were bad . I wish the Saturn had them tbh. But the N64 had big issues with washed out colours and low res display and even the biggest N64 fan would have own up to that . I mean conkers runs in a screen res of 280X 200 or somthing really low like that . I don't think there was a single Saturn game that run in that sort of low res mode
Quote:
Yeah, one low budget Saturn game has poor quality textures. Clearly this proves the N64 is superior
Its not really a low budget game and it also looks really nice imo. Piss poor youtube videos or crap pics don't do the game any justice at all . It looks really nice and makes great use of the VDP II too
12-09-2015, 03:27 PM
tomaitheous
Does anyone know if texture filtering (and screen filtering too) can be turned off with a custom RCP code/driver?
12-09-2015, 04:11 PM
Black_Tiger
Some games give you the option to turn off at least one filter. But I don't remember if any look like they're filter free afterward.
Quake with the "filter" option turned off looks how people think N64 games look. With it turned on, it looks like you're playing through RF on a 1970's TV set that has been turned on since it was made and the screen is shot.
12-09-2015, 05:01 PM
Soulis
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Tiger
Some games give you the option to turn off at least one filter. But I don't remember if any look like they're filter free afterward.
Quake with the "filter" option turned off looks how people think N64 games look. With it turned on, it looks like you're playing through RF on a 1970's TV set that has been turned on since it was made and the screen is shot.
There are two types of people in this forum.
The ones who think all N64 games look as sharp it's sharpest game or the ones who think it's as blurry as it's blurriest game. You know who is who in this topic. Both, however are wrong. Not all games have the same blurriness or sharpness. Some look better than others. Generalizing the negatives or the positives is not a good way to "review" a system. Just because the Saturn has a better video output, it doesn't mean all the N64 games are as blurry as it's worst looking game. There are more than enough examples already in the topic that proves that at this point.
Personally, i might look like i'm generalizing on the positives but it's not my intention. I just reply to the negative generalizations made by the opposite side. Who, i suppose, reply to ABF's positive generalizations or else there would be no reason for such hyperbole and hate ;) The N64 is an "OK" console with some truly amazing games that are more advanced than the best SAT/PS1 games (IMO) and a lot of bad ones where you have to dig through. It's not as bad as Trekkies/Barone makes it look, neither as good as ABF does. I mean i do disagree with many things ABF said, but i don't have to reply to him all the time since he gets enough replies from other members here...
12-09-2015, 05:28 PM
Black_Tiger
I still think that all 3 console's better 3D graphics balance out overall, but CD games often have more variety and quantity of assets. I also think that the art and design plays the biggest role in how good 3D games of that generation as well as Nintendo DS games look. I couldn't play through FFIII DS, even though I love the Famicom original, because of the style of the graphics. But I think that FFIV DS is beautiful and couldn't be any better and it reminds me of what I wanted bitd in a 3D Saturn RPG. I don't think that FFIV is a leap beyond FFIII on a technical level.
A lot of this sidetracking is thanks to ABF once again, nitpicking every detail. Z-buffering alone is supposed to make N64 untouchable, but solid 3D wasn't an issue in most better 3D Saturn games. The extra pixels in texture blurring is supposed to be more detail, but there's a huge difference between detail clarity and pixel concentration. Instead of claiming that some of N64's poorly textured games have superior detail and that N64 hardware effects trump art/content, he should just stick to pointing out how many N64 games look nice just for the balance they strike or the ones that make the best use of balancing textures in creative ways.
Nobody here is trying to insist that <Playstation 3D or <Saturn 3D. But every one of these long tangents spawns from a single person's insistence that <N64 3D.
12-09-2015, 08:03 PM
Soulis
Hey, you know what other N64 game has nice textures?
The Saturn doesn't beat the PS1 on average on resolution, it's quite the opposite.
Citation needed. The Playstation was not known for having a large number of high-res games, and the Saturn didn't have a resolution issue. If anything it had a resolution problem in the other direction -- it didn't support resolutions as low as the lowest on the Playstation. That's why the Saturn port of SOTN looks inconsistent at times: it's unintentionally a higher resolution, and they didn't increase the viewing area, so sometimes the sprites look too wide or with a very thick outline.
12-09-2015, 10:57 PM
TrekkiesUnite118
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
Well, the PS1 has 2200 games, versus 600 or so for the Saturn and 385 for the N64, so of course. But on the other hand the PS1 also surely has far more games with worse textures than you usually see on N64. It's got far more games period.
That's quite an assumption to make right there. The PS1 and Saturn both have CD-ROMs to store more textures, and they're not crippled with a puny texture cache that's prone to stalling. The n64 has bad textures because it's design is constantly working against it in this area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
What settles it for me is that the best Saturn games don't come close to the best PS1 games. Yes, I know the Saturn has a much shorter life, but if you look at the later Saturn games, they don't match up to what the PS1 could do at that same point... and multiplatform 3d games almost always look better on Playstation. Sure, Saturn is much harder to program for, but still.
And we're not comparing the Saturn to the PS1 here. We're comparing the Saturn and PS1 to the N64. And in many ways the Saturn is still outperforming the N64, which is sad.
However, I'd still say games designed with the Saturn in mind will look better on the Saturn than on the PS1. Same is true for the reverse, games made with the PS1 in mind will typically look worse on the Saturn. The PS1 being the most popular system that generation unfortunately lead to the latter situation being more common.
And I hate to bring it up a lot, but I think the Shenmue Prototype gives us a good idea of what 98/99 Saturn Software would have been like if the Saturn was more popular. And it is not only on par with what we see on the PS1 around that time, in many ways it's blowing it away:
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
Of course you would.
Because better textures trumps filtering. I'd rather be able to tell what it is I'm looking at than have a muddy mess of an image. Texture Filtering and what not are nice to have if you already have the basics covered. But if you don't have those basics covered it's just going to make those flaws more apparent.
It's like bragging that your house has the prettiest door on the street while ignoring the foundation is lopsided and collapsing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
I don't focus on one graphical feature to the exclusion of all others, no. And I don't constantly talk about the N64 either -- I only end up doing that here because so many people here like to insult it. I rarely start these things, and didn't in this case -- looking back, this thread was resurrected when IrishNinja said bad things about how the N64 compares to the Saturn, visually. You exaggerate as usual in order to defend your obsession with bashing N64 textures.
Yeah, you just have to come to the N64's defense and defend it's honor from cold hard facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
It matters very much, and this is proof of your extreme, and nonsensical, texture-myopia.
As said above, while it's nice, it's something to have in addition to the basics being covered. If you're not covering the basics, it's just a waste. Am I really being extreme here? Or are you being extreme by trying boast these effects that in the end don't make up for the lack of good texturing, higher polygon counts, and higher framerates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
The Saturn doesn't beat the PS1 on average on resolution, it's quite the opposite. As for textures I'd think that is just an art-styles thing. But overall, sure there are a few 3d games which push the Saturn's hardware and wouldn't, or don't, look as good on the PS1, but most go the other way.
I didn't say it did beat it on average. I simply said the amount of games doing it is a plus, and they're all pretty significant games too. I don't think there's any 3D fighters on the PS1 getting close to Virtua Fighter 2 or Dead or Alive's resolution.
As for Saturn vs PS1, again we're back to what they bring to the table. I didn't say one was better than the other. I said they have their strengths and weaknesses. The Saturn has VDP2 which is a pretty big advantage when used well. Games that make use of it don't translate well to the PS1. That Radiant Silvergun example is really good at illustrating this. Those planes would need to be done with Polygons on the PS1 and N64. The end result probably wouldn't be as nice or perform as well. On the other hand PS1 games that use tons of Alpha blending or push a lot more polygons typically don't translate well to the Saturn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
:lol: :lol:
Come on, at least be honest about this. Anyone who reads your posts in any of these arguments knows better than to believe you when you say things like this.
Yet I don't hate the N64. Just because I don't put it on a pedestal and look at it with rose tinted glasses doesn't mean I hate it. I accept it for what it is and acknowledge it's flaws. If you've noticed I'm pretty open about the Saturn's flaws too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
You pretty much are, though, by constantly using that term.
So by stating my opinion that most N64 games seem to use texture filtering as a crutch to hide bad textures I'm somehow conspiring about something? Please explain how this works and what I'm supposedly conspiring about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
Except the exact opposite is true. The textures exist as they do because of the filtering. By reversing the order, you try to make Nintendo look bad. It's not going to work because we know that the filtering (and some other effects) are the reasons why the textures are what they are. Nintendo overlooked the importance of high-resolution textures when designing the system because they thought that lower-rez filtered textures, with a lot of shaded polygons, would be all the generation needed. The N64 has been accused since, like, 1995 of being designed around Mario 64, in its hardware capabilities, cartridge medium, controller, the works. There is probably some truth to that -- Mario 64 uses the controller perfectly, shows off the advantage of carts over CDs (large level size with no loading!), uses a lot of shaded polygons, and shows how filtered low-rez textures, in levels full of shaded ones, look great.
N64 textures are bad for the following reasons:
-Small texture cache that has performance bottlenecks and issues limits the quality of textures that can be used at a given time.
-Small cartridges limits the quality of textures the game can have as a whole, as well as the variety of textures it can have.
At the end of the day that's why they are bad. Whether Nintendo developed it with Mario 64 in mind is irrelevant. It doesn't suddenly make this technical flaw ok or good. It's a serious issue the system has. Whatever intent they had with the texture filtering, in implementation it came off more as being used to hide poor texture quality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
It makes the situation better because they're not all pixelated anymore! In everything other than 2d games, getting rid of visible pixels has been one of the main aims of 3d graphics ever since at least the early '90s. Nintendo took a step in that direction. It was an imperfect step to be sure, thanks to the flawed texture cache design, but it was one. All you need to do is look at those Mario and Banjo shots and almost anybody knows that the filtering makes a huge difference versus the original textures. Versus Playstation or Saturn textures it's a matter of opinion, but in terms of technical advancement it's an important step forward regardless of personal opinion about the results.
Yes, but the other aims that I'd say trump filtering are Polygon Counts, Texture Quality, and Framerate, all of which the N64 sacrifices for texture filtering. It may be a step forward in 3D graphics, but when you take a step back in something as important as Texture Quality, Framerate, and Polygon counts, it becomes moot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
The PS1 and Saturn are not the same. PS1/Saturn, PS1/N64, and Saturn/N64 are each different things.
True, but in this case we're not comparing the Saturn to the PS1. We're comparing the N64 to both the Saturn and PS1. And in a lot of similar areas both systems beat the N64.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
See what I mean?? You've got an excessive focus on one element of graphics, and not one of the more important ones; that's your problem here. There are many things more important than textures
You've missed the point here. I'd prefer to have both, but we don't have that option in the 5th Generation. Our options are as follows:
Pick One:
[]Good Textures
[]Texture Filtering
With those two choices, I'd pick good textures. A good texture will still look decent even if it's unfiltered. It will still have visible details and as a lot of Saturn and PS1 games show, pixelation can be kept to a minimum with good quality textures.
It's not that I don't think those features are important, I just think they're not as important as good textures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
framerate, polygon count, most importantly of all perspective correction, etc. Screen resolution is also at least as important as textures, and may be more important than them. The Saturn loses against either the N64 or PS1 in all of those categories. Textures matter, but not as much as other things. And I think that filtered textures usually look better than visible-pixels ones, anyway -- though of course again for textures it's the late '90s PC that wins hands-down. When I got my N64 in 1999 I thought that the graphics were quite mediocre compared to what my PC could do, that's for sure, and that impression as accurate. Those rock walls in Ocarina of Time look so bad compared to a late '90s PC game... but PS1 games with their popping polygons are worse, and the Saturn has issues too.
I wont begin to debate that the Saturn loses out in a lot of those categories to the PS1. However the N64 isn't quite as good here as you want to claim. And honestly, perspective correction isn't really that important when your textures are shit. When I look at an N64 game I'm not going "Wow! Those polygons are perspectively correct!", I'm going "Wow, this looks like shit. Everything is so blurry I can't tell what half of this is supposed to be."
And again we're not discussing 90's PC here. That's irrelevant. We're discussing how the N64 stacks up against the PS1 and Saturn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
Yeah, there are Saturn games that do... in menus, something which is essentially irrelevant, while lots of Saturn games run at lower resolutions than comparable PS1 games. Anyway, in the higher-res ones, who cares if the menu runs at 700xwhatever? Actual GAME resolution is what matters. And very few Saturn games run at that high a resolution. More N64 games have 640x480 support. As for who "wins", that'd depend on who has the most high-resolution (640x480 or higher) games. It's not Sega, and probably is Sony in first with Nintendo in second, but I don't remember the list offhand.
List of Saturn games that run in High Res Mode off the top of my head (games not menus):
Virtua Fighter 2
Dead or Alive
Anarchy in the Nippon
Decathlete
All Star Japan Wrestling
Stellar Assault SS
Saturn Bomberman (10 Player Mode)
All 3 Digital Pinball Games
Digital Dance Mix
What makes these more impressive is that they all run at 60fps. To get High Res Mode to work on the Saturn, that's a requirement. Then if we want to get technical, the Saturn can mix resolutions. So games like Fighters Megamix have 704x480 backgrounds, but low res fighters. Virtua Fighter Remix has High Res fighters, but low res backgrounds. And then there's quite a few games running at 704x240 and 640x240.
Now, the N64 list may be bigger for 640x480, but it has no games hitting 704x480. And the other kicker here is most of it's high res mode game require the expansion pak and run worse with that mode enabled. Again I'd say the Saturn is more impressive here since it does that at 60fps on a stock system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
PS1 often is yes, but I doubt that for the Saturn. Of course, with effects off the N64 is way more powerful, Nintendo just chose to use some of that power for badly-needed things like getting rid of perspective problems, instead of polygons. It was a very good, essential choice.
Yet the Saturn's Polygon specs are 200k per second, and the N64's is 100k per second. Sure if it turns off the filtering it can do more, but very few games do that. And if the Saturn isn't typically pushing more polygons, then why do games like Quake have better Geometry on the Saturn? Why do 3D Fighters run at higher framerates with better looking models? Why do games like Virtua Cop have more geometry detail than titles like Goldeneye and even Perfect Dark?
Simply put, I think the Saturn wins over the N64 in this category. Though you're right, the PS1 is the champ here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
Texture warping and other perspective issues like popping polygons is #1 on my list of the things which matter most about 3d graphics. Think of it going in the place where you put texture quality. Texture warping and polygon popping are HORRIBLE and ruin the look of any game which has lots of those issues. If jaggies are the PS2's main graphical problem, and they are, perspective problems are the PS1s, and it's really, really bad. The Saturn is better, but it still has noticeable issues. That Nintendo fixed this problem is the best thing they did that generation.
Texture Warping isn't happening all the time though. It's something that pops up every now and then. And on the Saturn it's almost unnoticeable. N64 texture filtering however is always on, there's no way to avoid it, and it's always happening. Throw in the bad textures and that makes it a bigger deal in my opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
There's no "probably" about it, here, for PS1 v. Saturn in textures. And why are you saying the N64 is so bad at transparencies? It doesn't have the Saturn's numerous limitations obviously, and can do transparencies. I do agree that flashy special effects are something the PS1 is pretty good at, though.
Because the N64 is worse at transparencies than the PS1? The Saturn is bad too, I didn't deny that. It probably is the worst of it's generation too, though I don't know how the 3DO and Jaguar play into this. However when the Saturn's transparencies are working right, I'm not really seeing anything worse than the N64. If it weren't for the bugs and quirks, they'd probably be even.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
For game polygon counts, the N64 beats the Saturn hands-down, and only loses to the PS1.
Again then why do games like Quake have worse Geometry on the N64? Why do games like Virtua Cop have more details? And we're not even getting into games like Shining Force III and Grandia which really push details in their 3D Environments. Taking a look at the specs also confirms the N64 loses to even the Saturn here, which is sad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
Transparencies are similar of the PS1 has something the N64 doesn't; I forget if it does. N64 certainly crushes Saturn here, anyway.
Again, when we look at the Saturn when it's transparencies are working, they look about on par. Though I will say the N64 wins over the Saturn here because it doesn't have the bugs and quirks. Though again it still loses to the PS1, hence why it didn't get a point in that category. If you'll take a look, I didn't award the Saturn a win in this category either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
For image quality, you have a very particular definition of "image quality" so we can ignore that one
My definition of image quality is very simple. How clean and crisp is the image displayed on my TV? I think most people here would agree with this. The Saturn is ridiculously sharp and clean here. Even with composite. Using S-Video and RGB and it's a clear win for it. I'd rate the PS1 equally here, but the full screen dithering tends to ruin it. The N64 here is the worst. It outputs a very muddy image. Honestly I have a hard time telling the difference between S-Video and Composite with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
I would say the N64 has by far the best image quality of the generation.
The N64 is still rather blurry, and that's supposed to be one of it's better games. The Saturn shot by comparison is like someone putting on a pair of glasses. It's crystal clear and sharp. Sorry but the Saturn wins here. And yes, both shots are S-Video.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
The perspective correction alone ensures this.
And this has nothing to do with Picture Quality. Picture quality is simply how clear is the image displayed on my TV?
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
For framerate, that's only in some games, and the other systems have lots of games that run just as slowly.
The Saturn and PS1 both have more 3D games hitting 60fps than the N64. Significantly more. Throw in that a lot of the N64's big titles like Perfect Dark, Zelda, Conker, Banjo, etc. are all running at sub 20fps. So again I'm going to say it loses here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
So yeah, it's only textures that the N64 clearly loses on.
Only if you're delusional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
On image quality, the z-buffer to get rid of perspective issues was an incredibly important thing. Neither of the other systems wins over the N64 in image quality (particularly not the PS1), not if you look at gameplay and not only still screenshots -- those popping polygons hurt image quality immeasurably! Still pictures are not too representative in a medium about moving ones. Again you show your myopic "textures are the only thing that matters" nonsense; getting rid of perspective correction problems 100% is HUGE as far as image quality goes. It's the most important thing that the N64 did. And yes, the Saturn and 3DO DO have some perspective issues; I know you like to minimize them, but they exist. Who cares about the textures on the polygons, when your polygons can't even stay in place? Priorities!
As I just did twice, I listed multiple areas where the N64 loses to the PS1 and Saturn. It's not just textures. Textures are just the most obvious. And I never said textures are the only thing that matters. I said if I have the choice between texture filtering or good textures, I'll take good textures any day. That's a big difference and I'd appreciate it if you'd not put words in my mouth.
As for the difference between texture warping and the bad texture quality, one is an issue that many games work around, the other is a glarring flaw that impacts just about every game. Having a texture warp every now and then when the camera moves is nowhere near as big of an issue as extremely shitty textures that are blurred to death and lose all detail. Texture warping, perspective issues, etc. are issues on the PS1 and Saturn. However I think most of us would rather put up with them in exchange for better framerates, higher polygon counts, and better textures. Again this comes back to the original point. Those nice N64 features are not worth the cost of gimping the system when it comes to it's performance in those key areas.
And again, those issues have nothing to do with image quality. Image Quality here is simply how clean and crisp the image is when it's displayed on the TV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
Beyond that, saying that the other two win on framerate is, again, misleading; the N64 is perfectly capable of 60fps. There is no hardware reason to say that the other systems win on framerate.
Yet they typically do, go figure. And the Saturn even does it in high res mode.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
And finally, as Soulis points out well, it's quite notable that you list absolutely no advantages for the N64. It has bad textures, so no good things about its visuals are possible, according to you.
Because in general it typically loses out to the Saturn or PS1 in those categories. What advantages it does have typically play out in things like low load times due to using cartridges, stock 4 player support, etc.
12-10-2015, 12:37 AM
Soulis
Trekkies, you didn't answer my question, is there any aspect where the N64 wins compared to the Saturn visually? If not, do you think that the Saturn would be able to handle the best looking N64 games such as Conker, B-K, World Driver Championship, Shadowman, Beatle Adventure Racing, Battle for Naboo, etc at the same exact quality as the N64? Including draw distances, 3D objects and geometry, level complexity, assets, frame rate, environmental reflections, real time shadows (Conker) and other effects in general? Look at these games carefully and imagine them being on the Saturn and tell us your opinion.
Reading your posts, you sound like you believe that all these games would be an easy job for the Saturn, since it beats the N64 in every technical category according to you. Of course, you do realize that this sounds pretty crazy, right? So tell us. What is the one thing were the N64 wins and is able to run these particular games that the Saturn would have to sacrifice their families to be able to run them somehow? There has to be something...
I know that your answer is going to be "The N64 wouldn't be able to run the best looking Saturn games either". Let's say i agree. So that means that the best looking games on Saturn are made with the Saturn's strengths in mind. Textures and clarity being the obvious ones. But the same thing applies to the N64. It's best looking games are made with it's own strengths in mind. So my question still stands. What exactly are these strengths the N64 has?
12-10-2015, 01:19 AM
A Black Falcon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Tiger
Nobody here is trying to insist that <Playstation 3D or <Saturn 3D.
Oh? Are you so sure about that? Read on...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulis
Trekkies, you didn't answer my question, is there any aspect where the N64 wins compared to the Saturn visually
He answered your question: No. There is not one single hardware thing that the N64 is better at than the Saturn and Playstation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118
Because in general it typically loses out to the Saturn or PS1 in those categories. What advantages it does have typically play out in things like low load times due to using cartridges, stock 4 player support, etc.
12-10-2015, 02:21 AM
TrekkiesUnite118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulis
Trekkies, you didn't answer my question, is there any aspect where the N64 wins compared to the Saturn visually? If not, do you think that the Saturn would be able to handle the best looking N64 games such as Conker, B-K, World Driver Championship, Shadowman, Beatle Adventure Racing, Battle for Naboo, etc at the same exact quality as the N64? Including draw distances, 3D objects and geometry, level complexity, assets, frame rate, environmental reflections, real time shadows (Conker) and other effects in general? Look at these games carefully and imagine them being on the Saturn and tell us your opinion.
I didn't say the N64 didn't have any advantages. I just listed the ones I felt were important where the Saturn and PS1 both seem to come out on top in most games. The N64 would win over the Saturn in Lighting and Transparency easily. It doesn't have those rendering quirks. It would win out in special effects it has available to it that the Saturn doesn't have. It would probably win out in CPU brute force. It would also win in having stable 3D and texture filtering. However those last too I don't think make up for the weaknesses the system has. That has always been the argument here. ABF tries to play those off as if those magically make the poor texturing, the lower polygon performance, and the lower framerates of a lot of games not that big of a deal.
However it still loses out to the PS1 in some of these areas. Which I will again reiterate, I was doing this comparison as the N64 vs the Saturn AND PS1.
As for the Saturn running those games. Would it do them identically to the N64? Of course not, they're different systems with different quirks. Now do I think the Saturn if it had the same level of support and was being pushed well into 2001 like the N64 could have possibly done something comparable? Possibly. We see hints of that in things like the Shenmue demo.
But I'll go down the list for you:
Conker - Transparencies and lighting would probably suffer here. Though polygon wise the models really aren't that complex here. The game is also only running at about 20-25fps last I checked. So looking at things like Sonic World and Croc I'd say the Saturn probably could so something similar considering those two games run at 30fps.
Banjo-Kazooie - Again the same thing with Conker. Polygon wise I'm not seeing anything really amazing in model and scenery detail. Things are pretty basic, they're just very distorted/exaggerated to not have that simple boxy look. The frame rate is again not a solid 30fps. Transparencies and lighting would again suffer here. But I think you could get something similar. These games while looking nice really aren't pushing very complex polygon models, that's probably how they can get such good draw distances. Looking at games again like Croc, Sonic World, even games like Powerslave, Quake, and Duke 3D we can see it's not impossible for the Saturn to have good draw distances. Especially if you start lowering the framerate to sub 25fps like some of these N64 games run at. Honestly I'd say Lobotomy's engine is a very good example for Saturn 3D. You have good draw distances with good geometry, lighting, etc, with no flickering, warping, or pop up in sight.
Shadowman - Well the PS1 ran it, I'd imagine the Saturn could probably get something similar running if developers were actually developing for it at the time.
World Driver Championship - Lighting, Transparencies, and reflections would be gimped most likely. The reflections as far as I know would be very difficult if not impossible to pull off on the Saturn due to it's rendering set up. Though VDP2 might be able to pull something off like we see with Sonic R in Radiant Emerald. The draw distance might be pushing it, but then again when I look at racers like Sega Rally, we have a pretty good draw distance. But the main difference is Sega Rally is really packing in a lot of trackside objects, where as World Driver Championship from what I've seen tends to have more barren trackside with some more basic buildings. That's probably how they're keeping the draw distance up. It also seems to have less cars which would help with the polygon budget as well.
Beetle Adventure Racing - Again Transparencies, Lighting, etc. would suffer. Again though the track geometry is pretty plain. So again if the system was being pushed this late into the generation we might have seen a racer like this.
Battle For Naboo - Again lighting, transparency, etc. would suffer. Draw Distance might be an issue, but again things aren't that detailed in the geometry, buildings are very boxy, ships aren't that detailed, etc. They're also not using textures beyond a certain point, which would also help with draw distance as you can push more shaded polygons than texture mapped polygons.
Basically I'm getting that you're mostly concerned with the Draw distance and effects here. While I admit Saturn games with good draw distances are few and far between, it seems that for a lot of games the developers on the Saturn and PS1 seemed more concerned with using that performance for higher framerates or for pushing as much geometric detail into the world while N64 developers seemed more concerned with making the worlds big with long draw distances, but a bit more plain or empty feeling if that makes sense.
For example compare Sega Rally to World Driver Championship or Beetle Adventure Racing. While the N64 titles do have longer draw distances, Sega Rally's scenery is much more lush and detailed feeling with more cars on the track.
So my answer on if the Saturn could run those games exactly like the N64 is no, of course not. There are some effects and abilities the N64 has that the Saturn doesn't have or would have a hard time replicating. For polygon count and performance, I'm not sure. We don't really know what the Saturn could have done if it was pushed by developers in the west the same way the N64 was. From what was released, some games do have good draw distances with good geometry detail, but still not on par with some of those N64 games. On the other hand, a lot of those N64 games aren't running at even 30fps, and they aren't pushing as detailed of models. So if similar sacrifices were made maybe the Saturn could have gotten similar draw distances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulis
Reading your posts, you sound like you believe that all these games would be an easy job for the Saturn, since it beats the N64 in every technical category according to you. Of course, you do realize that this sounds pretty crazy, right? So tell us. What is the one thing were the N64 wins and is able to run these particular games that the Saturn would have to sacrifice their families to be able to run them somehow? There has to be something...
Again, I didn't say the Saturn beats it in every technical category. My exact words were:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118
The Saturn wins over the N64 on Textures, Image Quality, Framerate (Yes, even the Saturn has more 60fps games than the N64), and in some cases polygon counts.
That's definitely not every graphical category. For polygon counts I think it really just boils down to what developers felt was more important for their polygon budget. N64 developers seemed more concerned with draw distance, Saturn developers seemed more concerned with making the things close to the player more detailed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118
I know that your answer is going to be "The N64 wouldn't be able to run the best looking Saturn games either". Let's say i agree. So that means that the best looking games on Saturn are made with the Saturn's strengths in mind. Textures and clarity being the obvious ones. But the same thing applies to the N64. It's best looking games are made with it's own strengths in mind. So my question still stands. What exactly are these strengths the N64 has?
Transparencies, Lighting, GPU effects the Saturn doesn't have, texture filtering, Z-Buffering, etc. Again, those last two are a technical advantage. I just don't think they are worth the massive sacrifice to texture quality and polygon performance that was paid for them. If you were to trade those in for texturing abilities on par with or better than the Saturn and PS1, as well as a boost to Polygon Performance and Alpha blending on par with the PS1, I think it would be a clear landslide win for the N64. But as it stands it's not a clear win for it. Many of it's flaws are so glaring that even the Saturn, a system that is pretty horrible at 3D, can actually shine above it in some aspects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
He answered your question: No. There is not one single hardware thing that the N64 is better at than the Saturn and Playstation.
Way to put words in my mouth. For one I'm talking about both the Saturn AND the PS1 there. And second of all I'm talking about the specific categories I mentioned in my earlier post which is far from being every technical aspect.
Quit being a moron and thinking in absolutes. Just because I don't take the time to praise every asinine little thing the N64 can do doesn't mean I don't think it has any advantages over the Saturn or PS1. That would just be stupid.
12-10-2015, 02:55 AM
Soulis
A few objections:
Sega Rally doesn't have any better scenery detail that WDC or BAR. At least not as far as polygons and objects are concerned. Maybe the sharper textures around you fool you?
Plus there is too much pop-up compared to these games. And as far as i remember no more that 2 cars were on screen at the same time on Sega Rally. WDC pushes many more cars on screen at the same time, since it's not a rally game but more like a Grand Turismo clone. A quick image search and there are already pics with 4 or 5 cars at the same time (i'm too bored to make my own pictures atm). And it does have a more complex scenery with more variety in it. And a better draw distance. And a pretty stable frame rate. And nice shiny cars.
Really, Sega Rally is not what i could call a good looking Saturn game, certainly not a good looking racing game at all, compared to what the PS1 and N64 has to offer. Dunno if there are other racing games that look better on Saturn though. This and Daytona are the only ones i ever played (and a bike game i don't remember of).
Also Banjo-Kazooie runs at 30fps, it's just not as stable as in Mario. Conker too, but probably has more slowdowns. I would also suggest to see Mad Monster Mansion and Rusty Bucket Bay levels in B-K. These look so advanced that i doubt even the PS1 would be able to handle properly, let alone the Saturn.
Also, Conker's model is pretty amazing with great geometry detail on his face and nice animation on his expressions. Again, never seen something similar on Saturn. I don't know about the PS1 though. Spyro looks like a comparable model in quality. Neither Croc, Sonic (Sonic World area) or Gex come even close. Earthworm Jim also looks pretty great, even having all of his fingers modeled and animated individually.
Also, Shadowman does exist on PS1, but it's inferior to the N64 port, having texture warping problems, missing details and lower frame rate.
But overall, i thought your reply was reasonable enough.
Call me crazy, but I'd rather have the low res textures smoothed out than have them be completely raw and pixellated. I don't understand how giant pixels on 3D models is more acceptable than it being filtered. The Shenmue Saturn demo reel is impressive, but like with every other PS1 or Saturn game, the large pixels can be unappealing at times.
By the way... i don't see too much texture detail here... the clothes look like they are a solid color and a couple of shades.
Not to bash Virtua Fighter 2 as it IS an amazing game technically, but this picture doesn't show great textures at all. Or is this Remix? I can't really tell.
Call me crazy, but I'd rather have the low res textures smoothed out than have them be completely raw and pixellated. I don't understand how giant pixels on 3D models is more acceptable than it being filtered. The Shenmue Saturn demo reel is impressive, but like with every other PS1 or Saturn game, the large pixels can be unappealing at times.
Modchipped Saturn is still awesome though.
You used the word "pixellated", be prepared for a lecture from Trekkies! (Though it is absolutely 100% the right term here.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118
That's quite an assumption to make right there. The PS1 and Saturn both have CD-ROMs to store more textures, and they're not crippled with a puny texture cache that's prone to stalling. The n64 has bad textures because it's design is constantly working against it in this area.
What assumption? That a system with six times more games, and mountains of terrible shovelware, is going to have a lot more awful-looking games than a system with only a fraction as many games and far less super-low-budge junk? No, that's not an assumption, it's just a statement of the obvious.
Quote:
And I hate to bring it up a lot, but I think the Shenmue Prototype gives us a good idea of what 98/99 Saturn Software would have been like if the Saturn was more popular. And it is not only on par with what we see on the PS1 around that time, in many ways it's blowing it away:
Sure, that looks pretty nice, but the PS1 can do better, the textures are pretty pixelated, and could the game actually have looked that good and run decently in-game in a finished product, and not just in a demo video? Because yeah, Saturn Shenmue looks great for the Saturn... but it's just a video.
Quote:
Because better textures trumps filtering. I'd rather be able to tell what it is I'm looking at than have a muddy mess of an image. Texture Filtering and what not are nice to have if you already have the basics covered. But if you don't have those basics covered it's just going to make those flaws more apparent.
It's like bragging that your house has the prettiest door on the street while ignoring the foundation is lopsided and collapsing.
You have your analogy backwards there. The textures are like the door, and the z-buffer perspective correction is the foundation. This is much more accurate, and works better as analogy too -- one of the worst effects of lacking perspective correction (on the PS1 and others) are popping polygon edges, much like a foundation which is on the edge of a house, while a door is, well, something that in a game is textured. :)
Quote:
Yeah, you just have to come to the N64's defense and defend it's honor from cold hard facts.
Your extremely biased Saturn-is-the-best worldview isn't fact by any possible definition of the term.
Quote:
As said above, while it's nice, it's something to have in addition to the basics being covered.
Textures are not "the basics". They are something to improve on later once you can.
Quote:
If you're not covering the basics, it's just a waste. Am I really being extreme here? Or are you being extreme by trying boast these effects that in the end don't make up for the lack of good texturing, higher polygon counts, and higher framerates.
If perspective correction really wasn't so important, then why has every single home console released since the N64 used it? While not one has used Saturn specialties like quads.
Quote:
I didn't say it did beat it on average. I simply said the amount of games doing it is a plus, and they're all pretty significant games too. I don't think there's any 3D fighters on the PS1 getting close to Virtua Fighter 2 or Dead or Alive's resolution.
As for Saturn vs PS1, again we're back to what they bring to the table. I didn't say one was better than the other. I said they have their strengths and weaknesses. The Saturn has VDP2 which is a pretty big advantage when used well. Games that make use of it don't translate well to the PS1. That Radiant Silvergun example is really good at illustrating this. Those planes would need to be done with Polygons on the PS1 and N64. The end result probably wouldn't be as nice or perform as well. On the other hand PS1 games that use tons of Alpha blending or push a lot more polygons typically don't translate well to the Saturn.
So as far as graphics go, between Saturn and PS1 it's close, but between Saturn and N64 or PS1 and N64 it's the N64's obvious loss. Naturally.
Quote:
Yet I don't hate the N64. Just because I don't put it on a pedestal and look at it with rose tinted glasses doesn't mean I hate it. I accept it for what it is and acknowledge it's flaws. If you've noticed I'm pretty open about the Saturn's flaws too.
Your Saturn pedestal is so high that you can't see over it to look at what the other systems can really do... :) The Saturn is a pretty good console with a lot of good games, but you overstate its capabilities!
Quote:
So by stating my opinion that most N64 games seem to use texture filtering as a crutch to hide bad textures I'm somehow conspiring about something? Please explain how this works and what I'm supposedly conspiring about.
Unless you think that N64 developers were using filtering as a "crutch to hide bad textures", and earlier you claimed that you don't believe this, you should stop saying that because it is a false, insulting statement for reasons that have been repeatedly gone over.
Quote:
N64 textures are bad for the following reasons:
-Small texture cache that has performance bottlenecks and issues limits the quality of textures that can be used at a given time.
-Small cartridges limits the quality of textures the game can have as a whole, as well as the variety of textures it can have.
At the end of the day that's why they are bad. Whether Nintendo developed it with Mario 64 in mind is irrelevant. It doesn't suddenly make this technical flaw ok or good. It's a serious issue the system has. Whatever intent they had with the texture filtering, in implementation it came off more as being used to hide poor texture quality.
N64 games have plenty of texture variety, so that's not a problem in most games. Only the cache is a problem. And yes it's an issue, but you hugely overstate how serious of one it is. It's not as bad a problem as the PS1's horrible perspective-correction problems, certainly.
Quote:
Yes, but the other aims that I'd say trump filtering are Polygon Counts, Texture Quality, and Framerate, all of which the N64 sacrifices for texture filtering. It may be a step forward in 3D graphics, but when you take a step back in something as important as Texture Quality, Framerate, and Polygon counts, it becomes moot.
The N64 is not a step back in framerate. The N64 is a 5th-gen console, and its games have higher framerates than just about any 4th-gen 3d game, and framerates that are in the same ballpark as the other 5th-gen consoles. And for polygon counts, well, we'll get to that. At least you admit that it was a step forward for 3d graphics, though! Nice to hear.
Quote:
True, but in this case we're not comparing the Saturn to the PS1. We're comparing the N64 to both the Saturn and PS1. And in a lot of similar areas both systems beat the N64.
Yeah, you're not comparing the Saturn to the PS1 because you want to keep the focus on bashing the N64, of course. It's one of Sega-16's favorite pastimes!
Quote:
I wont begin to debate that the Saturn loses out in a lot of those categories to the PS1. However the N64 isn't quite as good here as you want to claim. And honestly, perspective correction isn't really that important when your textures are shit. When I look at an N64 game I'm not going "Wow! Those polygons are perspectively correct!", I'm going "Wow, this looks like shit. Everything is so blurry I can't tell what half of this is supposed to be."
You exaggerate, you can always tell what things are on the N64. Besides that, all I can say is t hat you are entirely backwards and focus on the wrong things.
Also, games steadily have increased in resolution over the decades so as to get rid of visible pixels and make graphics more realistic. Your case here hinges on the unimportance of getting rid of pixels, but the entire direction of the industry is 100% the other way. Getting rid of pixels in 3d games is important, and in home consoles, Nintendo took the first step towards that. You're just too blinded by hating the textures to care.
Quote:
And again we're not discussing 90's PC here. That's irrelevant. We're discussing how the N64 stacks up against the PS1 and Saturn.
It's only "irrelevant" if you want to keep up your lie about me being "a blind N64 fanboy", something which is of course a falsehood impossible to sustain the moment any mention of PC games comes into the picture. Sure PCs are not consoles, they cost a lot more and do not have set hardware, but it's absolutely fair to compare different gaming mediums to each other.
Quote:
List of Saturn games that run in High Res Mode off the top of my head (games not menus):
Virtua Fighter 2
Dead or Alive
Anarchy in the Nippon
Decathlete
All Star Japan Wrestling
Stellar Assault SS
Saturn Bomberman (10 Player Mode)
All 3 Digital Pinball Games
Digital Dance Mix
What makes these more impressive is that they all run at 60fps. To get High Res Mode to work on the Saturn, that's a requirement. Then if we want to get technical, the Saturn can mix resolutions. So games like Fighters Megamix have 704x480 backgrounds, but low res fighters. Virtua Fighter Remix has High Res fighters, but low res backgrounds. And then there's quite a few games running at 704x240 and 640x240.
Nice list, though we would need the lists for the other systems to maek a comparison. There's surely threads here about it, I know it's been discussed more than a few times.
Quote:
Now, the N64 list may be bigger for 640x480, but it has no games hitting 704x480. And the other kicker here is most of it's high res mode game require the expansion pak and run worse with that mode enabled. Again I'd say the Saturn is more impressive here since it does that at 60fps on a stock system.
640x480 vs. 704x480 really is not a significant difference. Like, in DOS games, 320x240 vs. 320x200, it's not enough to matter too much.
Quote:
Yet the Saturn's Polygon specs are 200k per second, and the N64's is 100k per second.
Neither of those numbers is accurate. The N64 can do way over 100k, and I highly doubt that the Saturn ever got anywhere near 200k. You do know that the highest-poly N64 games, such as World Driver Championship, Battle for Naboo, and such, have polygon counts as high or higher than those in your average PS1 game, yes? It's true. So if the PS1 has more polys most of the time than the Saturn, then this means that the N64 likely can do more polys than you usually see on Saturn either. That Saturn number sounds about as reliable as Sony's always hugely overstated polygon count estimates... while Nintendo, for whatever reason, was always super-conservative, mentioning numbers that the system definitely did in average games and not theoretical maximum output like Sony and Sega were doing. This isn't just speculation, either -- you see this with the Gamecube very clearly. Nintendo's own tech-specs "maximum polygon count" number for the GC is a number which better-looking GC games easily exceed, and by a sizable margin too, I think. It's the same with the N64; 100,000 a second is by no means the system's actual maximum. Now, WDC does turn off some effects in order to really pump up the poly count, but I don't think Battle for Naboo does that... Factor 5 were just amazing programmers.
Quote:
Sure if it turns off the filtering it can do more, but very few games do that. And if the Saturn isn't typically pushing more polygons, then why do games like Quake have better Geometry on the Saturn? Why do 3D Fighters run at higher framerates with better looking models? Why do games like Virtua Cop have more geometry detail than titles like Goldeneye and even Perfect Dark?
Simply put, I think the Saturn wins over the N64 in this category. Though you're right, the PS1 is the champ here.
I know I said this already in this post, but you have some of the thickest Saturn blinders imaginable. Sega Rally doesn't have a higher poly count than World Driver Championship! That's absurd. And there's no way Saturn Quake has a higher poly count than Perfect Dark, either. Not even close. Come on. Among other things, regardless of environmental detail, PD can do 4 player splitscreen! Saturn Quake can only do 1 player on screen.
Quote:
Texture Warping isn't happening all the time though. It's something that pops up every now and then. And on the Saturn it's almost unnoticeable. N64 texture filtering however is always on, there's no way to avoid it, and it's always happening. Throw in the bad textures and that makes it a bigger deal in my opinion.
Texture warping or polygon edges popping around happens almost anytime anything is moving on the PS1. As for the Saturn, sure it's not as bad, but the picture often barely seems able to hold together, in a way you'd never see on N64... perspective correction makes everything feel solid in a way that doesn't happen on systems without it.
Quote:
Because the N64 is worse at transparencies than the PS1? The Saturn is bad too, I didn't deny that. It probably is the worst of it's generation too, though I don't know how the 3DO and Jaguar play into this. However when the Saturn's transparencies are working right, I'm not really seeing anything worse than the N64. If it weren't for the bugs and quirks, they'd probably be even.
It's not just "bugs", it's design! The multi-chip design in the Saturn is critically flawed. It's too expensive to make, too hard to program for, and the collection of chips do not work well together. Good programmers can get some decently nice results out of the system, but it's much harder than it should be and some things are impossible, such as transparencies here where one chip can't make things drawn by the other parts of the system transparent.
Seriously, how did Sega not realize that transparencies are important? The SNES has them, and they look great there! Sega had years to figure it out... and they failed. It's one of the most frustrating things about the Saturn.
Quote:
Again then why do games like Quake have worse Geometry on the N64?
Different developer, different engine.
Quote:
Why do games like Virtua Cop have more details?
On-rails game, meaning that you can use 100% of processor power only on what the player can currently see, in a way you can't in a game where you can move around freely. I agree, Virtua Cop looks great... but I'm sure that's the reason why.
Quote:
And we're not even getting into games like Shining Force III and Grandia which really push details in their 3D Environments.
Grandia has sprite-based characters and fairly simple environments polygon-wise, a lot of the time. And when they do get more complex MAN do they get pixelley.
Quote:
My definition of image quality is very simple. How clean and crisp is the image displayed on my TV? I think most people here would agree with this. The Saturn is ridiculously sharp and clean here. Even with composite. Using S-Video and RGB and it's a clear win for it. I'd rate the PS1 equally here, but the full screen dithering tends to ruin it. The N64 here is the worst. It outputs a very muddy image. Honestly I have a hard time telling the difference between S-Video and Composite with it.
Things like perspective correction, polygon warping/popping, and jaggies are all parts of image quality. If you don't get those things right, who cares how good your hardware is otherwise? For jaggies, this was a particularly big problem on the PS2. The PS2 could put a huge number of polygons on screen, has some impressive effects capabilities including some that beat what the GC or Xbox can do... but the image quality is so terrible because of jaggies and such that it doesn't matter, PS2 graphics look worse than the competition.
The N64 is still rather blurry, and that's supposed to be one of it's better games. The Saturn shot by comparison is like someone putting on a pair of glasses. It's crystal clear and sharp. Sorry but the Saturn wins here. And yes, both shots are S-Video.
Nothing in that Saturn shot is "sharp", not at that resolution. Of course the N64 isn't either, but that's my point -- at the resolutions 5th-gen console games are dealing with, the N64's look looks much better. The interlaced graphics these systems use are never clear or sharp, not really.
Quote:
The Saturn and PS1 both have more 3D games hitting 60fps than the N64. Significantly more. Throw in that a lot of the N64's big titles like Perfect Dark, Zelda, Conker, Banjo, etc. are all running at sub 20fps. So again I'm going to say it loses here.
Those games don't usually run at "sub 20 fps"; that's just an occasional thing. And no, it doesn't lose, though Soulis already said why.
Quote:
As for the difference between texture warping and the bad texture quality, one is an issue that many games work around, the other is a glarring flaw that impacts just about every game. Having a texture warp every now and then when the camera moves is nowhere near as big of an issue as extremely shitty textures that are blurred to death and lose all detail.
Everything you say here is totally wrong. First, you can't entirely work around texture warping. It's going to happen in all PS1 games. Sure, many games use overlapping polygons to try to hide the warping and the broken polygon seams that plague Playstation games, but it's going to happen, you can't escape it. Even games like Wipeout 3 have texture warping and polygon-seam issues. And yes, it is a big deal. Holding the image together is the very most basic thing about creating a 3d world!
Quote:
Texture warping, perspective issues, etc. are issues on the PS1 and Saturn. However I think most of us would rather put up with them in exchange for better framerates, higher polygon counts, and better textures. Again this comes back to the original point. Those nice N64 features are not worth the cost of gimping the system when it comes to it's performance in those key areas.
And again, those issues have nothing to do with image quality. Image Quality here is simply how clean and crisp the image is when it's displayed on the TV.
Videogames are not still pictures, so 'video quality' is probably the better term. And yes, as I've already explained they have everything to do with image quality.
Quote:
Yet they typically do, go figure. And the Saturn even does it in high res mode.
They sometimes do and sometimes don't.
Quote:
Because in general it typically loses out to the Saturn or PS1 in those categories. What advantages it does have typically play out in things like low load times due to using cartridges, stock 4 player support, etc.
So in your own words the N64 has no significant graphical advantages. Check. In your next post you say 'don't put words in my mouth', but these are your own words here, not mine.
12-10-2015, 05:23 AM
Team Andromeda
Quote:
Sega Rally doesn't have any better scenery detail that WDC or BAR. At least not as far as polygons and objects are concerned.
I'll say that Rally looks and runs better and also unlike WDC or BAR SEGA Rally wasn't built for the Sega Saturn but was a port of Model 2B board and so is super impressive really and I'll say the car/tyre physics in Rally Saturn are way better too . Plus WDC and Bar again suffer from dull looking low res washed out textures.
Quote:
Also Banjo-Kazooie runs at 30fps, it's just not as stable as in Mario. Conker too, but probably has more slowdowns. I would also suggest to see Mad Monster Mansion and Rusty Bucket Bay levels in B-K. These look so advanced that i doubt even the PS1 would be able to handle properly, let alone the Saturn
No they'll be massive sort comings, but also games like Conkers in a screen res of 200x 300 or somthing really low - That really is poor for a system that was said to be the most powerful system and a system that was meant to give us Jurassic Park and T2 graphics in the home . Many N64 games not only had issues with low screen res, poor textures a lot didn't even run 30 fps or anywhere near that , I mean Pioltwings run at 21 fps or around that mark.
Quote:
What exactly are these strengths the N64 has?
It could hadle games with a bigger open world I would say . No polygon folding and much much better support for multi player
Quote:
could the game actually have looked that good and run decently in-game in a finished product, and not just in a demo video
Given its AM#2 I would say yes thats how good the game would have looked and run . I agree the PS could do better (it done better), but it shows the Saturn could push a lot of polygons when asked.
Quote:
N64 games have plenty of texture variety, so that's not a problem in most games.
They do, but I've never seen a N64 game to beat the best of the Saturn or PS . My problem with the N64 is dull washed out colours in most games the muddy display and the low screen res . But all systems have their good and minus points.
Quote:
The N64 is not a step back in framerate. The N64 is a 5th-gen console, and its games have higher framerates than just about any 4th-gen 3d game
Really ? Why was the likes of Pioltwings running at 21 fps . I would guess there's more PS and Saturn games not only running in a higer res but also a better framerate too.
Quote:
Nothing in that Saturn shot is "sharp", not at that resolution
I'm sorry the Saturn High Res mode is pin sharp and when you play the system in RGB is amazing to see the Saturn High Res games
I'll say the psychics in Rally Saturn are way better too .
There were no psychics, only navigators with maps as in all rallies!
12-10-2015, 06:21 AM
Team Andromeda
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleeg
There were no psychics, only navigators with maps as in all rallies!
Bloody mobile predictive text
12-10-2015, 10:42 AM
gamevet
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleeg
There were no psychics, only navigators with maps as in all rallies!
:daze:
12-10-2015, 11:42 AM
Soulis
Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Andromeda
I'll say that Rally looks and runs better and also unlike WDC or BAR SEGA Rally wasn't built for the Sega Saturn but was a port of Model 2B board and so is super impressive really and I'll say the car/tyre physics in Rally Saturn are way better too . Plus WDC and Bar again suffer from dull looking low res washed out textures.
Ok, lets see the problems WDC has compared to Sega Rally Saturn: Washed out textures. Blurrier video output.
Now, lets see the problems Sega Relly has compared to WDC: Shorted draw distances. Less visual variety and objects on the tracks. Less cars on screen. No visual effects (like shiny textures or reflections) on the car bodies. Windows and shadows are just a dithered surface. The dust particles look like a glitch. Heavy pixellation overall.
Funny story about the dust particle effects and why i seem to nit pick about them: First time i played Sega Rally was on the SSF emulator ages ago. These effects looked so bad and distracting that i was sure it was an emulation bug. The few videos i bothered to see on Youtube, i assumed they were emulation too. Few years later, a friend of mine gave me a Saturn. He found it on a recycle bin. I needed a game to test if it works so i got Sega Rally for cheap and tested it. I was happy that the console worked but the dust effects still looked glitchy to me so i thought that maybe the console is not 100% ok. Yeah, it's a dumb thought but that's how bad these effects look. :p
So yeah, i'd say WDC definitely looks much more advanced (visually/technically) than Sega Rally.
Now, as far as the port argument goes... Sega Rally was not originally on the Saturn yes. But it was made by the best developer team Sega had. WDC was made by Boss Studios. Who the heck are these guys anyway?
I would also appreciate it if you provided a source about Conker's lower than normal resolution. I don't have the game (too expensive) an i can only play it on an Emulator. And i'm not sure how to check what the internal resolution is with the pixel accurate plugin.
12-10-2015, 12:20 PM
gamevet
There are some crazy N64 fans on this site. 1st Daytona, now Sega Rally. :fail:
12-10-2015, 12:39 PM
Soulis
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
There are some crazy N64 fans on this site. 1st Daytona, now Sega Rally. :fail:
You say these graphical issues compared to WDC don't exist in the game?
Must be my own copy then, or else i can't explain how can i be wrong. And i don't do drugs.
Also, when did i say i'm a N64 fan? I don't favor consoles. Just games.
12-10-2015, 12:42 PM
gamevet
Your copy is running on an emulator. It's not the same as real hardware, especially if it's not running at its native resolution on a CRT.
12-10-2015, 12:48 PM
Team Andromeda
Quote:
Now, lets see the problems Sega Relly has compared to WDC
Again ... Sega Rally was a port of one of the most powerful Arcade boards and CG systems around at the time . WDC was built from the ground up with the N64 hardware plus and minus points in mind and even then it had plenty of short comings . SEGA rally runs better and features much better and more detail texture mapping .
Quote:
The dust particles look like a glitch. Heavy pixellation overall
It was taken from the Arcade game and imo is a better effect than those seen in Rally II on the DC.
Quote:
I would also appreciate it if you provided a source about Conker's lower than normal resolution
Not this crap again .. How about from the people that made the game .. skip to 2:30 for info on the screen res
What that's got to do with anything . Nobody heard of Lobotomy and they showed up most developers on the Saturn .
12-10-2015, 12:52 PM
Black_Tiger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulis
A few objections:
Sega Rally doesn't have any better scenery detail that WDC or BAR. At least not as far as polygons and objects are concerned. Maybe the sharper textures around you fool you?
Plus there is too much pop-up compared to these games. And as far as i remember no more that 2 cars were on screen at the same time on Sega Rally. WDC pushes many more cars on screen at the same time, since it's not a rally game but more like a Grand Turismo clone. A quick image search and there are already pics with 4 or 5 cars at the same time (i'm too bored to make my own pictures atm). And it does have a more complex scenery with more variety in it. And a better draw distance. And a pretty stable frame rate. And nice shiny cars.
Really, Sega Rally is not what i could call a good looking Saturn game, certainly not a good looking racing game at all, compared to what the PS1 and N64 has to offer. Dunno if there are other racing games that look better on Saturn though. This and Daytona are the only ones i ever played (and a bike game i don't remember of).
Also Banjo-Kazooie runs at 30fps, it's just not as stable as in Mario. Conker too, but probably has more slowdowns. I would also suggest to see Mad Monster Mansion and Rusty Bucket Bay levels in B-K. These look so advanced that i doubt even the PS1 would be able to handle properly, let alone the Saturn.
Also, Conker's model is pretty amazing with great geometry detail on his face and nice animation on his expressions. Again, never seen something similar on Saturn. I don't know about the PS1 though. Spyro looks like a comparable model in quality. Neither Croc, Sonic (Sonic World area) or Gex come even close. Earthworm Jim also looks pretty great, even having all of his fingers modeled and animated individually.
Also, Shadowman does exist on PS1, but it's inferior to the N64 port, having texture warping problems, missing details and lower frame rate.
But overall, i thought your reply was reasonable enough.
Although Sega Rally just looks nice for what it is and isn't a universal benchmark, the Netlink versions have updated graphics and I believe a farther draw distance.
12-10-2015, 01:00 PM
Soulis
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
Your copy is running on an emulator. It's not the same as real hardware, especially if it's not running at its native resolution on a CRT.
I already mentioned i own this game for my Saturn. And a Sony trinitron CRT (not sure if i ever mentioned this though).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Andromeda
Again ... Sega Rally was a port of one of the most powerful Arcade boards and CG systems around at the time . WDC was built from the ground up with the N64 hardware plus and minus points in mind and even then it had plenty of short comings . SEGA rally runs better and features much better and more detail texture mapping
And falls short in the categories i mentioned. Yet you don't seem to admit it. Like you guys are afraid to because it's a holy grail or something.
Also, runs better? How so? WDC was pretty smooth and stable at 30 fps last time i played it. With 8 cars on screen (that's the max i think)
12-10-2015, 01:22 PM
gamevet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulis
I already mentioned i own this game for my Saturn. And a Sony trinitron CRT (not sure if i ever mentioned this though).
I went and read the rest of your post. The particle effects are supposed to be dirt being kicked up, which makes perfect sense. Yeah, I've played the game on a Trinitron, SD Wega and HD Wega.
WDC has less pop-up, because the surrounding area geometry is much simpler. Just look at how lifeless and blocky the canyon walls are in comparison to Sega Rally. The Saturn is being asked to run a title that was meant to run on $50,000 hardware, while WDC is not.
12-10-2015, 01:29 PM
Soulis
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
I went and read the rest of your post. The particle effects are supposed to be dirt being kicked up, which makes perfect sense. Yeah, I've played the game on a Trinitron, SD Wega and HD Wega.
WDC has less pop-up, because the surrounding area geometry is much simpler. Just look at how lifeless and blocky the canyon walls are in comparison to Sega Rally. The Saturn is being asked to run a title that was meant to run on $50,000 hardware, while WDC is not.
Thankfully i have both games on real hardware so i can do a better comparison.
WDC has more features on it's "canyon". You can see rocks here and there and differently shaped parts. It's not only canyons though. The buildings seem to be more complex than the few buildings you see on SR. There are even other details like power line posts, bridges, etc and generally, the scenery is much more busy and again, no popup.
SR canyons have better textures but it's just walls with not enough different shapes and details. And the few buildings there are near the finish line are, in no way, less blocky than WDC's.
I'll post some screen shots because i doubt that you have the game, from what you are posting.
12-10-2015, 01:46 PM
gamevet
Square buildings and power lines are not complex geometry.
12-10-2015, 01:49 PM
Soulis
Unfortunately, the pixel accurate plugin doesn't work with this game and i can't take screenshots from my N64.
However we are talking about track details here, not image clarity. So these clearer than normal images will do the job:
http://s17.postimg.org/hln4rva1b/image.png
Here you can see how the canyons are not just a corridor wall left and right but has different shapes in different distances, etc.
http://s17.postimg.org/d3ktzrtzj/image.png
Buildings aren't better or worse than SR here, but the overall detail of the scene is. That bridge looks more detailed than it needed to be.
http://s17.postimg.org/4iri8ljtb/image.png
More buildings of different heights and sizes from a distance, no pop up. Also, the glass on the buildings have reflections. And you can see the pretty long bridge you saw in the first pic, in the distance.
Also, notice how every scenery detail casts a shadow. It's just a simple shadow but still, it adds a lot of depth.
Sure, textures are not as sharp as in SR. But SR environments are much more plain with less objects around you and more "walls" left and right like you drive in a corridor sometimes. Now imagine that, along with these track features, WDC also pushes 8 cars on screen, along with reflections. At 30fps. And there's even a cool lens flare effect, because why not, but it's buggy on the emulator.
12-10-2015, 01:55 PM
gamevet
I've already checked it out. It seems to run like most racing games on the console, with the sensation of speed and scenary moving at a slow pace. Move that scenary at a faster pace, ask the hardware to use more/better textures, the cars to use better physics and then see how well it runs and looks.
12-10-2015, 01:58 PM
Soulis
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
I've already checked it out. It seems to run like most racing games on the console, with the sensation of speed and scenary moving at a slow pace. Move that scenary at a faster pace, ask the hardware to use more/better textures, the cars to use better physics and then see how well it runs and looks.
Now it's the sense of speed?
WDC starts very slow, just like Grand Turismo. Later in the game you get faster cars and there's a better sense of speed.
There is nothing wrong with the variety of textures. In fact, you get much better variety than SR because so many parts of the tracks look different and have different scenery.
There is nothing wrong with the physics. This is supposed to be more of a sim than an arcade. Which means it should do more complicated calculations. But there is no way to prove which one does more on this front so there is no point discussing it. Plus, it's not a visual detail.
12-10-2015, 02:11 PM
gamevet
Obviously, you are not paying attention to the details. The Rock and canyon areas in Sega Rally also have trees and shrubbery growing out of and above them. The rocks and canyons in WDC are very plain, as are the square boxed buildings.
Yes, the sensation of speed and how fast the scenary is moving is a major difference. One game is demanding more polygons at a faster pace, while the other just moves along and uses lesser of everything. The cars in Sega Rally are traveling between 60-90 mph and feel faster than the cars in WDC that are travelling between 100-180 mph. It's pretty obvious which game is doing more.
12-10-2015, 02:18 PM
Soulis
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
Obviously, you are not paying attention to the details. The Rock and canyon areas in Sega Rally also have trees and shrubbery growing out of and above them. The rocks and canyons in WDC are very plain, as are the square boxed buildings.
Yes, the sensation of speed and how fast the scenary is moving is a major difference. One game is demanding more polygons at a faster pace, while the other just moves along and uses lesser of everything. It's pretty obvious.
Less polygons? Lesser of everything? Are you serious? Did you look at the pictures?
I'm posting pictures showing actual geometry details in various parts of the track and you are speaking of 2D trees? Did you look at these pictures and said, "well, SR has more detailed scenery"? Sounds pretty odd to me.
The buildings in SR are also blocky squares. But the way they are placed, make the scene look like a corridor. WDC also has blocky buildings but the way they are placed in the scenery is more natural. SR wouldn't be able to do the same because of the pop-up.
As i said, the game is faster later on.
12-10-2015, 02:23 PM
gamevet
The buildings in SR used pitched roofs and are not just one big square with plain texturing like WDC. It's the little details that you're overlooking, as well as some of the big ones, like the trees in Sega Rally are not sprites.
12-10-2015, 02:34 PM
Soulis
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
The buildings in SR used pitched roofs and are not just one big square with plain texturing like WDC. It's the little details that you're overlooking, as well as some of the big ones, like the trees in Sega Rally are not sprites.
Yeah, i overlook the "little" details... while you seem to overlook everything you see in those screenshots and continue to focus on the shape of the buildings. If i post a picture of a building that has pitched roofs and are not shaped like a box will you be happy? Check the 4th picture. See that building in the distance on the left? I will post a more detailed view of that and you will be satisfied (i hope).
