The Nintendo 64 Classic Edition.

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

11-25-2017, 09:01 AM
Soulis

F1 World Grand Prix handles more cars than Daytona (can display them on screen all at once) and these cars have more geometry (plus there's higher draw distance). Daytona's cars are very low poly as well and the ones that are on the max distance from you look like a bunch of pixels so they could be even lower. Draw distance is just too low so that's a huge save in geometry and at best you can see 9 or 10 cars. It's a good looking game overall, a huge improvement from the original release but still not something i would compare to the better looking N64 racers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Team Andromeda

N64 came 2 years latter and it wasn't that big of a jump at all imo.

This point is weird to me. First of all the N64 was released 1.5 years after the Saturn, not 2 full years like you claim. But it's development was in sync with the other consoles. Remember "project reality"? It wasn't supposed to be a "next gen" console after the PS1/SAT, it just got delayed a lot. That was the disappointment for me. I wasn't expecting a big jump from the other consoles. And don't forget how the Saturn was released too soon and that hurt it a lot at launch because devs didn't have time to polish the games. And then there's the price. It wasn't priced as a more powerful next gen console. It was the same price or lower as the competition, despite being newer. So i don't know what you expected here. I bet you fell for the hype of some mainstream magazine, didn't you?
11-25-2017, 09:32 AM
Team Andromeda

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soulis

F1 World Grand Prix handles more cars than Daytona (can display them on screen all at once) and these cars have more geometry (plus there's higher draw distance). Daytona's cars are very low poly as well and the ones that are on the max distance from you look like a bunch of pixels so they could be even lower. Draw distance is just too low so that's a huge save in geometry and at best you can see 9 or 10 cars. It's a good looking game overall, a huge improvement from the original release but still not something i would compare to the better looking N64 racers.

Doesn't handle more cars, but yes it displays more cars on screen, at the same time (but hey Saturn Nascar had to handle 24 cars too lol ). That's why I ever talked the game up and also said how I liked what Paradigm did with the Hardware but if I was to nick pick. Both their games didn't hit 30 fps and suffered from low res blurry gfx. S

Quote:

Daytona's cars are very low poly as well and the ones that are on the max distance from you look like a bunch of pixels

Better than F-Zero X and well I guess if the CS Team only had to worry about 8 cars on track like WDC they could have used more polygons on the cars, who knows.

Quote:

First of all the N64 was released 1.5 years after the Saturn, not 2 full years like you claim

My... We are pedantic. Yeah you right, guess you should call me over the DC didn't come 2 years after the N64 either but 2 and a bit. Back in those days one used to see nice jumps in hardware and yet even though the N64 came out last, it didn't outclass the Saturn or PS a lot of time and couldn't beat them for 60 fps or screen res, that is rather poor really.

Quote:

And don't forget how the Saturn was released too soon and that hurt it a lot at launch because devs didn't have time to polish the games.

Try it came out 6 years after the Mega Drive, hardly rushed. SEGA always liked to rush games out a little early Super Thunderblade or Space Harrier were hardly MD knock outs, Sega Rally II on the DC rushed out not finished and even VF3 tb had some gfx issues. That's SEGA for you, not that Nintendo are much better these days.. The SWITCH was clearly rushed out to market, but I'll always credit Nintendo Quality control their games are hardly ever shipped with bugs or Gfx glitches
11-25-2017, 09:57 AM
Soulis

Quote:

Originally Posted by Team Andromeda

Better than F-Zero X and well I guess if the CS Team only had to worry about 8 cars on track like WDC they could have used more polygons on the cars, who knows.

F-Zero X is 60 fps and displays all 30 cars at once.

You clearly don't know how graphics work.

When an object isn't displayed, it's polygon count doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if there are 1.000.000 cars on the track if you can's see them, the geometry capabilities of a console is used on what it's displayed on screen. In addition, there is a thing called LOD. When an object is at a certain distance, it swaps itself with a lower poly model. And because all 3 consoles are low res, you don't notice that much. If itt's just a bunch of pixels then there is no difference if it's a normal model or a simple shape or even a sprite. So devs take advantage of this.

Daytona displays about as many cars as WDC on screen at once maybe 1 or 2 more max. But the cars in WDC have many more polys, they have shadows and they have a nice reflection map as well.
11-25-2017, 09:58 AM
gamevet

Hold on Soulis. You can clearly see 10 cars together on Daytona CCE's intro running in real time and when you are racing. The original Daytona and Virtua Fighter were rushed products.
11-25-2017, 10:05 AM
Soulis

Quote:

Originally Posted by gamevet

Hold on Soulis. You can clearly see 10 cars together on Daytona CCE's intro running in real time and when you are racing. The original Daytona and Virtua Fighter were rushed products.

That's what i said. In my playthrough i could count 10 cars max. Not 40.

I never considered the original Daytona or VF to be showcases and i never criticized the system based on those. I'm aware it's capable for a lot more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Team Andromeda

Back in those days one used to see nice jumps in hardware

Not really no.

The SNES was also very late after the Genesis, let alone PC Engine. And yet all these systems are still comparable.

The Master System tech was also 2 years more recent than the NES. There isn't a huge jump there either. In fact, the Master System was released along with the Amiga. So if you want to bash a console for being weak on arrival, there's your target.

So no.
11-25-2017, 10:22 AM
Mega Drive Bowlsey

Well the Master System was clearly superior to the NES but the best consoles don't necessarily win the war, as Sega fans know only too well...
11-25-2017, 10:46 AM
Team Andromeda

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soulis

F-Zero X is 60 fps and displays all 30 cars at once.

Yes, but like I said with very simple and low polygon car models and next to no 3D backgrounds.

Quote:

When an object isn't displayed, it's polygon count doesn't matter

The console still has to keep track and handle all the AI if they are being displayed or not. When you have 40 cars driving around the track a short oval track, you are going to run into them a lot of the time, not helping matters.

Quote:

But the cars in WDC have many more polys, they have shadows and they have a nice reflection map as wel

Agreed, but like I said. WDC was built for the hardware Daytona USA was a port of the most powerful Arcade board around at the time and only had to handle 8 AI cars. I was really impressed with WDC rear view mirror too, but it didn't blow me away like Mario 64 did. To me WDC was hardly a huge step over Rally or GT.
11-25-2017, 11:10 AM
gamevet

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soulis

That's what i said. In my playthrough i could count 10 cars max. Not 40.

I never considered the original Daytona or VF to be showcases and i never criticized the system based on those. I'm aware it's capable for a lot more.

Why would it? The arcade game never did either. The cars are also way more detailed than those in F-Zero X, with their mostly triangular shapes and simple textures.

I'm pretty sure if you put your average clueless Joe in front of Daytona CCE and WDC that they think Daytona looked way better.
11-25-2017, 11:33 AM
Black_Tiger

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soulis

That's what i said. In my playthrough i could count 10 cars max. Not 40.

I never considered the original Daytona or VF to be showcases and i never criticized the system based on those. I'm aware it's capable for a lot more.

Not really no.

The SNES was also very late after the Genesis, let alone PC Engine. And yet all these systems are still comparable.

The Master System tech was also 2 years more recent than the NES. There isn't a huge jump there either. In fact, the Master System was released along with the Amiga. So if you want to bash a console for being weak on arrival, there's your target.

So no.

The Amiga is a computer.

Hang On and Space Harrier were released in arcades that years as well, but I don't think it's relevant to consoles.
11-25-2017, 12:06 PM
TrekkiesUnite118

What's this I hear about Daytona USA not showing more than 10 cars on screen at a time?:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4Qpc4B1BE0

Yes it's not technically during gameplay, but it is still a real time rendering.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bultje112

you again with your emulator. I wouldn't trust a saturn emulator for the life of me. wipeout 2097 definitely runs higher than 20 fps, let alone 16 fps. I tested the actual game on both pal and ntsc saturns.

Sorry but to both you and TA I'm gonna have to agree with Soulis on this one. Both Wipeouts on the Saturn are 20fps. It's very obvious when you do a side by side comparison with the 30fps PS1 versions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zl72UBn41Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ombh1rVAlzM

Now if you just play them by themselves with no side by side comparison, the 20fps Saturn versions seem perfectly fine and acceptable. Because they still do play just fine and look pretty much on par for the most part with the PS1 version. Back in the 90s 20fps was perfectly acceptable to most people. Case in point, look at how many people still love Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask and have no idea those games run at 20fps or lower.

That's the PAL versions running on real hardware.
11-25-2017, 12:38 PM
Team Andromeda

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soulis

Not really no.

The SNES was also very late after the Genesis, let alone PC Engine. And yet all these systems are still comparable.

The Master System tech was also 2 years more recent than the NES. There isn't a huge jump there either. In fact, the Master System was released along with the Amiga. So if you want to bash a console for being weak on arrival, there's your target.

The Snes was a jump over the MD. It had a huge colour pallet, Hardware support for scailing and rotation, 8 channels of PCM sound and 4 layeres of Playfield scrolling. The MD was a Big jump over the PC Eng too, The Master system was a huge jump over the NES to make out otherwise is laughable and if want to compare a £1000 mini computer to a console that cost less than £200 fair enough, most will see it's not a fair comparison. With the N64 was got sub par 30 frame rates, screen res of 300 and below and lack of detail textured mapping and huge step back for sound hardware. It was hardly the huge step up promised by Nintendo
11-25-2017, 12:44 PM
Team Andromeda

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118

That's the PAL versions running on real hardware.

Yes, but the PS version were optimised (at least to give full screen) The Pal Saturn versions weren't

This is the vid I done of the game being played on NTSC, to me its looks smoother than the Saturn version posted in the real blud dragon vid . I think its higer than the Wipeout 20 fps myself and far smoother than AM#2 Daytona USA . I'll have to go back and do a better vid and capture the game off the framemister

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN2NkbcDaMU
11-25-2017, 12:49 PM
bultje112

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soulis

That's what i said. In my playthrough i could count 10 cars max. Not 40.

I never considered the original Daytona or VF to be showcases and i never criticized the system based on those. I'm aware it's capable for a lot more.

Not really no.

The SNES was also very late after the Genesis, let alone PC Engine. And yet all these systems are still comparable.

The Master System tech was also 2 years more recent than the NES. There isn't a huge jump there either. In fact, the Master System was released along with the Amiga. So if you want to bash a console for being weak on arrival, there's your target.

So no.

what kind of asinine comparison is that? comparing a 1000-1500$ computer from 1985-1987 with a console of that era of less than 200$
11-25-2017, 12:52 PM
bultje112

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mega Drive Bowlsey

Not being tech minded I remember being completely underwhelmed by the N64 when it finally came out in the UK early '97. With it being touted as a 64 bit machine I was expecting it to be twice the power of the Saturn and PS1 lol! How little I understood. As far as I was concerned the N64 made 3D effects look smoother and more rounded and...that was about it. I certainly didn't see many examples of games that could not have had very respectable ports on the Saturn or PS1. I remember playing Croc and Spyro the Dragon back in the day on the PS1 and thinking that they looked just as good as Super Mario 64.

Same with me and I got an n64 not much after that for the wrestling games but thought the n64 graphics were even worse than psx. the games were so foggy and slow I felt intensely disappointed and I thought it was like no technical improvement and on top of that the games featured no fmv and terrible sound.
11-25-2017, 12:54 PM
Team Andromeda

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black_Tiger

Hang On and Space Harrier were released in arcades that years as well, but I don't think it's relevant to consoles.

Well said just compare the night and day differences between Model 1,2 3.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page