Quantcast
Which early 3D "look" stands up better to you?

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Which early 3D "look" stands up better to you?

I prefer...

Sharper but jagged/unstable 14 29.17%
 
Smooth and solid but blurrier 34 70.83%
 
Total:48

In the 5th gen, as the industry pioneered the new frontier of polygonal 3D, the console makers took different technological paths that resulted in very different looks.

On the one hand you had the PS1 and Saturn, whose 3D graphics appeared sharper, but as a result more pixelated and unstable, with more in the way of jittery polygons and texture warping.

On the other hand, the N64, as a result of releasing later, incorporated newer techniques like perspective correct texturing, anti-aliasing, and texture filtering. Its games looked smoother and more solid, but as a result also blurrier.

Which do you feel worked out better, and why?



Around the Network

Well the front walls look like crap in Tomb Raider (I think Wolfenstein 3D almost had better walls) but those triangle boobies! I'll go with Zelda on this one.

Last edited by sethnintendo - on 23 June 2019

Neither looked (too) bad on CRT screens back in the day. Nowadays, eh... I suppose the blurry look looks a little better, but they both look bad.



N64 looked better by far. Especially after the expansion pack was added on.

The PS1 was so pixelated that I couldn't even tell what I was looking at half the time. In a lot of PS1 games you can't even make out people's faces. In a way that makes it a step down from SNES/Genesis, because at least you can see character faces in those games.



The sentence below is false. 
The sentence above is true. 

Between Zelda and TR, Zelda definitely looked better. Probably the average N64 game, especially the average EAD or Rare game, held up better than the average PS1 game. Mario and Banjo probably hold up the best because of the cartoonishness of their visuals.

Final Fantasy still holds up pretty solidly, though, especially FF9, and the battle sequences to all three games actually don't look too bad today. Final Fantasy and Resident Evil had those pre-rendered backgrounds, and a lot of those vary in quality.

A lot of it had to do with the artistry of the designers as much as the hardware.. Rare made Banjo-Kazooie look really good, but the human models in Goldeneye and Perfect Dark were as blocky as the models in Virtua Fighter 1. I liked the human models in Tekken a lot better. A lot of N64 games looked had blurry, faded texture-mapping. The PS1 had sharper colors.



Around the Network

They both look terrible, but they both achieved their vision when they were released, which is good.

The poll is missing the option "Neither, because it's 2019 and we shouldn't have to choose".



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

N64, like Cerebralbore says, a lot of PS1 games that tried to look realistic you can’t make out what it’s supposed to be. N64 still doesn’t look that bad.



surely, n64 zelda should really compare to vangrant story



ok better still, same game on n64 and ps1, resident evil 2, ridge racer 64 vs ridge racer 2, ect



The Nintendo 64 was technically superior and the perspective correct texturing certainly holds up far better.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--