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

The N64 was more powerful this is not open for debate. That being said it was also harder to work with meaning companies with higher budgets produced better results so some individual games on PS1 look better than some N64 games. It's worth noting that a lot of the PS1 games mentioned are prerendered backgrounds which are basically 2-D. But we also aren't mentioning some of the best looking N64 games Turok 2 was outstanding for its time and Turok 3 was close to looking like a dreamcast game and the of course conkers bad fur day and (even though I hated it) Donkey Kong 64 all graphically great games for their time.



Check the link below. (note to Admins: it's not really porn please don't ban me!)

 

Around the Network

I liked both. I think the jittery polygons and warped textured had a charm to it.

But in the end, N64 wins to me. It just looked better overall, especially in games like Zelda OoT and SM64.



vivster said:

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".

We don't have to choose because with modern day emulators, we can take those games and render them at 16X AA and 4X the original resolution. OoT and FF look sharp as hell on emulators.



I hate blur and have always turned AA off on PC. CRT does enough blurring on its own and TR looked a lot better than OOT. I also preferred ps2 over original xbox as the later appeared to have everything smeared over in vaseline. Nowadays it's mostly motion blur that bugs me, AA has gotten less intrusive since resolution has gone up. Still some games look overly soft.

All those shimmering pixels created the illusion of there being a lot more detail than their actually was. Blur only removes detail.



SvennoJ said:
I hate blur and have always turned AA off on PC. CRT does enough blurring on its own and TR looked a lot better than OOT. I also preferred ps2 over original xbox as the later appeared to have everything smeared over in vaseline. Nowadays it's mostly motion blur that bugs me, AA has gotten less intrusive since resolution has gone up. Still some games look overly soft.

All those shimmering pixels created the illusion of there being a lot more detail than their actually was. Blur only removes detail.

I can vouch for this to some extent, I'm always one to turn off AA when I can, especially with how taxing it can be.



Around the Network
JRPGfan said:

Its hard to compaire a 3D world, vs a lock perspective + 2D background.
But in terms of character models (which both have) FF9 blows Perfect dark waaay outta the water. Like thats not even close.

So geometric detail, model vs models isnt close.

Shadows are the same, just a blurry blob underneat the character models feet, in both games.
Lighting? maybe it goes to Perfect dark, but again its hard to compaire when the 2D backgrounds kinda get in the way of that sort of compairsion.
Textures are better in FF9 too, theres much higher detail there.

The battle sequences in Final Fantasy 9 were fully 3D, not using a 2D background, hence why I used them in the comparison. (You must not have watched the video.)

Geometric detail of Perfect Dark was certainly a step up overall, there were far more polygons on screen at any one time.

Shadows weren't the same, Perfect Dark had some dynamic lighting thanks to it's TnL engine and baked shadowing.
Carrington Instute level actually showcases this really well with shadowing on various surfaces, even some reflectivity, the PS1 just doesn't hold a candle to these effects. - These are "clean" images, but it showcases the detailing of what I am trying to point out... But hey, if you can point out a PS1 game with texturing that is on Par, with shadowing detail, lighting details, transparencies, reflections and so on all in one scene... By all means, please showcase it.






And like I said. Perfect Dark wasn't even the best N64 game visually, but it was certainly a step up over Final Fantasy 9, especially with the effects she was pushing.



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

Is this supposed to be secretly a N64 vs PS1 thread ? If so then only multi-plats are valid for hardware 'comparisons'. Not fair at ALL to use exclusives ...

Let's just keep to the likes of RE2, Tony Hawk, and the others. I think the reason why the N64 looked 'blurrier' is down to the possibility that it had a shit memory system and it's low memory cartridge space meant that games often shipped with lower resolution textures in comparison to the other systems ...

And then there's stupid hardware accelerated post-process AA as well that made things worse ... 



fatslob-:O said:

Is this supposed to be secretly a N64 vs PS1 thread ? If so then only multi-plats are valid for hardware 'comparisons'. Not fair at ALL to use exclusives ...

Why, exactly? Aren't exclusives normally the best showcase of each system's graphical capabilities?



mZuzek said:

Why, exactly? Aren't exclusives normally the best showcase of each system's graphical capabilities?

Again different code/content means that you can't isolate hardware performance in the real world. OP can attest to this ... 

You don't see it on the PC side where we use different sets of software for each different sets of hardware when we're doing benchmarks for hardware comparisons ... (I bet hardware vendors would love to use so called 'exclusives' to showcase their hardware but that's not how it works in reality)



vivster said:

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".

You don't have to choose, you are completely free to not vote in the poll and not post in the thread. :)