shams said:
Entroper said:
RolStoppable said:
Mistake in my previous post.
No, SNES wasn't the strongest, but it also wasn't the weakest. That's why you were incorrect when saying "the weakest system always won". |
Of the two that mattered at all, the SNES was the stronger. I assume you're referring to the Neo Geo as being more powerful? And yeah, N64 > PSX by far. Hardware-wise, anyway. I'm always surprised by the number of people who have this backwards. @Enos, a lot of people also foolishly believe that the PS3 is leaps and bounds ahead of the 360. |
I don't agree with this. The PS1 could push more "raw" polys than the N64. The N64 had much nicer polys, perspective correction, antialising and a bunch of other funky things. But Ninty never did release the proper specs for the GPU, making it impossible to get a lot out of. The N64 texture cache killed the machine - then there were rumours (I heard this directly from guys developing on the N64) that some/all of the units were actually running at half-speed (16Mhz instead of 32Mhz). The PS1 had a bunch of other chips that could be use in conjunction with the CPU - and most importantly - had access to heaps of cheap data on that CD drive. The PS1 was a lot easier to optimise, and there were a bunch of tricks you could use to squeeze more performance and gfx from the machine. There was a lot less for the N64. Ultimately (some) PS1 games looked better, and ran better - and it killed the N64. |
It's true that the n64's power was harder and more expensive to optimize, but saying that games (not some) look and ran better on PS1 than N64 is ridiculous unless you are talking about prerendered backrounds and FMVs. It is true that many people were in awe of FMVs and prerendered backrounds at that time, but we're talking about in-game 3D graphics. PS1 couldn't perform anything near the level of Zelda, if you add in the ram cartridge the gap gets wider. Turok 2's graphics are so far beyond the ps1 level, although the frame rate was pretty bad.
