By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Justagamer on 02 January 2015
Edit Thread
MikeRox said:


Yeah youre not even reading the post. I guess you still havent bothered to look up what perception means. The SNES and Mega Drive had different architectures too. The MD was much faster due to its processor, but the SNES had much better sprite capabilities and Mode 7. Believe it or not this also meant they were able to run different types of game better than the other.

If you cant grasp this simple concept, there is no point continuing further.

As for eye sight. Yeah, has no impact on how something is perceived to look. I hated the grainy warping rendering on the ps1. A lot of people actually preferred it due to the realism they felt it added. 60fps doesnt make a game look better, but makes it play a lot better.

Its not rocket science but you need to be able to look at a perspective beyond your own narrow ideals to be able to see this.

http://atariage.com/forums/topic/208186-why-doesnt-n64-look-better-than-ps1/

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/system-wars-314159282/why-do-people-think-ps1-pss-games-look-better-than-28655556/

Again I was an N64 gamer bac then, but as these links show, plenty of people preferred the graphics provided in PS1 games.

Well, I'm not going to argue over the ps1 and n64, that's not even an argument, but the snes and genesis thing... lol. Come on dude. The Genesis couldn't run ANYTHING better than the snes. The snes had better sprite capabilities, that's what they both were, sprite pushers... the faster chip speed? Well, by that logic, the ps1 was infinitely inferior, for 2 reasons, it was only 32 bit, to the 64 bit chip, and ran at a slow 32 mhz, to the 90 mhz of the 64... but, let me get back to the gen-snes thing..... I'm guessing you believed in blast processing, huh. Lol. And stop with your, look up perception, it's just as retarded as your argument.

Quote Tree Shortened and User Moderated - Conegamer