| Justagamer said: 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. |
U really are being pretty stubborn here. For people who know nothing of specs or the more technical parts of graphics, it comes down to what ur eyes see, AKA perception. On a technical level SNES & N64 were more powerful than their Sega/Sony counterparts but people don't see specs, they see what is displayed on the screen, in that case a game can look better than another despite being technically inferior.
Just like Nintendo games on the Wii U, due to artstyle and polish, some can rival PS4/XB1 based purely on visuals, not in terms of power or graphics but in terms of eyecandy.
That's all MikeRox is saying, despite being weaker, certain games were able to look better on PS1. Does Metal Gear Solid look better than Mario 64? It's up to perception/preference, do u prefer more gritty, realistic inspired artstyle or colorful, cartoony artstyles?
Quote Tree Shortened - Conegamer
When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.
