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

[pikashoe]

JRPGfan said:

RolStoppable said:

Given how the OP is written, I don't think games with prerendered backgrounds qualify. Prerendered backgrounds are still images and as such don't consist of polygons. They were a regularly used method to get around the PS1's lackluster rendering of 3D graphics.

On topic: N64 games hold up much better, because examples like the Spyro trilogy are rare on the PS1. Most PS1 developers couldn't get results close to the N64.

Thats true, the benefit of keeping the perspective locked, allowed them to make use of 2D backgrounds, that 3D models walked around on.
Still the effect works, it looks great, its simply doing alot with little. The character models ect are 3D.

And I agree alot of the best looking games on the PS1 are actually sprite based.
While nintendo really went all in on the 3D aspects.

still theres some PS1 games that really blow nintendo out of the water:

Vagrant story:

Like in terms of textures & detail... some of these PS1 games are impressive considering the hardware they where on.

vs

Super Mario 64:

Like if you compaire the face details... or the character models.

In vagrant story the character models hands, has all 5 fingers.... vs mario that just has a round ball, for a hand, and 2 fingers pop in, when he does a peace sing.

Same if you look at the face, look at the hair/eyes/ears... even has a neck :p

You're comparing games with completely different artstyles that were released 4 years apart. You'd be better off comparing games with a similar style that came out at a similar time.