Dulfite said:
N64 Vs. PS1: Which Console Is More Powerful (In Terms Of Tech Specs) (thegamer.com) It isn't always that simple. Developers probably saw how much more realistic textures could look on PS1 and disregarded the overall better power/graphics of the N64 to publish more games on PS1. |
That article is just an opinion piece.
When they throw out blatant pieces of opinion like: "graphics have graduated beyond polygons" then you know to take their opinion with a grain of salt.
Polygons are still the fundamental building blocks that forms the basis of all games today.
The reason why texturing was different wasn't because the PS1 had more "realistic" textures, it's because it's textures weren't limited to 4kb and it wasn't filtering them.
They weren't actually more realistic, developers just chose a different artistic design.
| JEMC said: I'm confused as to why would Nintendo do something like this for "just" a Pro model of the Switch. Since there's no way the chip powering this new console will be able to render games at native 4K, it's obvious that it will need to use DLSS to achieve that, but in order to do that you need Tensor Cores. Neither the Tegra X1 nor the X2 feature such cores, they were introduced with Volta that powers the Tegra Xavier, a much bigger and powerful Tegra chip designed for AI. But why would Nintendo waste this incredible jump in performance in a Pro model when it makes more sense for a Switch successor? |
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
