The n64 easily

N64. The only disadvantage it had was in the texture cache department, since it could only hold 4KB textures, which explains the "blurry" textures N64 games had. Without the effects that made it look better than PS1 games(anti-aliasing and texture filtering) it could output around 700 million polygons compared to PS1's 150 million, it was certainly a very powerful machine.

Why is d21lewis reminding me about that old war... I have killed people during those days..







Face the future.. Gamecenter ID: nikkom_nl (oh no he didn't!!)
Conker looked MUCH better than anything the PSX ever produced.. Heck, it looked better than most of the N64 games actually! I'd like some people here to name me one PSX game that even comes close to Conker's Bad Fur Day.
---Member of the official Squeezol Fanclub---
I haven't heard this claim since middle school. You've got to be delusional, or trolling, to make the claim!
apart from a few examples on n64 the P.S.1 outshine n64 in every way
better graphics better audio better everything
...not much time to post anymore, used to be awesome on here really good fond memories from VGchartz...
PSN: Skeeuk - XBL: SkeeUK - PC: Skeeuk
really miss the VGCHARTZ of 2008 - 2013...
| Skeeuk said: apart from a few examples on n64 the P.S.1 outshine n64 in every way better graphics better audio better everything |
lol wut?
FinalFantasyXIII said:
So based on that thinkology N64 is still better than PC because Cartridge. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh K buddy you got me. Have a nice one. :) |
Wow you look like someone that doesn't know what technology is or doesn't understand the question of the OP. You seem confuse as to what "more powerful" mean for a device. Having a bigger storage media (CD v.s. Cartridge) is not being more powerful, it's having access to more data for your game. Each media has its pros and cons: CD had bigger storage but long access time, the cartridge had a lot less storage but the fastess access time. So the PS1 had weaker hardware for strictly 3D game, but the CD gave them the upper hand for 2D games or 2D background/3D model character like FFVII. N64 was more "powerful" but couldn't produce 2D background due to storage capacity problems, which led to fewer 2D games on the console. What the PS1 achieved was to give gamer a console that was a good transition between the 2D and the 3D era while the N64 was a console stricly made for 3D. But in terms of "Power" the N64 was more powerful because if it had the storage capacity of the PS1, it could have run every PS1 game, not the other way around.
I agree N64 had way less games and the 3rd-party support were all with PlayStation but N64 was way more powerful... it was almost a generation ahead.
If there is a middle the N64 was there...
Gen5: PS, Saturn
Gen5.5: N64
Gen6: PS2, Dreamcast, GC, Xbox
| Mike_L said: The N64 really had some beautiful games but Spyro on the PS1 was up there.. |
Spyro was indeed colorful but you're looking at an emulated image. The resolution is far higher than the PS could produce. It even says so on the N4G thread you linked it from.
The rEVOLution is not being televised