When you have a winning business model you don't throw it away and do something entirely different, unless you're Sony.
When you have a winning business model you don't throw it away and do something entirely different, unless you're Sony.
I also like say that the saturn renderd Quadrilaterals, not traingles which made it difficult to render certain 3d objects that were triangular.
![]()


outlawauron said:
Shadow of Colossus also doesn't want to be left out. |
I thought the main thing that looked good about Shadow of the Colossus was the art style, the scale and the effects (like blurring when you span the camera around). Purely graphically, I don't think that looks any better than the games I listed either. Am I the only one?
| dolemit3 said: I didn't know that N64 was more powerful than PS1, how so? |
It was far, far more powerful. It had more memory and a much faster processor. It could render a lot more shaded, textured polygons. I mean, really, look at the PS1 any game vs Mario 64 and you'll see a huge, huge difference.
Microsoft changed the formula when they joined in. The Xbox was the most powerful and it came in second place. This time, the Xbox 360 is arguably the most powerful and it's also coming in second place. So the most powerful, we can assume, comes in second place. Assuming 2 consoles = historical trend.
TheBigFatJ said:
It was far, far more powerful. It had more memory and a much faster processor. It could render a lot more shaded, textured polygons. I mean, really, look at the PS1 any game vs Mario 64 and you'll see a huge, huge difference. Microsoft changed the formula when they joined in. The Xbox was the most powerful and it came in second place. This time, the Xbox 360 is arguably the most powerful and it's also coming in second place. So the most powerful, we can assume, comes in second place. Assuming 2 consoles = historical trend. |
The N64 had better hardware specs in general. However the games rarely went for realism and people consider cartoonish graphics to be less impressive. Mario 64 had clean visuals and great use of lighting. However, Metal Gear Solid looks better because its more realistic and had detailed environments.
i agree n64 almost had ps2 graphics but it was hindered by the cartridge (grrr! lol) i think it was a great deal if nintendo release the cd add-on planned it would have been nintendomination

prediction: wii to sell 150million console by end of 2010
| jellyfishprince said: i agree n64 almost had ps2 graphics but it was hindered by the cartridge (grrr! lol) i think it was a great deal if nintendo release the cd add-on planned it would have been nintendomination |
Are you kidding?

| account2099 said: N64 was more powerful then PS1. PS1 won. Xbox was more powerful then PS2. PS2 won. History has shown that the most powerful tech doesnt win because it usually leads to a higher price point. Sony was smart to make decent but not the best tech so it was mass market friendly and not as costly as optimizing for the more powerful consoles. Now Sony seemingly spits in histories face with PS3. They make the most powerful tech and therefore have the highest asking price. To make it worse they came out a year after 360. I dont understand why Sony didnt stick to their winning formula. My guess they thought the Bluray war was more important then video game market share, I dont know...... |
By your logic the Wii has this gen in the bag...Good to know


outlawauron said:
Are you kidding?
|
Yeah, not even I'm going to try and defend something that ludicrous.
Dark_Rulez89 said:
By your logic the Wii has this gen in the bag...Good to know |
I think by everyone's logic, the Wii has this gen in the bag. (and for about a year now too)
@ Majin
I'm interested to see what he has to possibly back that up.