no Naz now I do because who needs consoles or PC when you have (thank you DonWii)

 

I stand corrected ssj.

very true... rabbids do like to have fun ^^

(sadly that's the only song where they don't turn the lights off on me)

Entroper said: RolStoppable said: Mistake in my previous post. No, SNES wasn't the strongest, but it also wasn't the weakest. That's why you were incorrect when saying "the weakest system always won". Of the two that mattered at all, the SNES was the stronger. I assume you're referring to the Neo Geo as being more powerful? And yeah, N64 > PSX by far. Hardware-wise, anyway. I'm always surprised by the number of people who have this backwards.  @Enos, a lot of people also foolishly believe that the PS3 is leaps and bounds ahead of the 360.

I don't agree with this.

The PS1 could push more "raw" polys than the N64. The N64 had much nicer polys, perspective correction, antialising and a bunch of other funky things. But Ninty never did release the proper specs for the GPU, making it impossible to get a lot out of.

The N64 texture cache killed the machine - then there were rumours (I heard this directly from guys developing on the N64) that some/all of the units were actually running at half-speed (16Mhz instead of 32Mhz).

The PS1 had a bunch of other chips that could be use in conjunction with the CPU - and most importantly - had access to heaps of cheap data on that CD drive.

The PS1 was a lot easier to optimise, and there were a bunch of tricks you could use to squeeze more performance and gfx from the machine. There was a lot less for the N64. Ultimately (some) PS1 games looked better, and ran better - and it killed the N64. 

 

fazz said: naznatips said: Didn't it also have a much larger color pallet due to it's video processor?  Something like 10X the amount of available colors and more able to be displayed at a time. If I remember correctly, they were both 15 bit color (around 32,000 available), but Genesis could show 61 colors max and SNES could show 256... someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Almost, the Genny was 64.

And "the most powerful console never won" is just an interesting coincidence, not anything to make predicitons off of.

Some encouraging comments from Activision, but 4 to 5 years? I really don't think it will take this long, as most 1st and 2nd parties are already tapping into a good deal of the enormous additional performance potential regading their leading PS3 titles (R&C Future, Uncharted, Killzone 2, Final Fantasy XIII, etc). I don't think 3rd parties can afford to stay behind for this long with regard to enhancing game engines. They will start to look like incompetent in consumer eyes and nobody wants their company to be viewed as such.

shams said: Entroper said: RolStoppable said: Mistake in my previous post. No, SNES wasn't the strongest, but it also wasn't the weakest. That's why you were incorrect when saying "the weakest system always won". Of the two that mattered at all, the SNES was the stronger. I assume you're referring to the Neo Geo as being more powerful? And yeah, N64 > PSX by far. Hardware-wise, anyway. I'm always surprised by the number of people who have this backwards.  @Enos, a lot of people also foolishly believe that the PS3 is leaps and bounds ahead of the 360. I don't agree with this. The PS1 could push more "raw" polys than the N64. The N64 had much nicer polys, perspective correction, antialising and a bunch of other funky things. But Ninty never did release the proper specs for the GPU, making it impossible to get a lot out of. The N64 texture cache killed the machine - then there were rumours (I heard this directly from guys developing on the N64) that some/all of the units were actually running at half-speed (16Mhz instead of 32Mhz). The PS1 had a bunch of other chips that could be use in conjunction with the CPU - and most importantly - had access to heaps of cheap data on that CD drive. The PS1 was a lot easier to optimise, and there were a bunch of tricks you could use to squeeze more performance and gfx from the machine. There was a lot less for the N64. Ultimately (some) PS1 games looked better, and ran better - and it killed the N64.

It's true that the n64's power was harder and more expensive to optimize, but saying that games (not some) look and ran better on PS1 than N64 is ridiculous unless you are talking about prerendered backrounds and FMVs.  It is true that many people were in awe of FMVs and prerendered backrounds at that time, but we're talking about in-game 3D graphics.  PS1 couldn't perform anything near the level of Zelda, if you add in the ram cartridge the gap gets wider.  Turok 2's graphics are so far beyond the ps1 level, although the frame rate was pretty bad. 

 

MikeB said: Some encouraging comments from Activision, but 4 to 5 years? I really don't think it will take this long, as most 1st and 2nd parties are already tapping into a good deal of the enormous additional performance potential regading their leading PS3 titles (R&C Future, Uncharted, Killzone 2, Final Fantasy XIII, etc). I don't think 3rd parties can afford to stay behind for this long with regard to enhancing game engines. They will start to look like incompetent in consumer eyes and nobody wants their company to be viewed as such.

Few consumers will know enough, or care enough, to notice

 

@ sieanr

Those who speak their minds on the internet and such, usually take note of these kind of things. If a far more demanding and impressive game runs silky smooth on the platform and another less impressive game shows framerate issues, there will be criticism. Just look at the thousands of internet coverages regarding EA's subpar PS3 Madden ports, many people seem to notice although much of this is ignited by fanboyism (Look! Look!! The XBox 360 is more powerful!!! ).

shams said: I don't agree with this. The PS1 could push more "raw" polys than the N64. The N64 had much nicer polys, perspective correction, antialising and a bunch of other funky things. But Ninty never did release the proper specs for the GPU, making it impossible to get a lot out of. The N64 texture cache killed the machine - then there were rumours (I heard this directly from guys developing on the N64) that some/all of the units were actually running at half-speed (16Mhz instead of 32Mhz). The PS1 had a bunch of other chips that could be use in conjunction with the CPU - and most importantly - had access to heaps of cheap data on that CD drive. The PS1 was a lot easier to optimise, and there were a bunch of tricks you could use to squeeze more performance and gfx from the machine. There was a lot less for the N64. Ultimately (some) PS1 games looked better, and ran better - and it killed the N64.

What PS1 games are you talking about?  And the fact that it could push more "raw" polys is just the same marketing tactic Sony used with the PS2 when it quoted huge fillrate numbers (with no texturing).  You said it yourself, the N64 did antialiasing, perspective correct texture mapping, and trilinear filtering.  Point-sampled non-perspective-corrected texture sampling hasn't been used since Quake's software renderer (actually Quake probably did perspective correction, but I can't remember).  The N64 also had twice the RAM and a 3x faster CPU with 8x the cache.

There really is no comparison.  There were any number of things that "killed" the N64, but graphics wasn't one of them.