By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Insomniac's Brian Hastings speaks out on the PS3

Stromprophet on 01 April 2007

HappySqurriel said: If you actually look at the better looking games that were available for the N64 and compare them to the best looking games for the Playstation it becomes clear that the N64 had greater processing power ... Now, the N64 had flaws (it was a bitch to program for, and memory cartridges prevented the N64 from really demonstrating its advantage when it came to texturing) but it was far more powerful; with few exceptions, 2 years of hardware development time will always allow for far greater performance when all else is kept constant.
That's funny. I had a 64 and there is no way in compared to games like Tomb Raider, RE, MGS, or FF. Everything was in blocks on 64 and PS had realistic shapes. Sure there was pixilation, and jaggies, but there were a lot more textures, backgrounds, etc. CD had more room for lots of things than 64Bit. So longer levels, more textures, better music (if the game had music in 64 sometimes). I think the PS had more room to grow with CDs to show that. Especially with the CGI movies which were pretty cool and definitely a step up from our Nintendo/SNES days. I don't remember any game on 64 that was as complicated and involved as MGS was.



Around the Network
Narfer on 01 April 2007

staticneuron said: Wow... I do not think it is that easy to make a call. The artistic style of many of the PS1 games were amazing. And I don't know about anyone else here in the forums but at the time goldeneye's graphics were good enough for me, I was wowed by turok as well. Wow have graphics changed alot in a short amount of time.
haha, i had turok too. that was that game with dinasours and portals and goal was to find this stuff and you drank it whatever. (something like that) yea, i hated that game. it was too hard, or at least back then it was. i bought it preowned so it froze alot too. wait, turok had a series of games, didnt it? yea, i had the one with dinasours for the N64.



A delayed game is good someday, a bad game is bad forever.

sieanr on 01 April 2007

Stromprophet said: HappySqurriel said: If you actually look at the better looking games that were available for the N64 and compare them to the best looking games for the Playstation it becomes clear that the N64 had greater processing power ... Now, the N64 had flaws (it was a bitch to program for, and memory cartridges prevented the N64 from really demonstrating its advantage when it came to texturing) but it was far more powerful; with few exceptions, 2 years of hardware development time will always allow for far greater performance when all else is kept constant. That's funny. I had a 64 and there is no way in compared to games like Tomb Raider, RE, MGS, or FF. Everything was in blocks on 64 and PS had realistic shapes. Sure there was pixilation, and jaggies, but there were a lot more textures, backgrounds, etc. CD had more room for lots of things than 64Bit. So longer levels, more textures, better music (if the game had music in 64 sometimes). I think the PS had more room to grow with CDs to show that. Especially with the CGI movies which were pretty cool and definitely a step up from our Nintendo/SNES days. I don't remember any game on 64 that was as complicated and involved as MGS was.
Go back and look at 64 games compared to PS1 games. Time has a funny way of changing you're perceptions.



Leo-j said: If a dvd for a pc game holds what? Crysis at 3000p or something, why in the world cant a blu-ray disc do the same?

ssj12 said: Player specific decoders are nothing more than specialized GPUs. Gran Turismo is the trust driving simulator of them all. 

"Why do they call it the xbox 360? Because when you see it, you'll turn 360 degrees and walk away" 

HappySqurriel on 01 April 2007

sieanr said: Go back and look at 64 games compared to PS1 games. Time has a funny way of changing you're perceptions.
Just to help out here is a comparison of the same game on both platforms late in their life Madden 2001 Playstation: N64:



albionus on 02 April 2007

Stromprophet said: That's funny. I had a 64 and there is no way in compared to games like Tomb Raider, RE, MGS, or FF. Everything was in blocks on 64 and PS had realistic shapes. Sure there was pixilation, and jaggies, but there were a lot more textures, backgrounds, etc. CD had more room for lots of things than 64Bit. So longer levels, more textures, better music (if the game had music in 64 sometimes). I think the PS had more room to grow with CDs to show that. Especially with the CGI movies which were pretty cool and definitely a step up from our Nintendo/SNES days. I don't remember any game on 64 that was as complicated and involved as MGS was.
Wow, I really didn't think anyone could question that the N64 had better graphics but apparently I was wrong. Admittedly the cartridge limited the expanse of the gameplay so FFVII or MGS wasn't possible but graphically as HappySqurriel shows there was no question of which was better. Oh well, any comments on how much better PS2 games look than GCN/Xbox ones Stromprophet? So yeah, 5 pages, impressive.



Around the Network
robjoh on 02 April 2007

@happysqurriel damn I didn't know that it was such a large difference...actuly thought that ps1 and N64 had the same power more or less.



 

 

Buy it and pray to the gods of Sigs: Naznatips!

vanguardian1 on 02 April 2007

Shadows of the Empire was my fav 64 game, personally. Xenogears and Final Fantasy Tactics on the PSX. Personally I'm usually too busy enjoying the game to pay attention to the pixels and polygons. :)



Nobody is crazy enough to accuse me of being sane.

albionus on 02 April 2007

robjoh said: @happysqurriel damn I didn't know that it was such a large difference...actuly thought that ps1 and N64 had the same power more or less.
Wikipedia's entries have a good rundown of the technical differences between the two. There's lots of MHz's, MB's, MB/s', MPixels, etc. but I guess the most notable number is that the PS1 could output 180,000 polygons per second while the N64 could do 500-600,000 at the same quality level. Nintendo apparently required a higher quality 100,000 poly/s mode to be used however. Someone mentioned it earlier but despite being more powerful the N64 was also more difficult to program for (which system does that sound like today). Again, wikipedia has a section on it but a major problem was the N64's graphics processor only had a 4 kB texture buffer. That limited the size of a texture that developers could use which caused the muddy stretched textures many games had. Developers found work arounds of course but it took time and effort.



Alacrist on 02 April 2007

[quote]vanguardian1 said: Shadows of the Empire was my fav 64 game, personally.[quote] That game was the &*(%! one of the best games on N64 to me, it needs to come out of the VC!



 

  

 

Alacrist on 02 April 2007

HappySqurriel said: sieanr said: Go back and look at 64 games compared to PS1 games. Time has a funny way of changing you're perceptions. Just to help out here is a comparison of the same game on both platforms late in their life Madden 2001 Playstation: N64:
I didn't know that, I guess it goes to show graphics don't always win!