Good or bad? I don't have a 360, so I cant try it out. Honestly though, I never considered Perfect Dark to be a great looking N64 game, and same goes for Goldeneye. Both were exceptional games for their time, but I didn't consider them great looking games even back in those days.
PSX vs N64 graphical look
- Thread starter L. Scofield
- Start date
Good or bad? I don't have a 360, so I cant try it out. Honestly though, I never considered Perfect Dark to be a great looking N64 game, and same goes for Goldeneye. Both were exceptional games for their time, but I didn't consider them great looking games even back in those days.
L. Scofield
Veteran
Of course the port is better but back in the day I had no problem beating the game.
ArcticCircle
Newcomer
I even had either system but since I had 3dfx Voodoo at he time, I have to say I'd prefer N64. Now I can't always even tell what's going on or what object is actually moving in PS games (or let's play videos) since everything seem to move and jitter all the time. I'm high texture freak and I'm still not happy with texture quality in games so I guess to choose N64 seem like idiotic move but I don't think my Voodoo card had that much more memory (was it 4MB). Heh... and now I think 4GB is not enough. How times change 
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Back in the day people put up with lots of things that were suboptimal or have fallen or of favour in modern games. I beat Resident Evil 1 snd 2 and all of the Tomb Raiders on PlayStation despite, by modern standard, janky controls.
Thats a pretty interesting point. Old gameplay mechanics and controls cant be accepted today. But back in the day they added some extra charm or even helped elevate the atmosphere or added to the gameplay.
For example Tomb Raider's controls required that you were accurate and ha to measure where you were standing before taking a leap. Distances were measured in invisible blocks. So if Lara was standing on a pillar and had to run before taking a jump, she should have been placed exactly a block backwards in order to not meet her doom. The controls felt more digital and less analogue.
Resident Evil 1 and 2's claustrophobia and survival horror feel were attributed to mechanics that are punishable by lack of acceptance today. Being forgiving back then allowed developers to breathe (while hardware limitations did not). Being forgiving also with Resi1 Remake makes it a refreshing experience compared to the rest of modern games albeit one that required patience.
These limitations made games more challenging, and players were more methodic. Today games are more mindless, more forgiving, ,much easier but lack the charm of skill. We got very spoiled as players these days but this is also one of the reasons I guess that very few games manage to leave back traces of strong nostalgia and memories.
Those old PC point and click games were very charming at the time too. Finishing them left an amazing sense of achievement since they required brain work. Everytime I finished a game back in the old times I felt "smarter". Now I feel like I have wasted my time.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I don't see games ( and specific game elements like controls, game play mechanics and game/graphics/audio design) as being that different to other forms of entertainment like music, TV and movies. Entertainment will advance due to technical advances in each medium's area and things will also change depending on what's in vogue and popular.
It makes sense, when remaking a game many years old, to adopt elements which are popular now for today's audience. Assuming you want lots of people to buy it, of course
It makes sense, when remaking a game many years old, to adopt elements which are popular now for today's audience. Assuming you want lots of people to buy it, of course
- PSX - Sharp and detailed but jittery
- N64 - Stable and clean but blurry
- Neither
4. Good IQ (TM)
This is true. It does advance. But no matter how technology advances and the possibility it brings, the business aspect of art is stronger. Hence the art takes the necessary route to achieve profit maximization. It's form is based on the conditioning and idiosyncrasies of the audience. The easy route makes more sense than experimenting and challenging the audience. Thus a similar argument can be applied to all forms of art.I don't see games ( and specific game elements like controls, game play mechanics and game/graphics/audio design) as being that different to other forms of entertainment like music, TV and movies. Entertainment will advance due to technical advances in each medium's area and things will also change depending on what's in vogue and popular.
It makes sense, when remaking a game many years old, to adopt elements which are popular now for today's audience. Assuming you want lots of people to buy it, of course
Examples:
Autotuning and music templates have become almost the norm in the music industry. The use of technology does bring easier money this way. The requirement for real talents has been abandoned. Also the use of spectacles have become more prevalent in music videos than the music itself. The singer is selling an image more than his singing talent. The audience loves it.
Movies rely more on action today than acting talent and plot.
The audience loves it. Who am I to judge? But it is true that when the resources are few, it pushes people to get out their true talent to compensate for the limited resources. Today technology compensate the talent which is rare to find. Very few dare exploit both talent and technology. But when they do its amazing
When they don we get games like Resident Evil 6
Aside from the frame rate and immensely improved clarity of Perfect Dark XBLA, the N64 gamepad stick is also less precise than the 360 sticks. The 360 port is a giant leap in playability.
I had been playing the game on N64 for a few weeks last year and discovered the XBLA version one day and bought it. So I had hours of N64 version behind me and then switched and it was like this personal moment of clarity and lucidity. lol
There is undeniable truth to this. N64 games often have lots of fog obscuring draw-in and while this is typically because developers couldn't figure out how to draw the distance and have more than a slideshow framerate, it certainly adds atmosphere to games.
For me there was also Shadows of the Empire. It has monaural, low sample rate digital music and lots fog combined with some huge mission areas. I found it a creepy and mysterious romp. On the PC version everything Is higher fidelity and it's not the same.
Last edited:
I voted PSX because it's what I prefered back in the day. Maybe that's also my inner fanboyism talking... because now days, after last generation, image quality has become quite a significant factor in games, so going back to pixelated graphics with lots of clipping is harder. Then again, HD/digital television sets have also played its role. Back in the day on analog CRTs, lots of graphics that look horrible on fixed pixel screens, looked quite a bit better. Anyway - this topic isn't unique to the PSX/N64 generation. I remember that back on the PS2, I also prefered the "low res" bruteforce graphics over the Xbox that was more of a texture and image powerhouse...
So yeah, I stand by with my vote for PSX.
So yeah, I stand by with my vote for PSX.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Can somebody post the results? I'm not voting because I didn't own a N64 but I'm curious if people find blurry less objectionable than warpy.
Edited the poll to make results public without voting. That's likely a new feature overlooked when creating polls as it doesn't seem to serve much of a purpose.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Thanks muchly!
It does, I cant vote as i've not seen either console in action
Wasn't it a 1080p game on the X360, iirc? I voted for sharp graphics -PSX-, but if it wasn't for the blurriness I'd rather prefer N64 graphics. In my opinion, when you run both consoles on an emulator the N64 takes the crown, and some of its games are just fantastic. I played the N64 a bit more than the PSX, but I didn't own either of them back in the time.
Some PS1 games look much better in emulators too, in much different ways. For example, sometimes they use textures that are a lot higher resolution than what usually gets expressed in screen space, causing the detail to be wasted and more aliasing. Higher resolution rendering makes these games look a lot better. For example, Chrono Cross.
This doesn't help the fundamental sub-pixel precision or affine interpolation issues though. There was an experimental emulator under developement that actually did somehow overcome some issues like this, probably with heuristics that track primitive data with the GTE calculations that produced it (and included more information). Not sure if that ever got released.
What good is there in preventing you, me, DSoup et al from seeing the opinions of those who voted?
