289
Nintendo 64 vs PlayStation graphics
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2024
289 points (97.7% liked)
Gaming
3248 readers
81 users here now
!gaming is a community for gaming noobs through gaming aficionados. Unlike !games, we don’t take ourselves quite as serious. Shitposts and memes are welcome.
Our Rules:
1. Keep it civil.
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only.
2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry.
I should not need to explain this one.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month.
Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
Logo uses joystick by liftarn
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I honestly think the PlayStation has the better graphics, especially considering it's older and weaker than the N64. At glorious 240p, I think anti-aliasing is honestly a downside--the CRT mostly does that work already. While the N64 might have better polygons, the PlayStation, in my opinion, renders a better image, with better textures. That's not even to mention game sizes being several times larger on PlayStation, thanks to CDs.
There is no game on the N64 that looks as good as Final Fantasy IX. Not a single one. IX might not be fully 3D, but the game does respect the hardware it's on. After all, nobody ever said the SNES had bad graphics for lacking proper 3D. The 2D style could just go so much further on PlayStation. Combine that with FMVs, and I'd struggle to find a game that looks as consistently good as some of the PlayStation's biggest hits.
The N64 still pushes great graphics, though. I enjoyed my time in Zelda. The games look and play quite well. The impressively 60FPS F-ZERO X has physics that still work great. I still can't help but feel like it's just a worse version of modern graphics, while the PlayStation feels like its own aesthetic, and own world. I grew up with modern consoles, and I still enjoy the charm of pre-rendered backgrounds and FMVs compared to what's being put out now.
"You're the best looking guy here!"
The N64 is got objectively better graphics - being able to do perspective correction, having actual awareness of the fact that 3D objects have depth (z-buffer) and floating point precision. It's just extremely harmed by the low storage of the cartridges.
The PS1 can barely do 3D, being forced to calculate polygons but having no idea what to do with them, with warping geometry and textures deeply distorted.
I'll make a simple point on this.
Final Fantasy VIII had an FMV you could walk in. It had dialogue, free movement, and was quite literally a movie you could briefly walk in.
Yoshi's Story is a 2D game on a console known for being an almost entirely a 3D library.
And that's why I prefer PlayStation. While the N64 was treated as essentailly 3D only, the PlayStation was 2D, 3D, both, and neither.
EDIT: Final Fantasy VIII had two FMVs you could walk in.
Can you add the Saturn to your comparison?
I think the Saturn has pretty good graphics. Being just a little earlier than the PlayStation, it holds up quite well.
It's clear in Wipeout gameplay that the PlayStation pulls ahead significantly. Much smoother FMVs, better framerates, better textures, cleaner image. Perhaps slightly slower load times, but with that many wins, it's hard to complain. On top of that, the PlayStation simply sold far better, and saw higher budget titles which fully took advantage of the hardware.
The PlayStation doesn't have Daytona USA, though.