No one can deny that N64 could do several things graphically that PS1 simply couldn't (perspective correct texturing, bilinear/trilinear filtering, mip-mapping, multi-texturing, various per-pixel effects, etc etc) but it was kind of diminished when games were under-textured.
The first Crash Bandicoot came out around the same time and he made some comparisons between it and SM64. On SM64 - there was an interesting set of articles from one of the creators of Crash Bandicoot/founders of Naughty Dog. To this day I think people are more interested in playing N64 games in emulators than they are PS1 games. That said, I can see why N64 still got a lot of hype for its first and second party exclusives.
Even though few good RPGs were out for PS1 at this time it was a no-brainer, because everyone knew that the system was going to get all the good RPGs while it was unknown if N64 was ever going to get anything.
Then again, maybe I don't know my anus from a hole in the ground.Ĭan you provide an example of where Nintendo directly made that argument? I've seen other people say something like that in defense of Nintendo. Even the N64 version of Indiana Jones and the Infernal Machine didn't look as good as the PC original did on a VSA 100 (with RGSS and all the in-game settings as high as the VSA 100 supported) or a Matrox G400 (with all the in-game settings at their highest levels with 32 bit z-buffer and trilinear filtering forced in the driver cp). Most Y2K N64 games looked little better than Super Mario 64. the 3DO had a better library than the N64 did IMO. The N64 probably had the most lackluster and smallest library of any Nintendo console. Wayne Gretzky's 3D Hockey was fun for the whole family and Mario Kart 64 was innovative and also fun for the whole family, but Goldeneye didn't even come out until the N64 had been out for almost one year. Turok and Shadows of the Empire would later be out on the PC. Pilotwings 64, Super Mario 64, and Wave Race were AAA titles, but Super Mario 64 didn't even look that good from a technical standpoint.
The n64 version of Cruisn usa had a terrible frame rate, had terribly blurry graphics and Killer Instinct Gold looked worse than the first KI for the arcade. Were you ever angry about Nintendo always saying "quality, not quantity" like I was? In late '96 and early '97, everyone knew the Saturn didn't have much life left in America, but it still had better games in that time IMO, or at least less games that totally sucked compared to their arcade counterparts. Sega had more games made per year for the Saturn than Nintendo did for the N64. Why did Nintendo always try to make that excuse back in the day with Nintendo 64? At the end of '97 the N64 only had like 40 games at the most, while the PSX had 300 games plus the fact that quality is subjective.
0 kommentar(er)
