Nostalgia Versus Reality

Post by **racketboy** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 6:08 pm

At least the N64 had good load times!

Post by **Perseid** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:31 pm

Graphically, I could never get past the blurring on most of the N64 games. They all looked like I was watching a Playstation with my glasses off. I couldn't help but feel that they thought they had an inferior graphics chip so they added a blur effect to try and cover it up. But maybe that's just me.

EDIT: Typo.

Post by **metaleggman** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:00 pm

Perseid wrote:Graphically, I could never get past the blurring on most of the N64 games. They all looked like I was watching a Playstation with my glasses off. I couldn't help but feel that they thought they had an inferior graphics chip so they added a blur effect to try and cover it up. But maybe that's just me.

EDIT: Typo.

Well I think that's the common misconception, when really, the PSX couldn't do that anti-aliasing had a developer wanted to. Plus, when looking back at it, there were some obvious examples of where the N64 had superior graphics quality over all the other platforms (cept PC usu). I just think had nintendo been less tight lipped about the microcode instruction set and allowed people to make their own instructions sets earlier on (Developers had to use SGI's "Fast3d"), they really would have made everything a bit better. Examples of good uses of microcode are most of Factor 5's games, some of RARE's games, and of course Nintendo's games. I mean hell, Indiana Jones and the infernal machine was at 640x480 and looked the best even compared to the PC version (with exception to if you modified it or forced the card to use extra AA).

Post by **racketboy** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 7:53 pm

neohx_7 wrote:Because old consoles look worse as TVs and gaming technology gets better, emulators that enhance graphics are the way to go. You can almost eliminate any lag whatsoever and with controller adapters you can get a decent experience. I have a ton of old consoles, but I only play the real DC, PS2, and GC consoles on a regular basis. In a couple years, I hope not to have to play the real PS2 anymore, emulation can make PS2 games look spectacular. Just my opinion, I know that console purists with their euro RGB connections to old CRTs may chastise the emulator fans.

Definitely.
But I wish the backwards compatibility was more of a priority to MS and Sony.
Having slightly enhanced graphics would be nice on there as well.

Post by **The Apprentice** » Tue Aug 14, 2007 10:49 pm

Perseid wrote:Graphically, I could never get past the blurring on most of the N64 games. They all looked like I was watching a Playstation with my glasses off. I couldn't help but feel that they thought they had an inferior graphics chip so they added a blur effect to try and cover it up. But maybe that's just me.

EDIT: Typo.

If you look at the specifications, the N64 had the best processor and worst graphics chip. At the same time, the Playstation had the worst processor and the best graphics chip. Saturn had a faster cpu setup than Playstation and a better graphics chip than the N64.

What does this all add up to? No system of the 5th generation had an absolute edge over the next (except for sales) and I think it is rediculous when somebody says the Playstation had the best graphics when usually a game ported to all three systems proved the Playstation was too slow to handle the games on N64 and Saturn, evident in lag and terrible glitches that plagued its successor as well.

Yes, I hate the Playstation. But I still think I'm right in the fact that the fifth generation can not be described in graphics alone.