I mean it's all subjective. Some costumes (which don't even show up in cutscenes since they're just videos of the GameCube game now), a short and IMO not very good new chapter with only one new area, and a 'true widescreen' mode that had lower actual resolution that just zooming in on the GameCube version.
On the other hand, massive graphical downgrade in textures and geometry, ruined lighting, ruined audio, FMV rips of the Gamecube game for cutscenes. I played though the whole shit to play the Ada chapter and god what a massive downgrade.
But nontheless, read this review and watch the video above
"Not only has Capcom produced an almost compromise-free conversion"
Holy shit, it's basically a straight out lie.
The review pushes an agenda pretty hard, it's truly bizarre.
Other then arcade games and a few high end PC games, n64 did not look like trash at the time of release. I mean it is easy to look back at it with 2019 googles and say that now.
Not really. Obviously a lot of studios on PC were lightyears ahead thanks to meatier tech but also more experience with certain genres and game types.
Here's a 1997 FPS on PC, Quake 2:
And this is Goldeneye on N64, released the same year:
This was on PC in the year 2000 in the form of American McGee's Alice:
Meanwhile, this is what Nintendo released that year; The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask.
But comparing to much powerful PCs is not that fair, so let's see some games from 1996 to 2002 on consoles that surpass anything Nintendo has done in that timeframe.
Halo (Xbox, 2001)
Shenmue 2 (Dreamcast, 2001)
Formula One 99 (PS1, 1999)
I mean, this is one of the last Nintendo first parties to release in 2001, Mario Party 3:
But even going beyond the N64 era, this was the best looking game on Nintendo consoles in 2002, the beloved Metroid Prime:
Meanwhile, this was Jedi Outcast II on Xbox in the same year:
.
Or how the open world GTA: Vice City looked on PS2, still in 2002:
As someone who was heavily into gaming back then already, tech-wise Nintendo has been trailing hard in that era. Up until the SNES you could have had a point, but just about anything from N64 onwards was usually heavily limited compared to other consoles, let alone PCs. They could make up for the difference with a lot of fun games where the artstyle trumped the technical limitations (see Yoshi's Island), but when it came to 3D games at no point they were truly blasting the competition away. On the console side, Mario 64 was impressive at the time, but it didn't take much for other consoles to destroy those standards graphics-wise.
Read what you replied to.
I personally did not find it very impressive, it is far from the best looking PS2 game. The entire game was built around the GameCube's strengths which can no carry over to PS2, and in particular the game's lighting engine which was stripped out entirely (replaced by either nothing or some fake lighting in spots), so it's a dull muddy mess on PS2.Honestly, it's no different than the commentary you see from users here in Switch port Digital Foundry threads.
Considering the much weaker PS2 hardware, it was impressive that the entire game was brought over without any cuts or compromises (and just one additional loading screen in the truck segment in chapter 5). Visual downgrades were expected, but it was a pretty damn good port all things considered.
That it also offered a big new campaign was a cherry on top for the PS2 owners who wanted RE4 on their devices.
No. You could argue that about snes but n64 games looked like trash and Dreamcast came out in 1999. GameCube in 2001 was on par with its contemporaries but definitely not king.
Um, N64 does not support RGB without modding...n64 games looked nice on rgb or bnc cables. I felt sorry for people lacking access to decent displays then.
GameCube was magical when it was just the psx and n64........... until the PS2, Gamecube and Xbox came to the market. Those consoles made you realize the graphical leap.The Dreamcast was straight up from the fucking future. Going from impressive PC titles like voxel based Outcast to Shenmue on a console within the year was the sort of leap we may never see again in fidelity.
Is ResetEra the spiritual successor to Planet Gamecube or something?
MGS had a fixed overhead camera during gameplay, or fixed first person view with no moving, and was mostly set indoors in cramped corridors. Essentially it has mostly 2D gameplay. Zelda is a fully 3D free camera free roaming adventure. Much greater in scale and ambition in gameplay and world design.N64 was more powerful than PS1 in theory, and surely did things the PS1 couldn't, but many PlayStation games were more appealing than the N64's best and aged better. In 2019, I'd say MGS looks better than OOT. I say this as a huge Nintendo fan.
Were people really shocked about RE4? I think it was known to be an inferior port. Also it's not like they launched at the same time.It really depends on the game and the developer. The consoles were pretty evenly matched back then so you rarely got a solid look at one being better than the other. I think most people were shocked that the Gamecube version of Resident Evil 4 was better looking than the PS2 version. Most people sort of shrugged off the gamecube at the time as being the cutsy kiddy console.
Oh, well Nintendo has always put an insane amount of polish into their games (there are a few bad apples, so don't be like what about xxx). It even shows today as they are far more willing than pretty much any other developer to delay their games to ensure polish rather than fixing after release. I think they just have a much better grasp of using art direction with their system limitations instead of how most devs are like "make it as realistic as possible!"
Yep, dreamcast and PSX were miles ahead bar maybe the factor 5 GC games
?Nah. Neo Geo games were graphically more impressive, with 2 year older hardware.
Same again, but even more crazy. A Model 3 cab cost twenty five thousand dollars (depending on the game and cab style). More than a hundred times an N64.Lol, N64 came out the same year as Model 3 arcade games. Not a chance.
No. Dreamcast was a thing already in 1999. And even launch titles like Soul Calibur blew away anything Nintendo was doing on N64.
Not sure if you interpreted my post as me thinking the game didn't look great or that the art or attention to detail wasn't amazing. We're talking "The Graphics King" here though and I don't think Metroid Prime was THAT impressive so much that it blew away the competition. It was one of many great looking games from the era. Games like Metal Gear Solid 2, Gran Turismo 3, Final Fantasy X and Halo existed before Metroid Prime.What!?
Yes it was, it as a beautifully crafted game. The attention to detail was impressive.
True, but the thread wasn't made with many qualifiers so it's not surprising arcade games will be mentioned.Really stuff like this is not directly comparable, and needs qualifiers.
Metroid Prime wasn't really THAT graphically impressive at the time.
I've been gaming since the 80's and I had played Metal Gear Solid 2 and Final Fantasy X when I bought Metroid Prime. The art and attention to detail blew me away but not the graphics. Seems you started gaming with Metroid Prime but skipped the games that came out before it that gen.
Prime isn't immediately impressive. It shows itself over time by having a massive volume of extremely detailed and moody varied environments and remaining solid 60fps even in huge boss battles. Also very fast loading, dynamic audio usage and great lighting design.
Revolutionary
Not only in theory. If we directly compare games that were made for both systems the PSX version gets blown out of the water most of the times. Just compare Shadow Man or Armorines Project Swarm, the N64 version is just soo much better.N64 was more powerful than PS1 in theory, and surely did things the PS1 couldn't, but many PlayStation games were more appealing than the N64's best and aged better. In 2019, I'd say MGS looks better than OOT. I say this as a huge Nintendo fan.
Dreamcast in 99, PS2 in 2000, Xbox in 2001... Nintendo was a contender in this era, but not the king.
Depends on the game I think, and preferences. Some games do just straight up look better on N64, sometimes it's a trade off ("soft" look of N64 games, or sharper PS1 games that also have warping textures and jaggies). Anything with a lot of FMV or pre-rendered backgrounds will look better on PS1, like Resident Evil 2 for example.Not only in theory. If we directly compare games that were made for both systems the PSX version gets blown out of the water most of the times. Just compare Shadow Man or Armorines Project Swarm, the N64 version is just soo much better.