-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Was Nintendo the graphics king from 1996-2002?
- Thread starter SantaC
- Start date
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.
I was like 14 when N64 came out and I hated it. Objectively, games went from high detail and characters looking like characters to low detail mush where characters looked like blobs. Games went from playing smoothly and feeling tight and precise to running at sub 30 fps and looking almost universally sloppy. I didn't like it then and I don't like it 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.
The heck is going on in that emulated Goldeneye shot? I don't think this is a fair comparison at all, people are going to see these shots and it's going to colour their opinion on how games looked back then. That Zelda shots is also emulation, the original machine mostly targeted 240p output so the assets are made with that restriction in mind and when played on the prevalent screen tech at the time, CRT, it has a better visual congruency between the low poly models and the soupy textures.
And if you were lucky and had computer monitor with an s-video cable you'd be seeing something like this:
I'm not denying the N64's poor IQ but increased resolution does those assets no favours and are disingenious.
Could you have found a worse Metroid Prime picture? Metroid Prime holds it's own against Halo:CE, and I say that as a fan who think CE's artstyle holds up extremely well today. That Vice City shot is also from an emulator.
Read what you replied to.
I have also personally stated Sega were the actual kings several times in this thread due to their arcade hardware. But you replying to someone defending the N64 against essentially having 'the worst graphics of the era' by showing something that runs on hardware that cost as much as a small house. That is NOT the point being addressed.
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.
But nonetheless, agenda pushing on a forum is one thing, as a professional reviewer is another altogether. Such a bizarre review.
it remained king once factor 5 showed up and they were kings on n64 with rare.
n64 games looked nice on rgb or bnc cables. I felt sorry for people lacking access to decent displays then.
Sega arcade games were the obvious king, as has been said over and over again in this thread, but I also have trouble putting the N64's visual heights over those on the PSX.
never said otherwise. I had various modded systems during that age for that purpose and then transcoded the signal at times if the monitor I used needed it.
This thread is weird. The first post takes part of one (console) generation and part of another seemingly to create a time frame to prop up Nintendo above everyone else. And even then it fails at that because it pretends the DC didn't exist.
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.
Dreamcast in 99, PS2 in 2000, Xbox in 2001... Nintendo was a contender in this era, but not the king.
N64 couldn't compare to Dreamcast graphically. I do think Gamecube held it's own against Xbox and easily beat out DC and PS2.
The Dreamcast took the N64's crown from 1998 to 2001 and you could argue that the Xbox's technical proficiency did so afterward in 2001, but Nintendo's in-house artistic talents went a long way in that generation.
C'mon, even in the Playstation's heyday I knew the warping, shimmering textures in Playstation titles made them look dodgy as hell.
C'mon, even in the Playstation's heyday I knew the warping, shimmering textures in Playstation titles made them look dodgy as hell.
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?
Is ResetEra the spiritual successor to Planet Gamecube or something?
Play upres Gamecube games from Nintendo and be impressed. I tried super Mario sunshine in 4k and i said wow.
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.
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.
MGS has insanely good texture work and truly looks amazing, and has more professional cutscenes. But they're not really comparable games in terms of what is going on. Similar to how fighting games typically had the best graphics back then, due to only needing to make one non-interactive arena and two characters with all the system resources.
No. Dreamcast was a thing already in 1999. And even launch titles like Soul Calibur blew away anything Nintendo was doing on N64.
Nintendo was outdone by other consoles and by PC during that same window. They were very far from being the graphics king.
They made some great games.... but graphics were not top notch.
They made some great games.... but graphics were not top notch.
The sub-20 FPS frame rates and horribly muddy and stretched out textures pretty much guaranteed that Nintendo was at the bottom, not the top of the graphics rankings in the late 90s. Not that Sony was much better with their own hardware texture issues, but at least the games (mostly) ran at frame rates that I'd consider playable. And, of course, if you include the period from 1999-2002, the Dreamcast runs circles around both.
Nah. Neo Geo games were graphically more impressive, with 2 year older hardware.
Lol, N64 came out the same year as Model 3 arcade games. Not a chance.
I'd argue Dreamcast was way more impressive in 1998 than N64 was in 1996.
No. The best looking games of that time period were not developed by nintendo. From 1996 to the dreamcast launch the best looking game was probably turok 2 or one of the rare games. Once dreamcast launched a nintendo console would never again even be in the running for best looking game
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.
Also GC was know to have a slight advantage in graphics department, no question.
PS2 still had some impressive games but gc had a slight edge over it. OG xbox was better of the 2 on the versions available for it.
Yep, dreamcast and PSX were miles ahead bar maybe the factor 5 GC games
Your timespan is the problem - Halo: CE came out in 2001 and, while I would argue MP1 has better art, the technical side of halo was definitely more impressive.
GameCube absolutely had some gorgeous games though, it was a powerful little unit in the right hands. Rogue Leader to this day is a remarkable achievement - there are effects in that ie. self shadowing that are still not standard in games.
GameCube absolutely had some gorgeous games though, it was a powerful little unit in the right hands. Rogue Leader to this day is a remarkable achievement - there are effects in that ie. self shadowing that are still not standard in games.
?
Neo Geo MVS April 26, 1990
Super Famicom November 21, 1990
And one was designed as commercial hardware, the other consumer. Hence the later home version being a 'professional consumer' device costing $650 with game carts costing more than a whole SNES+game.
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.
Really stuff like this is not directly comparable, and needs qualifiers.
That game on a vga box was insane. First time I showed it off at school kids were gaping their mouths.
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.
It was more the massive scope of its world, art, attention to detail and level design that blew me away rather than the graphics.
True, but the thread wasn't made with many qualifiers so it's not surprising arcade games will be mentioned.
No. That period had better looking games
Halo
Gran Turismo 3
Shenmue 1&2
Tekken 3
Soulcalibur
Virtua Fighter 3&4
GTA: Vice City
PGR1
And the rest of the PS2 gen we had graphical gems like
God of War 1&2
Shadow of the Colossus
FFXII
MGS2 & 3
Ratchet & Clank
Silent Hill 2
DMC
Tekken 5
And others
Halo
Gran Turismo 3
Shenmue 1&2
Tekken 3
Soulcalibur
Virtua Fighter 3&4
GTA: Vice City
PGR1
And the rest of the PS2 gen we had graphical gems like
God of War 1&2
Shadow of the Colossus
FFXII
MGS2 & 3
Ratchet & Clank
Silent Hill 2
DMC
Tekken 5
And others
Last edited:
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.
Metal Gear Solid 2 looked like real life to me. Metroid Prime had a good art direction.
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.
It uses the power and technology in smart ways rather than flashy ones so isn't as immediately impressive. And if people were turned off the game due to it not really being an FPS they wouldn't experience what it really achieved with it's tech.
No, and they really never were with the more impressive and obscure consoles competing with them before then.
Sega was better, NeoGeo was better, the Ultra 64 was all hype and had potential, but it still made textures look like fuzzy shit. In 96-97, there was an argument to be made, but Saturn and PS1 had a lot of impressive games in and outside of Japan, Dreamcast put everything down in 98, held up to PS2, Xbox was better than Gamecube.
Sega was better, NeoGeo was better, the Ultra 64 was all hype and had potential, but it still made textures look like fuzzy shit. In 96-97, there was an argument to be made, but Saturn and PS1 had a lot of impressive games in and outside of Japan, Dreamcast put everything down in 98, held up to PS2, Xbox was better than Gamecube.
I'm not sure Nintendo was EVER the best graphics developer... it just wasn't their priority. Super Mario 64 and OoT are probably the closest they've ever gotten I think. Their games have always looked great though.
As far as the N64 goes, it was an impressive machine for it's time when in the right hands. I always preferred the N64's blurry, low poly look to PS1's warping polys and shimmering textures. I think we can all agree neither is ideal though.
As far as the N64 goes, it was an impressive machine for it's time when in the right hands. I always preferred the N64's blurry, low poly look to PS1's warping polys and shimmering textures. I think we can all agree neither is ideal though.
Nintendo was always aware that part of a good game is also a pleasant visual presentation (be it on an inferior hardware or a cutting edge one) however Nintendo never ever acted like graphics was disproportially the most important factor.
More over Nintendo from early on consciously veered toward fantasy settings, hyper realistic graphics were never a priority for Nintendo.
All of the above to say that Nintendo may have released games with relatively cutting edge graphics but were never the kind of developer to pursue top graphics at all costs.
More over Nintendo from early on consciously veered toward fantasy settings, hyper realistic graphics were never a priority for Nintendo.
All of the above to say that Nintendo may have released games with relatively cutting edge graphics but were never the kind of developer to pursue top graphics at all costs.
I'm pretty sure most Nintendo fans only play Nintendo related things. Go and grab a Dreamcast OP. Shenmue is a 1999 game. Or see what Sega did on the 1996 arcades.
I love Nintendo games but there's this thing where Nintendo is the best at everything that's annoying. Starting with that Mario's jump thread lol
I love Nintendo games but there's this thing where Nintendo is the best at everything that's annoying. Starting with that Mario's jump thread lol
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.
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.
A lot of PS1 exclusives took good advantage of the hardware though, so I'm more thinking along the lines of exclusives vs. exclusives instead of same game on each platform. I mentioned MGS because it shines amide the PS1's limitations. Vagrant Story and Tekken 3 are two other good examples.
For any full 3D action or action/adventure game... yes, N64 was absolutely better.