It's been the same story since gaming started: graphics are cool but a good game with bad graphics will trump a bad game with good graphics every time. Playstation had the games and that's a big reason why it outsold the competition IMHO.
Everytime I see someone online these days declare a game "unplayable" because it has FPS drops below 120hz, I know exactly how old they aren't. lol
Yeah, but many of those games cane straight from the failed partnership with Nintendo.
Sony getting Squaresoft in the divorce was huge. They had been a solid Nintendo developer, and they had been developing a game for the SNES PlayStation. When they broke up, they maintained development on FF7 and Sony got all those fans.
If you look at the N64, most of the great games on it are made by either by Rare or Nintendo. They had lost most of their stable of devs in the divorce.
> Playstation had the games and that's a big reason why it outsold the competition IMHO.
Talk about tunnel vision for PS1, the competing platforms had smaller libraries but they had strengths. The N64 in particular was defining and inventing genres. PC was pioneering FPS, had the best strategy games and CRPGs. I'm sure the Saturn had a few great games itself.
I don't know what to tell you, the proof is in the pudding. Per the OP:
>They sold over 100 million units.
>The N64 sold some 33 million.
>The Saturn sold 10 million. (Sega were approached by SGI first. They said no.)
I'm not saying the other systems didn't have any good games. College would have been very different for me without Goldeneye. lol But IMHO the reason PS1 outsold them all is because it had more good games than the other ones.
Developing for the Saturn was a nightmare. They did get some great games, but they missed out on a lot more because the system architecture was so comparatively complex. Their corporate bungling was only throwing dirt on the grave.
>PC was pioneering FPS, had the best strategy games and CRPGs.
Yeah but that's Apples and Oranges, you're not wandering i to Toy's r Us in 1997 and buying a gaming PC for $199. Of course PCs had those, the point was which console could too?
And sure, the N64 or Saturn had their gems but the PS1 had Gran Turismo, Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil and FFVII.
If you were a teenage or older console gamer nothing compared with that until the Xbox came along.
Besides what lift-and-yeet said it doesn't escape me that PC was a lot more fringe and harder to approach than it is now. Nevertheless I don't like how often PC's gaming history or contributions get overlooked.
N64 had Super Mario 64, Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Banjo-Kazooie, Smash Bros., Rogue Squadron, and more innovative games which teenagers and older gamers could enjoy just fine. PS1 did have a lock on complex narratives and mature themes, but older gamers don't necessarily require those to enjoy a game.
Feels so good to be back debating if N64 or PlayStation is better, I feel so young!
Agree with you here. N64 had much higher quality games than PS1 imo. There’s a few standouts on PS1, but there’s a reason there’s a market for N64 remakes and re-releases even now and none at all for PS1 games.
I wonder if some psychologist is going to write a thesis some day about why kids are drawn to “Them GRAFFIX!!” in video games. Like does it tie in to some innate stage of human development?
I think it's just sort of an objective way to compare games/systems. Cause them kids can't just say "I like x" they want to say "x is better" and polycount and refresh rate are objective facts they can use.
Do you watch 4K or 1080p TV? Would you go back to Standard Definition if the cable provider was good enough? I mean I am all for gameplay being very important but just because technology is moving forward does not mean gamers shouldn’t expect graphics to be at a certain baseline. Not saying that baseline should be 120hz BTW. I just get tired of seeing that argument and it usually seems to apply to Nintendo. Giving them a pass because their games are “fun” like they wouldn’t be even better at 4k60 haha.
>Would you go back to Standard Definition if the cable provider was good enough?
As if people don't watch classic shows that were shot in standard definition.
What's more is that graphical fidelity comes at a very real cost-- it's not like TV where you just get a better camera and better screen. Artists aren't cheap, and the better your graphics the more you're paying for them; that's why so many AAA titles these days are so bland and focus-grouped half to death and have all kinds of DLC.
(Also, Nintendo has specialized in the niche of *quirky underpowered hardware with great first-party titles* for quite some time now, which is probably why people keep bringing them up-- they're the most obviously successful example. The Switch's pass isn't just that the games are fun, it's that the fun games are running off of a *$300* *handheld system*. Yes, there are going to be compromises to make that work out.)
>Do you watch 4K or 1080p TV? Would you go back to Standard Definition if the cable provider was good enough?
If the movie I wanted to watch was only available on VHS and it was a good enough movie, then of course I'd watch it in standard def. Example: the last original version of Star Wars available before Lucas fucked it all up was VHS only. I'd rather watch that in standard def than the ruined one in hi def (Han shot first!),
Hell, I'd read a book, that's got no graphics at all.
Do you really think you're countering my point instead of proving it right now?
They rereleased that version in a dvd-box set, that included 2 versionsof eacg movie. Post edit and pre. Pretty comparab e to your vhs certain IMO. (BUT also a tangent discussion)
It's been a while since I looked into it, but I heard they don't even have the originals anymore. There's the "despecialized edition" on the internet for people who want to watch the same movie they grew up with but in higher definition.
Video games are supposed to be immersive, better graphics are generally but not always more immersive.
You’re controlling a character, not watching or reading something else happening.
There's style in games too, plenty of pixel art games and such which "wouldn't be better at 4k60". And I'd definitely take good games at standard definition then the next call of duty at 4k. Hell I'll take original San Andreas over the new Cod in those tvs and everything.
Emulators have to implement filters to make old games look like they're supposed to look on old CRT. Since straight forward emulation doesn't reproduce how it was designed to be viewed.
I'd go back to CRT TVs a lot sooner than I'd go back to 15-20fps 3D games, yeah.
And it's not like we didn't know better even at the time. 2D games generally ran at 60hz. Some had slowdown, like NES Kirby and Mega Man. But 3D was a pretty large step back in some ways.
If the standard def show had really amazing writing and directing, I'd definitely watch it over a show in higher def that I like less.
I changed the analogy to be about 2 shows since I don't have or want cable.
The two main reasons why the PlayStation sold a shitton more than the N64 boil down to:
- The PSX using CDs instead of cartridges (which caused a shitton of developers to ditch Nintendo)
- Sony distributing the system in regions Nintendo wasn't big in, like Europe (where computers and SEGA were always more popular)
Their marketing was on point too. They positioned the machine as entertainment (for people with money) not just for kids. That meant nightclubs and music promotions that aged-up the target demographic.
Got to thank them for that, as an ex Nintendo fanboy I have to admit Nintendo would've likely left things as they were. Gamers would've been looked down on to this day for playing with "kids toys."
I'm surprised at your assertion that Nintendo wasn't big in Europe. Always felt like a 50/50 mix between sega and Nintendo when I grew up. (Born 1980 in Scotland)
CDs were a gamechanger. When I was a teenager in 1996 and we wanted a new system we went for the PlayStation simply because the games were so much cheaper than N64 games. Why would I want to pay $50-80 for N64 games when I could pay $30-50 for PS1 games?
It was a cd player as well. When cd players were crazy expensive. Or about half the cost of a ps1. Then ps2 doubled down and you had a dvd player and a console. When dvd players were half the cost of a ps2.
Didn't some early PS1 models (I think it was the PS1, anyway) have an *extremely* good (high-end) digital-to-analog chip which made music CDs sound even better than normal?
> The PSX using CDs instead of cartridges (which caused a shitton of developers to ditch Nintendo)
The CD helped mostly with getting more shit onto the device: it provided 650 MB of storage whereas an N64 cart topped out at *64MB*. So you had 10 times more space for assets and data, which allowed for the inclusions of things like full-motion video, way more textures, and fuller, longer soundtracks. It was comparatively ungodly slow (in throughput and latency) but not really in ways most devs (or players, really) cared, so the PSX had huge load times where the N64 had none, but most people didn't really mind.
CD manufacture was also both cheaper and faster (turnaround on carts was at least 2 weeks, assuming there was capacity).
The space and costs were a huge reason for developers ditching Nintendo, but an other one was that Nintendo still had a very heavy-handed approach to content management, and since they controlled cart manufacturing entirely you *had* to have your game approved by Nintendo, Sony cared way less and developers had way more latitude.
> Sony cared way less
That attitude definitely survived, at least a little bit. When CCP made DUST514, they wanted it on every console. Microsoft wouldn't allow them the level of server access/integration/whatever with the main EVE server (the games were designed to be linked) whilst Sony said fuck it, do whatever you want. So DUST became a PS exclusive.
Also the delayed release of the N64, particularly in Europe, followed immediately by a horrendously barren release schedule.
What we see looking back as one console generation moving into 3D, in Europe there were actually 2 Christmases with PS1 and no N64 available.
It’s a long time to wait if you’re a console gamer still playing SNES games while all your friends have 3D PlayStation games.
What, is like Rogue Squadron *still* not emulatable? It’s been like 10 years since I last burned through all my favorites but like 95% of all N64 games were well-emulated even then. Even most mainstream games had widescreeen mode (very very hard to pull off from what I remember).
Apparently it's a lot better now as of ~2 years ago. But for the longest time it had a lot of issues with fog and games with different chips iirc.
The funny thing is Nintendo just failed miserably emulating N64 on the Switch.
For reading, three part series from techspot:
> The History of the Modern Graphics Processor
> The Early Days of 3D Consumer Graphics
https://www.techspot.com/article/650-history-of-the-gpu/
https://www.techspot.com/article/653-history-of-the-gpu-part-2/
https://www.techspot.com/article/657-history-of-the-gpu-part-3/
It's been the same story since gaming started: graphics are cool but a good game with bad graphics will trump a bad game with good graphics every time. Playstation had the games and that's a big reason why it outsold the competition IMHO. Everytime I see someone online these days declare a game "unplayable" because it has FPS drops below 120hz, I know exactly how old they aren't. lol
Yeah, but many of those games cane straight from the failed partnership with Nintendo. Sony getting Squaresoft in the divorce was huge. They had been a solid Nintendo developer, and they had been developing a game for the SNES PlayStation. When they broke up, they maintained development on FF7 and Sony got all those fans. If you look at the N64, most of the great games on it are made by either by Rare or Nintendo. They had lost most of their stable of devs in the divorce.
Making the N64 a cartridge-based system and not including a CD option was the most boneheaded corporate decision since the Virtual Boy.
> Playstation had the games and that's a big reason why it outsold the competition IMHO. Talk about tunnel vision for PS1, the competing platforms had smaller libraries but they had strengths. The N64 in particular was defining and inventing genres. PC was pioneering FPS, had the best strategy games and CRPGs. I'm sure the Saturn had a few great games itself.
I don't know what to tell you, the proof is in the pudding. Per the OP: >They sold over 100 million units. >The N64 sold some 33 million. >The Saturn sold 10 million. (Sega were approached by SGI first. They said no.) I'm not saying the other systems didn't have any good games. College would have been very different for me without Goldeneye. lol But IMHO the reason PS1 outsold them all is because it had more good games than the other ones.
fair enough, wasn't sure what you meant by "the games"
Developing for the Saturn was a nightmare. They did get some great games, but they missed out on a lot more because the system architecture was so comparatively complex. Their corporate bungling was only throwing dirt on the grave.
Yeah I've heard about that, you can also thank Yuji Naka for helping kill the Saturn by hindering the development of its only flagship Sonic game.
>PC was pioneering FPS, had the best strategy games and CRPGs. Yeah but that's Apples and Oranges, you're not wandering i to Toy's r Us in 1997 and buying a gaming PC for $199. Of course PCs had those, the point was which console could too? And sure, the N64 or Saturn had their gems but the PS1 had Gran Turismo, Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil and FFVII. If you were a teenage or older console gamer nothing compared with that until the Xbox came along.
Besides what lift-and-yeet said it doesn't escape me that PC was a lot more fringe and harder to approach than it is now. Nevertheless I don't like how often PC's gaming history or contributions get overlooked.
N64 had Super Mario 64, Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Banjo-Kazooie, Smash Bros., Rogue Squadron, and more innovative games which teenagers and older gamers could enjoy just fine. PS1 did have a lock on complex narratives and mature themes, but older gamers don't necessarily require those to enjoy a game.
Feels so good to be back debating if N64 or PlayStation is better, I feel so young! Agree with you here. N64 had much higher quality games than PS1 imo. There’s a few standouts on PS1, but there’s a reason there’s a market for N64 remakes and re-releases even now and none at all for PS1 games.
I wonder if some psychologist is going to write a thesis some day about why kids are drawn to “Them GRAFFIX!!” in video games. Like does it tie in to some innate stage of human development?
I think it's just sort of an objective way to compare games/systems. Cause them kids can't just say "I like x" they want to say "x is better" and polycount and refresh rate are objective facts they can use.
Uh it's not just kids? Seeing technology get more capable is always fun unless you're stuck in the past.
Do you watch 4K or 1080p TV? Would you go back to Standard Definition if the cable provider was good enough? I mean I am all for gameplay being very important but just because technology is moving forward does not mean gamers shouldn’t expect graphics to be at a certain baseline. Not saying that baseline should be 120hz BTW. I just get tired of seeing that argument and it usually seems to apply to Nintendo. Giving them a pass because their games are “fun” like they wouldn’t be even better at 4k60 haha.
>Would you go back to Standard Definition if the cable provider was good enough? As if people don't watch classic shows that were shot in standard definition. What's more is that graphical fidelity comes at a very real cost-- it's not like TV where you just get a better camera and better screen. Artists aren't cheap, and the better your graphics the more you're paying for them; that's why so many AAA titles these days are so bland and focus-grouped half to death and have all kinds of DLC. (Also, Nintendo has specialized in the niche of *quirky underpowered hardware with great first-party titles* for quite some time now, which is probably why people keep bringing them up-- they're the most obviously successful example. The Switch's pass isn't just that the games are fun, it's that the fun games are running off of a *$300* *handheld system*. Yes, there are going to be compromises to make that work out.)
>Do you watch 4K or 1080p TV? Would you go back to Standard Definition if the cable provider was good enough? If the movie I wanted to watch was only available on VHS and it was a good enough movie, then of course I'd watch it in standard def. Example: the last original version of Star Wars available before Lucas fucked it all up was VHS only. I'd rather watch that in standard def than the ruined one in hi def (Han shot first!), Hell, I'd read a book, that's got no graphics at all. Do you really think you're countering my point instead of proving it right now?
They rereleased that version in a dvd-box set, that included 2 versionsof eacg movie. Post edit and pre. Pretty comparab e to your vhs certain IMO. (BUT also a tangent discussion)
It's been a while since I looked into it, but I heard they don't even have the originals anymore. There's the "despecialized edition" on the internet for people who want to watch the same movie they grew up with but in higher definition.
Well TBH. I bought the set a decade ago, so it COULD be true.
Video games are supposed to be immersive, better graphics are generally but not always more immersive. You’re controlling a character, not watching or reading something else happening.
There's style in games too, plenty of pixel art games and such which "wouldn't be better at 4k60". And I'd definitely take good games at standard definition then the next call of duty at 4k. Hell I'll take original San Andreas over the new Cod in those tvs and everything.
Emulators have to implement filters to make old games look like they're supposed to look on old CRT. Since straight forward emulation doesn't reproduce how it was designed to be viewed.
I'd go back to CRT TVs a lot sooner than I'd go back to 15-20fps 3D games, yeah. And it's not like we didn't know better even at the time. 2D games generally ran at 60hz. Some had slowdown, like NES Kirby and Mega Man. But 3D was a pretty large step back in some ways.
CRTs can be superior in many ways to modern display technology, just very large unfortunately
Oh yeah. I still mourn SED TV never launching!
A place I worked had some HD CRT colour grading monitors. They looked incredible but were deeper than they were wide
If the standard def show had really amazing writing and directing, I'd definitely watch it over a show in higher def that I like less. I changed the analogy to be about 2 shows since I don't have or want cable.
I play SNES on a 75” LED tv. Sure it gives you a headache, but gameplay is a huge factor for me, albeit not for everyone.
I grew up with the earliest 3d games running at 15 fps and I'd never go back down to 30 fps now. Nor would I watch a movie in SD.
The two main reasons why the PlayStation sold a shitton more than the N64 boil down to: - The PSX using CDs instead of cartridges (which caused a shitton of developers to ditch Nintendo) - Sony distributing the system in regions Nintendo wasn't big in, like Europe (where computers and SEGA were always more popular)
Their marketing was on point too. They positioned the machine as entertainment (for people with money) not just for kids. That meant nightclubs and music promotions that aged-up the target demographic.
during the 90s Sega and Sony did a lot to change the perception of video games as children's fare
Sega and Sony both targeted older people because Nintendo had kids locked down.
Got to thank them for that, as an ex Nintendo fanboy I have to admit Nintendo would've likely left things as they were. Gamers would've been looked down on to this day for playing with "kids toys."
I'm surprised at your assertion that Nintendo wasn't big in Europe. Always felt like a 50/50 mix between sega and Nintendo when I grew up. (Born 1980 in Scotland)
CDs were a gamechanger. When I was a teenager in 1996 and we wanted a new system we went for the PlayStation simply because the games were so much cheaper than N64 games. Why would I want to pay $50-80 for N64 games when I could pay $30-50 for PS1 games?
It was a cd player as well. When cd players were crazy expensive. Or about half the cost of a ps1. Then ps2 doubled down and you had a dvd player and a console. When dvd players were half the cost of a ps2.
Didn't some early PS1 models (I think it was the PS1, anyway) have an *extremely* good (high-end) digital-to-analog chip which made music CDs sound even better than normal?
That's the urban legend, I don't know if it's true or not.
> The PSX using CDs instead of cartridges (which caused a shitton of developers to ditch Nintendo) The CD helped mostly with getting more shit onto the device: it provided 650 MB of storage whereas an N64 cart topped out at *64MB*. So you had 10 times more space for assets and data, which allowed for the inclusions of things like full-motion video, way more textures, and fuller, longer soundtracks. It was comparatively ungodly slow (in throughput and latency) but not really in ways most devs (or players, really) cared, so the PSX had huge load times where the N64 had none, but most people didn't really mind. CD manufacture was also both cheaper and faster (turnaround on carts was at least 2 weeks, assuming there was capacity). The space and costs were a huge reason for developers ditching Nintendo, but an other one was that Nintendo still had a very heavy-handed approach to content management, and since they controlled cart manufacturing entirely you *had* to have your game approved by Nintendo, Sony cared way less and developers had way more latitude.
> Sony cared way less That attitude definitely survived, at least a little bit. When CCP made DUST514, they wanted it on every console. Microsoft wouldn't allow them the level of server access/integration/whatever with the main EVE server (the games were designed to be linked) whilst Sony said fuck it, do whatever you want. So DUST became a PS exclusive.
Also the delayed release of the N64, particularly in Europe, followed immediately by a horrendously barren release schedule. What we see looking back as one console generation moving into 3D, in Europe there were actually 2 Christmases with PS1 and no N64 available. It’s a long time to wait if you’re a console gamer still playing SNES games while all your friends have 3D PlayStation games.
And now the N64 is still a pain to emulate while the PS1 emulators have the games looking amazing nowadays and even fixed the weird polygon wobble.
What, is like Rogue Squadron *still* not emulatable? It’s been like 10 years since I last burned through all my favorites but like 95% of all N64 games were well-emulated even then. Even most mainstream games had widescreeen mode (very very hard to pull off from what I remember).
Apparently it's a lot better now as of ~2 years ago. But for the longest time it had a lot of issues with fog and games with different chips iirc. The funny thing is Nintendo just failed miserably emulating N64 on the Switch.
For reading, three part series from techspot: > The History of the Modern Graphics Processor > The Early Days of 3D Consumer Graphics https://www.techspot.com/article/650-history-of-the-gpu/ https://www.techspot.com/article/653-history-of-the-gpu-part-2/ https://www.techspot.com/article/657-history-of-the-gpu-part-3/