Sony Playstation - weak processor, weak software.
Joe Ottoson
In article <33EA48...@firtree.u-net.com>, Matthew Gaunt
<matt...@firtree.u-net.com> wrote:
> I have noticed a number of posts recently "having a go" about the
> Nintendo 64. Very aggressive posts from people who clearly have some
> kind of grudge against this machine that goes deeper than plastic and
> silicon.
>
First off, there was a N64 troll on the Sega and PSx NG's only a few days
ago that was certainly saying moronic things which may have raised more
negative opinions about the N64 if the fool hadn't existed...
> Some facts about the machine...
>
> 1. The Nintendo 64 is a vastly superior computing device to the Sony
> Playstation.
>
Yep, we've been over this "groundbreaking design" a hundred times before.
I'll repeat what I said to the troll. Games matter more than hardware.
Especially when the graphical leap is largely unnoticeable to the average
consumer.
> The guts of the N64 leave the PS standing.
*Please* don't call it a miracle of engineering... (the troll insisted
that the N64 could never be topped by anything less than a 128 bit system.
In fact, if you go by him, the N64 outperforms a 3Dfx!)
> 2. MIP-mapped, Filtered and anti-aliased graphics look nicer than
> pixellated graphics.
>
That's the only obvious benefit of the N64's hardware, and most of the
time gamers don't care.
> 3. Nintendo write the best game software in the world.
>
That's subjective and since you can't qualify it, three's little reason to
argue the point.
> I'm sure this will provoke an angry response from young adolescent
> Playstation owners who go down the psychological path of
> "self-justification of purchase"
Unlike you who just made an unprovable assertion?
Reviewer for Gamers Island
Charles Doane
Matthew Gaunt wrote:
>
> I have noticed a number of posts recently "having a go" about the
> Nintendo 64. Very aggressive posts from people who clearly have some
> kind of grudge against this machine that goes deeper than plastic and
> silicon.
>
>
> 1. The Nintendo 64 is a vastly superior computing device to the Sony
> Playstation.
>
> 64-bit processor pitted against an anaemic, wheezing 33Mhz 32-bit
> affair, not to mention the superior bus - the difference is so great
> that it should never be forgotten. It would be an interesting test to
> let these two go head-to-head in a prime number calculation contest.
> Actually, it'd probably be quite a dull test because of the
> inevitability of the result.
>
> However, people still waffle about "The fogging in Turok to hide the
> pop-up". Well, the truth of the matter is that the machine does
> simulate the fog to hide the pop-up (or, more accurately, the
> "z-clipping") of distant polygons. It does this because the polygon
> count is filled with the incredible detail of the foreground. But
> ask yourself this - if that's what the more powerful N64 does, just how
> bad would this game look on the Playstation. I suspect the answer
> is "So bad, that you will never see that game ported". Quite simply,
> there is nothing on the rival console to match this for detail,
> smoothness or beauty. Another example - Mario Kart. Smooth and fast,
> and with no z-clipping anywhere (except in the distance on the "Rainbow
> Road" course, but only because this is so vast it takes you four minutes
> per lap). Compared to "Wipeout", where God is busy drawing with his pen
> almost immediately in front of your vehicle.
> Mario 64 - beautiful polygons - no environment pop-up. What Playstation
> game can match the beauty of the underwater scenes, with the transparent
> water (not that abysmal "holes-in-the-bitmap" Tomb Raider method), the
> detailed, curvy (Gouraud shaded) aqualife, and rich environments? None
> of them.
>
> 2. MIP-mapped, Filtered and anti-aliased graphics look nicer than
> pixellated graphics.
>
> natural effect, and secondly, MIP-mapped & filtered polygons move around
> the screen far more smoothly, eliminating the atrocious "shimmering"
> effect that you see on the Playstation as point-sampled polygons move
> around the screen.
>
> 3. Nintendo write the best game software in the world.
>
> Playstation owners who go down the psychological path of
> manufacturers rub their hands together with glee. But it's true - for
> attention to detail and dedication to software, Nintendo have a great
> deal of respect for their customer's eye for quality. I don't like the
> Sony "build it and they will come" attitude. Indeed they come, but the
> majority of them bring parcels of shite for sale. Miyamoto's quote "I
> worked so hard on Mario 64 that I thought I was going to die" is hardly
> going to be coming from the mouths of the Jumping Flash team is it? But
> this is not necessarily my opinion alone. When your opinion about
> Nintendo's software is shared with industry respected publications like
> the UK's "Edge" magazine, and the Japanese "Famitsu" magazine, who gives
> a shit what a teenage boys with low-tech machines, no cash and deep
> attitude problems think?
You're right, I have an N64 and a PlayStation. Anyone claiming that the PlayStation
has more raw processing power than N64 is NUTS. I really don't see that come up much
as an argument, though. Rather, it's what people see and play. You pit WipeOut
against Mario Kart as an example. You're right, Mario Kart is graphically impressive,
but WipeOut's the better racer, IMHO. There's more to games than looks, and WipeOut
has one of the best soundtracks of ANY videogame. WipeOut 'feels' faster, it's much
more serious, and has cooler weaponry. I own both games, and I LIKE Mario Kart, but
WipeOut is better than Mario Kart is. A closer comparison would be Motor Toon GP(2)
vs. Mario Kart. The ONLY edge Mario Kart has is single-system multiplayer ability.
As far as your point about Nintendo and quality, I really don't agree. I rented
(THANK GOD I didn't BUY it!) Dark Rift today, and it has Nintendo's 'seal of quality'
on it. This game AIN'T quality, it's not even mediocre.
First-party games ARE very good, WaveRace, Mario64, PilotWings64, Starfox64 are
EXCELLENT, but there are only 2 3rd-party titles out worth a look, Turok and Blast
Corps. Not a good track record, so far. Nintendo can't build a library all by
themselves, and the third party developers have been playing it safe, not risking
much on N64. If 3rd-party developers don't start producing games of similar quality
to Nintendo's own titles, the N64 is in trouble. Atari couldn't single-handedly save
the Jag, and I don't believe even the mighty Nintendo can single-handedly make the
N64 a success.
All imho.
--
eppur si muove... 'and yet it does move'... Galileo,
after recanting his assertion of the Earth's motion.
Charles E. Rick Taylor, IV
On Thu, 07 Aug 1997 23:14:15 +0100, Matthew Gaunt
<matt...@firtree.u-net.com> wrote (in rec.games.video.sony):
:I have noticed a number of posts recently "having a go" about the
:Nintendo 64. Very aggressive posts from people who clearly have some
:kind of grudge against this machine that goes deeper than plastic and
:silicon.
If you'd like to continue this pointless thread, might I suggest you
do it in rec.games.video.advocacy?
[snip a big ol' load of system advocacy crapola...]
--
__ ___ _ _ _ | >>>>> cha...@super.zippo.com <<<<<
|_)o _ |/ | |_|\_/| / \|_) | Charles E. "Rick" Taylor, IV
| \||_ |\ | | | | |_\_/| \ | We got the MRxL, and spammers got NONE
Marty Chinn
Matthew Gaunt (matt...@firtree.u-net.com) wrote:
: I have noticed a number of posts recently "having a go" about the
: kind of grudge against this machine that goes deeper than plastic and
: silicon.
: Some facts about the machine...
: 1. The Nintendo 64 is a vastly superior computing device to the Sony
: Playstation.
<big argument on how powerful the N64 is deleted>
I don't think anyone is arguing that the N64 isn't more powerful than the
PS or that the PS is as powerful as the N64. We all know that is a fact.
But remember, better hardware doesn't mean the overall platform is
better. The PC Engine is an 8 bit system, and it held its own against the
16 bit systems. Many games comparing to the SNES. The Genesis was a
weaker system than the SNES but it held its own in the US. Game Boy is
the weakest portable out there yet its #1. Why? All because of games,
thats what counts. You can have the most kick ass hardware but what good
is it if you don't have the games. 3DO and Jaguar were more powerful than
the SNES but the SNES pulled out cuz of the games.
: 3. Nintendo write the best game software in the world.
: I'm sure this will provoke an angry response from young adolescent
: Playstation owners who go down the psychological path of
: "self-justification of purchase" - the kind of attitude that makes car
: manufacturers rub their hands together with glee. But it's true - for
: attention to detail and dedication to software, Nintendo have a great
: deal of respect for their customer's eye for quality. I don't like the
: Sony "build it and they will come" attitude. Indeed they come, but the
: majority of them bring parcels of shite for sale. Miyamoto's quote "I
: worked so hard on Mario 64 that I thought I was going to die" is hardly
: going to be coming from the mouths of the Jumping Flash team is it? But
: this is not necessarily my opinion alone. When your opinion about
: Nintendo's software is shared with industry respected publications like
: the UK's "Edge" magazine, and the Japanese "Famitsu" magazine, who gives
: a shit what a teenage boys with low-tech machines, no cash and deep
: attitude problems think?
Hell I agree Nintendo is one of the best game developers out there. Its
the primary reason I own a N64. Because Nintendo makes good games. I
don't own a N64 cuz it has a 64 bit processor, or because it can do mip
mapped graphics. I own it cuz I want to play good games. But you have to
admit the # of games on the system is lacking. I'm eagerly awaiting
Goldeneye at the end of this month which will mark two months since the
last game I bought, and before that another two months. I find it a bad
sign when there is a two month gap between game purchases. However you do
realize even Famitsu has been critical about Nintendo as of late because
of what they've done. Also in Famitsu there is a lack of coverage of N64
games. Why? Because what games are there to cover? Every now and then
they have a bit on a new game, or a review of a new game, but the overall
coverage is really low cuz there isn't much happening on the Japan front.
This needs to pick up. As a game system the game has solid games, it also
has bad ones. But this is true for all systems. However its market stand
point, which is the point I stress, Nintendo is lagging. The PlayStation
and the Saturn have many games that are worth owning, which probably
won't appear on the N64. And likewise for the other way around. Like
Square is a big factor on the PS and their quality so far on the PS has
been extremely high. Namco is another company I respect. Even though I
may not like all their games, and many of you don't either, you have to
respect them for the effort they put into the home versions.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marty Chinn ** Tokyo Game Show - Sept. 5 - 7, 1997 **
Video Source PlayStation, Nintendo 64, Saturn, Imports
973 Foxglove Dr. M-F: 9:30-6:00, Sa: 10:00-3:00 PST, Sun: Closed
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 Ordering, and Preordering info at:
<408> 720-8575 Voice E-Mail: vids...@netcom.com
<408> 720-8576 FAX WWW : http://www.video-source.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Castellan
pjcal...@pipeline.com writes:
>>game can match the beauty of the underwater scenes, with the transparent
>>water (not that abysmal "holes-in-the-bitmap" Tomb Raider method), the
>>detailed, curvy (Gouraud shaded) aqualife, and rich environments? None
>>of them.
>No environment pop-up? I noticed pop-up several times, especially
>because of the way the camera angles are programmed within the game.
>If you have a camera angle set a certain way and try to move Mario in
>a certain direction, almost half the screen disappears. Sometimes,
>Mario can put his head halfway into a tree because the polygons keep
>breaking up. Now, this might not be the systems's fault..but it could
>be programming. It really depends on how well it is programmed. Yes,
>Tomb Raider does have polygon break-up..I will not deny that...but so
>does Mario and so do other N64 games.
Also take note of the pop-up in _Starfox 64_'s space scenes,
especially the sequences with the asteroids and in the construction
yard. It's pretty harsh.
>with sales of the Nintendo 64? This is why I feel many have switched
>to the Playstation..where developers are given the opportunity to
>develop new games...explore different genres that have not been done
>before. And Sony wants to see what they can come up with. Just look at
>their Yaroze project...letting people design their own games. I don't
>think Nintendo will ever let people do this.
No, it's definitely NOT in their philosophy.
--- ---
Douglas L. Erickson - ECN Computer Publications and Training Specialist
mail to: dou...@mailhost.ecn.ou.edu --- http://www.ecn.ou.edu/~douglas
--- ECN does not, in any way, sponsor or endorse my rabid opinions. ---
"I'll keep digging. 'Til I feel something." - Tool, _Stinkfist_
Sean Daugherty
On or about Thu, 07 Aug 1997 23:12:00 +0100, the accused, Matthew Gaunt
<matt...@firtree.u-net.com>, was spotted saying:
>1. The Nintendo 64 is a vastly superior computing device to the Sony
>Playstation.
So? If I had a $5,000,000 computer, with 1000 megs of RAM, an 18 terrabyte HD,
and a realistic virtual reality simulation thingee, but it ran some obscure,
semi-illegible, non-supported operating system, it would, essentially, be
worthless, because I could never get anything done, or do anything, with it.
My fourth favorite video game of all time is 8 bit. Power ain't nothing. This
doesn't mean I don't like the N64, but I'm damned sick of the "my CPU's father
can lick your CPU's father" argument.
>3. Nintendo write the best game software in the world.
Ahhh... Hmm-hmm. Nice opinion. What's your point. I would hotly contest this.
Nintendo is not a *bad* game maker, by any stretch (though they aren't as
good, IMHO, as they once were), but I still think companies like Capcom,
Square, and possibly Konami make better games, no matter what system. And Sony
has proven, to me at least, they can produce games equal to much of Nintendo's
work (Wild Arms, for instance, but, again, it's my opinion, and YMMV).
>I'm sure this will provoke an angry response from young adolescent
>Playstation owners who go down the psychological path of
>"self-justification of purchase" - the kind of attitude that makes car
>manufacturers rub their hands together with glee. But it's true - for
>attention to detail and dedication to software, Nintendo have a great
>deal of respect for their customer's eye for quality. I don't like the
>Sony "build it and they will come" attitude. Indeed they come, but the
>majority of them bring parcels of shite for sale. Miyamoto's quote "I
>worked so hard on Mario 64 that I thought I was going to die" is hardly
>going to be coming from the mouths of the Jumping Flash team is it?
First, you seem to be taking the argument "the other side are a pack of
money-grubbing losers! My side is the humane one" that seems practically
mideval in execution. When it comes down to it, the only thing Nintendo really
cares about is money. It's the same thing with Sony, Sega, Atari, etc.
Miyamoto seems certainly to be dedicated, but he is an individual. He is not
Nintendo, though he may very well carry the company on some occassions. Your
twisting an opinion into a fact, which leaves your argument looking like swiss
cheese. Arguing opinions is probably the most futile thing we could possibly
divulge in.
>this is not necessarily my opinion alone. When your opinion about
>Nintendo's software is shared with industry respected publications like
>the UK's "Edge" magazine, and the Japanese "Famitsu" magazine, who gives
>a shit what a teenage boys with low-tech machines, no cash and deep
>attitude problems think?
You know what: It's still an opinion. If every bloody person in the world
supported it except me, it would *still* just be an opinion. Support doesn't
change that. Trying to wage on argument on "well, everybody's doing it" is
silly. You're certainly welcome to present your opinions: Things would get
dull around here if people didn't, but citing support in attempt to somehow
prove your opinion is more intrinsicly valid is childish.
You know, an interesting point here is that, according to research, the
"teenage boy" crowd seems to be more true of the N64 than of the PSX. Not that
it matters: Age certainly isn't always a clear indication of maturity.
------
Sean Christian Daugherty
"Cut my toes off to spite my feet
I don't know whether to laugh or cry
Go ahead, have a vision
I'm the man on the flaming pie!"
-Paul McCartney, "Flaming Pie"
ALL UNSOLICITED E-MAILERS WILL BE SHOT ON SITE!
Joe Ottoson
In article <33EBA6...@webspan.net>, Amaury Acosta <ama...@webspan.net>
wrote:
> "To the average consumer"?
Yes. To the *AVERAGE* consumer. Should you care to ask one, like my
exroomate (who owned a N64) they'll be equally impressed by a SPx if you
show them some of the better games. (He promptly bought a PSx after seeing
the FF7 demo)
If you dont' care about hardware, you decision comes down to games and
well made PSx games look good even compared to the N64.
I wonder why an average magazine like
> TIME magazine voted the N64 as the "1997 Machine of the Year"?
Hype? Sales? Nahh... They actually played all the systems and came to an
objective conclusion (I'll bet Tickle me Elmo was "Toy of the year" as
well)
The fact
> is that hardware and gameplay go hand in hand.
Nope.
Without the powerful
> hardware of the N64, a game like Super Mario 64 couldn't be done.
Err... Tomb Raider proved otherwise.
All
> those gameplay features couldn't be done without the proper hardware.
>
Pity it doesnt take a n64 to do them.
> For $150, you bet your ass that it's a miracle of engineering to come
> up with a low level SGI Onyx based machine at that price point.
>
It'd even be more impressive if they had produced a low end Onyx.
Something's wrong when a 3Dfx so completely outperforms the N64 if that
truly was the case. In reality, the N64 was merely designed by SGI, it's
nowhere near an Onyx.
> I think you are being ignorant. Why did lots of gamers buy the N64
> and not be content with their SNESs?
I don't know... Psx sold well too (shrug) Why in the world would that
happen if the N64 was so vastly superior? (and no, it's not because
Nintendo couldn't meet demand) People still wanted the PSx because they
really couldn't tell much difference, there were more games, and they
didn't cost as much.
Trust me, we do care and is why we
> buy new hardware.
Yes, the PSx sold well too. Didn't we just cover that? ;-)
There is something called "sensory overload" and
> immersive graphics.
And this effects the N64 in what way?
> Except for Virtual Reality, which will be the ultimate next step
> in video games, you almost feel like you are in a real, dense jungle.
Ever play Tomb Raider? ;-)
The Crow
"m.python" <m.py...@juno.com> wrote:
>> Matthew Gaunt <matt...@firtree.u-net.com> wrote:
>> >3. Nintendo write the best game software in the world. ^^^^^
>this word whould be spelled "writes".
Sorry, can't resist:)...that word should be spelled "would"...don't
you just love when people nitpick over something stupid like spelling
and then spell something wrong while they are correcting someone
else?<g>
pjcal...@pipeline.com
Matthew Gaunt <matt...@firtree.u-net.com> wrote:
>I have noticed a number of posts recently "having a go" about the
>Nintendo 64. Very aggressive posts from people who clearly have some
>kind of grudge against this machine that goes deeper than plastic and
>silicon.
>Some facts about the machine...
>1. The Nintendo 64 is a vastly superior computing device to the Sony
>Playstation.
>The guts of the N64 leave the PS standing. This is unarguable - a 94Mhz
>64-bit processor pitted against an anaemic, wheezing 33Mhz 32-bit
>affair, not to mention the superior bus - the difference is so great
>that it should never be forgotten. It would be an interesting test to
>let these two go head-to-head in a prime number calculation contest.
>Actually, it'd probably be quite a dull test because of the
>inevitability of the result.
You are correct in stating that the Nintendo would beat out the
Playstation in a "prime number calculation contest". As you stated,
and this is a fact, the Nintendo just plainly processes information
faster than the Playstation.
However, I would like to point out that in some cases, there are
certain games on the Nintendo where it just doesn't look like it
utilizes this fast speed.
>However, people still waffle about "The fogging in Turok to hide the
>pop-up". Well, the truth of the matter is that the machine does
>simulate the fog to hide the pop-up (or, more accurately, the
>"z-clipping") of distant polygons. It does this because the polygon
>count is filled with the incredible detail of the foreground. But
>ask yourself this - if that's what the more powerful N64 does, just how
>bad would this game look on the Playstation. I suspect the answer
>is "So bad, that you will never see that game ported". Quite simply,
>there is nothing on the rival console to match this for detail,
>smoothness or beauty. Another example - Mario Kart. Smooth and fast,
>and with no z-clipping anywhere (except in the distance on the "Rainbow
>Road" course, but only because this is so vast it takes you four minutes
>per lap). Compared to "Wipeout", where God is busy drawing with his pen
>almost immediately in front of your vehicle.
Yes, I agree. Mario Kart 64 is fast and smooth...in one-player mode
that is. In multiplayer mode (not so bad in two-player as it is in 3
and 4 player), it still remains fast, but there is noticeable pop-up
and is not as smooth. And running at 94 MHz? There should be no excuse
if you indeed want to call this a fast running machine.
>Mario 64 - beautiful polygons - no environment pop-up. What Playstation
>game can match the beauty of the underwater scenes, with the transparent
>water (not that abysmal "holes-in-the-bitmap" Tomb Raider method), the
>detailed, curvy (Gouraud shaded) aqualife, and rich environments? None
>of them.
No environment pop-up? I noticed pop-up several times, especially
because of the way the camera angles are programmed within the game.
If you have a camera angle set a certain way and try to move Mario in
a certain direction, almost half the screen disappears. Sometimes,
Mario can put his head halfway into a tree because the polygons keep
breaking up. Now, this might not be the systems's fault..but it could
be programming. It really depends on how well it is programmed. Yes,
Tomb Raider does have polygon break-up..I will not deny that...but so
does Mario and so do other N64 games.
>2. MIP-mapped, Filtered and anti-aliased graphics look nicer than
>pixellated graphics.
>Of course they do. For a number of reasons. Firstly, it's a far more
>natural effect, and secondly, MIP-mapped & filtered polygons move around
>the screen far more smoothly, eliminating the atrocious "shimmering"
>effect that you see on the Playstation as point-sampled polygons move
>around the screen.
Ok. I'm going to get off this topic for a second and point something
else out. Pong, and many other arcade games of the past did not have
these "MIP-mapped, Filtered and anti-aliased graphics " that you
mention, yet they were fun to play. The fact that the Playstation has
a huge library of games is what persuaded me to go out and buy one. So
I buy a dud..I can return it and try something else...at least there
is a large selection for me to choose from and for a reasonable price
tag. Yes, I know, some people care about the graphics..myself
included..but I focus on the gameplay..how well the game plays and
whether it's fun or not. Yes..a few of the N64 games are fun to play,
I'll admit...but the small selection of them bothers me a bit. And
yes..I'll admit that some Playstation games are just pathetic..but
there's more to turn too when I find one that's simply awful.
>3. Nintendo write the best game software in the world.
>I'm sure this will provoke an angry response from young adolescent
>Playstation owners who go down the psychological path of
>"self-justification of purchase" - the kind of attitude that makes car
>manufacturers rub their hands together with glee. But it's true - for
>attention to detail and dedication to software, Nintendo have a great
>deal of respect for their customer's eye for quality. I don't like the
>Sony "build it and they will come" attitude. Indeed they come, but the
>majority of them bring parcels of shite for sale. Miyamoto's quote "I
>worked so hard on Mario 64 that I thought I was going to die" is hardly
>going to be coming from the mouths of the Jumping Flash team is it? But
>this is not necessarily my opinion alone. When your opinion about
>Nintendo's software is shared with industry respected publications like
>the UK's "Edge" magazine, and the Japanese "Famitsu" magazine, who gives
>a shit what a teenage boys with low-tech machines, no cash and deep
>attitude problems think?
This will actually provoke an angry response from someone other than a
"young adolescent Playstation owner" that you mention above.
>attention to detail and dedication to software, Nintendo have a great
>deal of respect for their customer's eye for quality.
Ok. I'm not quite sure what you mean by attention to detail. If you
mean in the games themselves then in certain games you may be correct.
But, I have to disagree with the "respect for quality" part..because
let's take a game like Cruisin USA. They took lots of stuff out of the
arcade version..charged $70 for it and expected people to buy it. Was
Nintendo offering top quality to thier customers this time. How about
Mortal Kombat Trilogy...one of the worst versions of the game ever
seen on a home gaming system. And so far..apart from these other
games..it's been sequel city for Nintendo..."Mario 64", "Mario Kart
64", "NBA Hangtime 64", Killer Instinct 64", "Fifa 64", "Starfox 64".
Is Nintendo going to simply rely on their old classics to help them
with sales of the Nintendo 64? This is why I feel many have switched
to the Playstation..where developers are given the opportunity to
develop new games...explore different genres that have not been done
before. And Sony wants to see what they can come up with. Just look at
their Yaroze project...letting people design their own games. I don't
think Nintendo will ever let people do this.
> I don't like the Sony "build it and they will come" attitude. Indeed they come, but the
>majority of them bring parcels of shite for sale.
Do you really think Sony had this type of attitude in mind when they
built the system? Sony is a big company and even if the PSX
failed..they are way too big of a company that this wouldn't hurt them
in the least. And yes, they did come. They came in the form of EA,
Capcom, and Squaresoft. Final Fantasy VII for the Playstation is one
reason why Nintendo has lost a few fans...the game simply can't fit on
the Nintendo 64...64DD or not. Sony marketed their product well, let
Squaresoft do a 3-disc game, and decided to carry it over here in
America where it should do just as well as it did in Japan. Bravo, is
all I can say. That impresses me. "Shite" for sale? Final Fantasy,
Resident Evil, Tomb Raider, Tekken, should I go on with the list of
games that Nintendo may never have that have enjoyed their success on
the Playstation. Yes, there is some "shite" on the Playstation. Pretty
bad too, if you ask me..just some downright horrible stuff that
shouldn't have even been coded to begin with...but hey..again..if it's
bad..I've always got tons more to choose from and tons more to look
forward to.
>Miyamoto's quote "I worked so hard on Mario 64 that I thought I was going to die" is hardly
>going to be coming from the mouths of the Jumping Flash team is it? But
>this is not necessarily my opinion alone.
I respect Mr. Miyamoto a great deal. I think he really puts out some
great games and I nobody can deny that he is a genius. And yes, I'm
sure he logged tons of hours put into Mario 64..and Starfox 64..and
Zelda (as we speak). And no...you won't see the Jumping Flash Team
saying this because it's not a high top-quality game like Mario is.
However, it may come from the mouths of the Tomb Raider team, and the
Resident Evil Team, Crash Bandicoot Team, Blasto Team..etc. Each
system has it's top quality games..Nintendo, Saturn, and Playstation
and each should be respected for having these games on their system.
It seems to me though right now..that Playstation is the market leader
because they have cleverly marketed their product to multiple age
groups, have many games available to play, and because they appear to
be doing most things right by keeping a ton of third-party support.
I'm not against Nintendo...I have one myself. But I do prefer the
Playstation for the above noted reasons and is why I would recommend
it to anyone asking my opinion.
Thanks for reading...no offense taken I hope
Patrick
Castellan
Matthew Gaunt <matt...@firtree.u-net.com> writes:
Look who's back in town. Own an N64 yet, big guy? Or does the fact
that the Japanese don't seem to have the same perception of "quality," and
are snapping up your be-hated Playstation in droves, have your wee little
nubbin a tad tweaked, and is directing your stubby little fingers to poke
out this ridiculous slough of patently idiotic advocacy regarding two
machines you don't even OWN?
>I have noticed a number of posts recently "having a go" about the
>Nintendo 64. Very aggressive posts from people who clearly have some
>kind of grudge against this machine that goes deeper than plastic and
>silicon.
Oh, my. Matty, this is too rich. Speaking of teenboy angst-addled
aggressiveness, let's take a little stroll through the Mattster's post,
shall we?
>Some facts about the machine...
>1. The Nintendo 64 is a vastly superior computing device to the Sony
>Playstation.
"Vastly" ain't a fact, Matty. I'll concede that the N64 has the
technical edge over the Playstation, but "vastly" is a term reserved for the
difference between a Cray and a Sears VCS, peep. Of course, you don't
care about lending your arguments any credence; you're more interested in
seeing that your beloved "Nintendo" brandname doesn't get tarnished by
those heathens at Sony.
>The guts of the N64 leave the PS standing. This is unarguable - a 94Mhz
>64-bit processor pitted against an anaemic, wheezing 33Mhz 32-bit
>affair, not to mention the superior bus - the difference is so great
>that it should never be forgotten. It would be an interesting test to
>let these two go head-to-head in a prime number calculation contest.
>Actually, it'd probably be quite a dull test because of the
>inevitability of the result.
And how much of the graphics processing is offloaded onto the
main CPU? The answer? VERY LITTLE. This might be a point if we were
comparing architectures similar to the Saturn's, but we aren't. Of course,
since spurious arguments seem to be the mode du jour, how about this? The
Playstation's GTE calculates 300K fully t-mapped, gouraud-shaded, light-
sourced polys per second. The N64 does about 240K with texture filtering
turned off.
Of course, Matty, we MUST ask: How do numbers translate into a
superior gaming experience, eh? Or do you just like horking up stats
along with all the other hypocritical sputum you've been driveling?
>However, people still waffle about "The fogging in Turok to hide the
>pop-up". Well, the truth of the matter is that the machine does
>simulate the fog to hide the pop-up (or, more accurately, the
>"z-clipping") of distant polygons. It does this because the polygon
>count is filled with the incredible detail of the foreground. But
>ask yourself this - if that's what the more powerful N64 does, just how
>bad would this game look on the Playstation. I suspect the answer
>is "So bad, that you will never see that game ported". Quite simply,
>there is nothing on the rival console to match this for detail,
>smoothness or beauty. Another example - Mario Kart. Smooth and fast,
>and with no z-clipping anywhere (except in the distance on the "Rainbow
>Road" course, but only because this is so vast it takes you four minutes
>per lap). Compared to "Wipeout", where God is busy drawing with his pen
>almost immediately in front of your vehicle.
Yeah, and then we have _Rally Cross_ and _Rapid Racer_, two games
with very little pop-up, with the later performing water effects similar
_Wave Race_ at 60 fps. If you're going to argue by targeting specifics,
Matty, you'd best be prepared to deal with counterexamples.
>Mario 64 - beautiful polygons - no environment pop-up. What Playstation
>game can match the beauty of the underwater scenes, with the transparent
>water (not that abysmal "holes-in-the-bitmap" Tomb Raider method), the
>detailed, curvy (Gouraud shaded) aqualife, and rich environments? None
>of them.
This is idiotic. The Playstation uses an alpha-channel for
translucency effects, much as the N64 does. Given, the N64 has a much
broader alpha channel, but if you think the Playstation is using a
screendoor effect ala the Saturn, then you've never seen a Playstation
game in action. _Tomb Raider_ most certainly DOES use the alpha channel -
try PLAYING the game before you make such pointedly ignorant comments.
As for underwater games, try Namco's forthcoming _Treasures of
the Deep_, an underwater RPG with "transparent water," "detailed,
curvy (Gouraud shaded) aqualife," and "rich environments."
An amusing sidenote: the 3DO system actually has a larger library
of special effects than the Playstation does, including antialiasing for
3D bitmaps and a more advanced CLUT. Look where THAT got the system.
>2. MIP-mapped, Filtered and anti-aliased graphics look nicer than
>pixellated graphics.
>Of course they do. For a number of reasons. Firstly, it's a far more
>natural effect, and secondly, MIP-mapped & filtered polygons move around
>the screen far more smoothly, eliminating the atrocious "shimmering"
>effect that you see on the Playstation as point-sampled polygons move
>around the screen.
Texture filtering is a far more natural effect? Um, no. The blurring
of Nintendo's low-res textures is rather disorienting and somewhat tiring on
the eyes. Of course, this is personal taste, but I really can't see how this
could be construed as more natural. Personally, I'd rather have hi-res
textures that don't pixellate, filtered or not, ala _Crash Bandicoot_ (game
play issues aside).
And,as for shimmering, try looking at cage behind the Chain Chomp
in "Bob-omb Battlefield" in _Mario 64_ from a distant perspective. Check out
that shimmering!
But that's right, Matty, you can't! You don't own an N64 yet, do you?
>3. Nintendo write the best game software in the world.
>I'm sure this will provoke an angry response from young adolescent
>Playstation owners who go down the psychological path of
>"self-justification of purchase" - the kind of attitude that makes car
>manufacturers rub their hands together with glee. But it's true - for
>attention to detail and dedication to software, Nintendo have a great
>deal of respect for their customer's eye for quality.
Yes, and so do Konami of Japan, and Square of Japan, and Capcom of
Japan, and Shiny Entertainment, and Sega's AM divisions, and so on. Each
of these companies has shown that they are willing to go the extra mile in
both presentation and play, and their titles have sold as well throughout
the world as Nintendo's have. In Japan, in fact, Konami, Square, Sega, and
Capcom's offering have crushed Nintendo's next generation offerings in
terms of sales, and, seeing how they are the largest videogame consuming
audience per capita, I'd say they're probably the experts on this matter, not
some opinionated goober who looks at a brand name first and the available
titles second...
I don't like the
>Sony "build it and they will come" attitude. Indeed they come, but the
>majority of them bring parcels of shite for sale.
I don't see where this "Sony games are shit" argument stems from.
Actually, Sony's forthcoming line-up has me terrified for my pocketbook,
what with so many outstanding titles such as _Castlevania X_, _Colony Wars_,
_G-Police_, _Ray Storm_, _Tactics Ogre_, _Final Fantasy 7_, _Final Fantasy
Tactics_, _D & D Collection_, _Saga Frontier_, _Other Lives, Azure Dreams_,
_Ghost in the Shell_, _Croc_, _Alundra_, _Rascal_ (a mid-res 60fps _Mario
64_ clone animated by Jim Henson Studios!), _Fighting Force_, _Breath of
Fire 3_, _One_ ...ah, hell, the more I think about it, the more that come to
me. And this is all in the coming quarter! Oh, and let's not forget
_Metal Gear Solid_, named Best of Show at E3 over all of Nintendo's in-house
offerings...
Conversely, for the N64, there are all of THREE titles that interest
me: _Yoshi's Island 64_, _Zelda 64_, and _Hibrid Heaven_. Not good, considering
I only own 2 titles for my N64, preferring to rent Nintendo's currently
glam-soaked and depth-free offerings, both first- and third-party.
Miyamoto's quote "I
>worked so hard on Mario 64 that I thought I was going to die" is hardly
>going to be coming from the mouths of the Jumping Flash team is it?
But
>this is not necessarily my opinion alone. When your opinion about
>Nintendo's software is shared with industry respected publications like
>the UK's "Edge" magazine, and the Japanese "Famitsu" magazine, who gives
>a shit what a teenage boys with low-tech machines, no cash and deep
>attitude problems think?
Famitsu also gives as high or higher ratings to software produced
by other companies, such as Square, Konami, Capcom, and Sega. What was the
most honored piece of software in Japan last year? Sega's _Sakura Taisen_.
The year before? Sega's _Virtua Fighter 2_.
"Oh! Oh! Oh!" squeals Matty. "but but but Nintendo ALWAYS gets
consistently high ratings!" Wrongo, pal. Famitsu bashed _Super Metroid_,
_Mario Kart 64_, and a few other "acclaimed" Nintendo offerings, putting
them at the same level as the above companies' weaker offerings. Nintendo's
only hallmark is the fact that it makes more family-oriented titles, which
obviously appeals to the more conservative American gaming environment. OTOH,
the other above companies have games in their lineup with darker themes and
more complex gameplay, which appeal to more hardcore market segments, such
as RPG players.
Well, Matty, it's been real. Unfortunately, your liberal usage of
advocacy in the above post has proven you to be as much of a PS-opponent
as the people you proposed to flame are against the N64. It's time you woke
up and realized the PS has a very strong lineup of eminently playable
titles such as _Castlevania X_ and _Final Fantasy Tactics_ that are easily
on par with the best Nintendo has to offer. And this, my little friend, is
the reason the PLaystation is so successful - it has delivered the goods.
Technology and a brand name don't make a good game system - a large amount
of good titles do. And no matter what blind advocates may want to believe,
the Playstation has 'em.
One thing we all seem to forget in our desire to scrawl off a post
before thinking is that everybody has very individual tastes. You wanna
know what game I'm playing right now? _Hexen_ for the N64. I've played it
more than I've played the other title I own, _Mario 64_, even though
the magazines have given it mediocre ratings. Why is that? Because I'm
my own creature, and _Hexen_'s combination of puzzle solving, large-scale
dramatic battles, and intricate level design appeals to me. You think
other people are any different? I can guarantee that EVERY gamer out there
has one or two games which were rated lowly by the magazines that he or she
derives quite a bit of amusement from. And, I can guarantee you that every
one of these gamers also knows of a title rated highly by the press that
they don.t care for, be it _Tomb Raider_, _Turok_, _Resident Evil_, or
_Virtual On_. (Or, in my case, all four.) You mix up these sort of
purchasing patterns a bit, and you get an overall scenario where the
ratings of games are absolutely next to worthless in declaring the so-called
"facts" about games and consoles that certain advocates are wont to spew
forth on a regular basis.
There is no objective "best" game or system. There's just what YOU
play, and what you DON'T play.
*I* don't play your sophomoric little game of name-brand fetishism,
Matty-boy.
Marty Chinn
Amaury Acosta (ama...@webspan.net) wrote:
: "To the average consumer"? I wonder why an average magazine like
: TIME magazine voted the N64 as the "1997 Machine of the Year"? The fact
: is that hardware and gameplay go hand in hand. Without the powerful
: hardware of the N64, a game like Super Mario 64 couldn't be done. All
: those gameplay features couldn't be done without the proper hardware.
Funny, Gex, and Croc seem to be duplicating those game play features just
well on the PlayStation.
: For $150, you bet your ass that it's a miracle of engineering to come
: up with a low level SGI Onyx based machine at that price point.
If you think its a low level SGI Onyx, you're really naive. More like an
O2 which doesn't even touch an Onyx.
Danny Kusters
> Also take note of the pop-up in _Starfox 64_'s space scenes,
>especially the sequences with the asteroids and in the construction
>yard. It's pretty harsh.
On the overall, PSX games have way more pop-up and polygon errors then
the average N64 game. Although the N64 DOES have pop-up (Nintendo
'promised' that 'load time management' would take care of this ;)
and polygons disappearing into other ones and into the screen, it
is nothing compared to what you see in most psx games;
almost ALL PSX games have the infamous polygon breakup lines,
folding polygons when they come close to the screen and pop-up.
Also harsh lines caused by the absense of anti aliasing.
For an extreme example, try Runabout ;)
Having said all that, the PSX is still an extremely cool gaming
machine. If I had to choose only one of the next-gen platforms,
that would be it. On the other hand, a real videogamer cannot
deny the fact that the N64 is a good addition to your collection.
Grtx, Ryu
Amaury Acosta
Marty Chinn wrote:
>
> Amaury Acosta (ama...@webspan.net) wrote:
>
> : "To the average consumer"? I wonder why an average magazine like
> : TIME magazine voted the N64 as the "1997 Machine of the Year"? The fact
> : is that hardware and gameplay go hand in hand. Without the powerful
> : hardware of the N64, a game like Super Mario 64 couldn't be done. All
> : those gameplay features couldn't be done without the proper hardware.
>
> Funny, Gex, and Croc seem to be duplicating those game play features just
> well on the PlayStation.
Pretty damn sad too. I saw those games on your E3 video tape and no
way did they look like they could capture the magic of Mario 64 in
graphics and gameplay and overall, fun. Man, you talk about copy cat.
Croc was like a wannabe Super Mario 64, but with a stupid looking main
character. Croc of shit is what it looked and played like.
> : For $150, you bet your ass that it's a miracle of engineering to come
> : up with a low level SGI Onyx based machine at that price point.
>
> If you think its a low level SGI Onyx, you're really naive. More like an
> O2 which doesn't even touch an Onyx.
As far as I know, the "Reality" Coprocessor was designed by SGI,
taken after the operative features of a low level Onyx workstation. I am
not saying that the N64 is equivalent in power to a SGI workstation, but
the chipset design is similiar to their workstations, except of course
that their chips run at a much faster mhz and have tons more ram.
Ryan Farisslaw
Matthew Gaunt <matt...@firtree.u-net.com> wrote:
: I have noticed a number of posts recently "having a go" about the
: kind of grudge against this machine that goes deeper than plastic and
: silicon.
: Some facts about the machine...
: 1. The Nintendo 64 is a vastly superior computing device to the Sony
: Playstation.
: The guts of the N64 leave the PS standing. This is unarguable - a 94Mhz
: 64-bit processor pitted against an anaemic, wheezing 33Mhz 32-bit
: affair, not to mention the superior bus - the difference is so great
: that it should never be forgotten. It would be an interesting test to
: let these two go head-to-head in a prime number calculation contest.
: Actually, it'd probably be quite a dull test because of the
: inevitability of the result.
Nobody would be stupid enough to argue with any seriousness that the PSX
has more raw computing power than the N64. You basically just pointed out
something that is incredible obvious. However, the simple fact is that
many of us would prefer playing GAMES over prime number calculation tests.
You concern yourself WAY too much with the raw computing power, as though
the hardware alone makes a console great. Quite the contrary is true,
software propels a console to sucess. And the PSX has quite a bit more of
that than the N64 does. Argue "quality vs. quantity" if you wish, but
that is usually a very thin argument that is something along the lines
of..."Every N64 game is 50 times better than every PSX game because I said
so."
: However, people still waffle about "The fogging in Turok to hide the
: pop-up". Well, the truth of the matter is that the machine does
: simulate the fog to hide the pop-up (or, more accurately, the
: "z-clipping") of distant polygons. It does this because the polygon
: count is filled with the incredible detail of the foreground. But
: ask yourself this - if that's what the more powerful N64 does, just how
: bad would this game look on the Playstation. I suspect the answer
: is "So bad, that you will never see that game ported". Quite simply,
: there is nothing on the rival console to match this for detail,
: smoothness or beauty. Another example - Mario Kart. Smooth and fast,
: and with no z-clipping anywhere (except in the distance on the "Rainbow
: Road" course, but only because this is so vast it takes you four minutes
: per lap). Compared to "Wipeout", where God is busy drawing with his pen
: almost immediately in front of your vehicle.
So what? We will never see a few N64 games, because the N64 is capable of
more than the PSX in some areas. Imagine how FFVII would look on the N64
why don't you? Imagine squeezing 2gigs worth of data into a tiny fraction
of that. Yes, you've made the point that the N64 is a more advanced
(newer) piece of hardware. Everyone is already aware of that and
basically doesn't care.
Good job on telling everyone what they already know. Now, tell me why
exactly I should drop my PSX that has way more games and certain games I
really want to play (ffvii, res evil 2, etc.) in favor of the N64, where
the few games that are out may look a bit more polished and cost me $10-20
more. Let me guess, because Nintendo is just the God of videogames and
everything that is Nintendo is incredibly great and better than anything
else right?
--
==============================================================================
"One day your ship will come in...Today is not that day." -Zorak
Ryan Fariss Law
[und...@primenet.com]
==============================================================================
Marty Chinn
Amaury Acosta (ama...@webspan.net) wrote:
: Pretty damn sad too. I saw those games on your E3 video tape and no
: way did they look like they could capture the magic of Mario 64 in
: graphics and gameplay and overall, fun. Man, you talk about copy cat.
: Croc was like a wannabe Super Mario 64, but with a stupid looking main
: character. Croc of shit is what it looked and played like.
Uh you realize you have to play the game first before you can comment on
how a game plays. For what you said couldn't be done, they did it on the
32 bit systems. The game play can be duplicated, and believe it or not
hte graphics are pretty good on both of the games.
: As far as I know, the "Reality" Coprocessor was designed by SGI,
: taken after the operative features of a low level Onyx workstation. I am
: not saying that the N64 is equivalent in power to a SGI workstation, but
: the chipset design is similiar to their workstations, except of course
: that their chips run at a much faster mhz and have tons more ram.
Sure its designed by SGI but so are all of their workstations. That
doesn't mean they're all on the same level. There is no way the N64 is
comparable to an Onyx. An Onyx is what was running Chocobo De Battle at
Siggraph. The whole N64 is much more comparable to SGI's low end O2
rather than an Onyx.
m.python
Amaury Acosta
Ryan Farisslaw wrote:
>
> Amaury Acosta <ama...@webspan.net> wrote:
>
> : "To the average consumer"? I wonder why an average magazine like
> : TIME magazine voted the N64 as the "1997 Machine of the Year"? The fact
> : is that hardware and gameplay go hand in hand. Without the powerful
> : hardware of the N64, a game like Super Mario 64 couldn't be done. All
> : those gameplay features couldn't be done without the proper hardware.
>
> hand with gameplay? Do you think there is a "gameplay" ROM inside all the
> conoles? Or maybe the "gameplay" chip? It might interest you to know
> that gameplay goes hand in hand with SOFTWARE, not hardware. There have
> been games with awesome gameplay basically since videogames were around.
Don't be stupid. If you have ever played Super Mario 64, Waverace 64,
Pilotwings 64, etc., you would know what I'm talking about. Graphics
don't make gameplay, but they add to it and they affect the way you
play.
> : For $150, you bet your ass that it's a miracle of engineering to come
> : up with a low level SGI Onyx based machine at that price point.
>
> Low level Onyx? Hmmm, not quite. Its hardly a miracle either. It is a
> powerful little box, no doubt, but consoles have always been that way.
Well, the fact is that there isn't right now. The N64 is the best
and has the cleanist, most effecient chipset than the others.
N64
> happens to be the newest one right now, and consequently most powerful.
> In a year or so newer consoles will come out that will totally eclipse
> what the N64 is capable of, probably at the same price. Please though,
> try to show a bit of intelligence and dont buy into the hype that the N64
> is just a little Onyx.
"Don't buy into the hype". All of you people are airheads. I never
buy anything because of hype or brand name. I look at the product, see
what it offers, and see what's going to offer in the future. I liked
what the N64 offered. Simple as that. I have no company loyalty, except
for the one I work for.
> : I think you are being ignorant. Why did lots of gamers buy the N64
> : and not be content with their SNESs? Trust me, we do care and is why we
> : buy new hardware. There is something called "sensory overload" and
> : immersive graphics. I get goosebumps sometimes playing a game like
> : Turok. Except for Virtual Reality, which will be the ultimate next step
> : in video games, you almost feel like you are in a real, dense jungle.
>
> People DO buy new consoles of course, but generally it has less to do with
> hardware and more to do with software, and in the case of Nintendo name
> recognition. Would you have bought a N64 if it had NO games? Just
> because it was the more powerful console hardware?
Well, like I said before, why didn't Nintendo just keep making Mario
games on the SNES? Why did they even bother to make new hardware.
Because they know that today's gamer's are looking for a leap in power.
Personally, I was looking forward to the M2, more than the N64. But
Matsushita dropped it.
Sean Daugherty
On or about Fri, 08 Aug 1997 16:01:35 GMT, the accused,
crow...@mindspring.com (The Crow), was spotted saying:
>"m.python" <m.py...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>>> Matthew Gaunt <matt...@firtree.u-net.com> wrote:
>
>>> >3. Nintendo write the best game software in the world. ^^^^^
>
>>this word whould be spelled "writes".
>Sorry, can't resist:)...that word should be spelled "would"...don't
>you just love when people nitpick over something stupid like spelling
>and then spell something wrong while they are correcting someone
>else?<g>
Sure do. Actually, you spotted incorrectly. I'm going to guess m.python meant
to say "should" and not "would". Don't you just love when people nitpick over
stupid like spelling over someone else who spells incorrectly and then totally
manages to miss the point? <G> Just joking...
Patrick (The Connection)
Ryan Farisslaw
Amaury Acosta <ama...@webspan.net> wrote:
: "To the average consumer"? I wonder why an average magazine like
: TIME magazine voted the N64 as the "1997 Machine of the Year"? The fact
: is that hardware and gameplay go hand in hand. Without the powerful
: hardware of the N64, a game like Super Mario 64 couldn't be done. All
: those gameplay features couldn't be done without the proper hardware.
You seem to be very misinformed. Why exactly would hardware go hand in
hand with gameplay? Do you think there is a "gameplay" ROM inside all the
conoles? Or maybe the "gameplay" chip? It might interest you to know
that gameplay goes hand in hand with SOFTWARE, not hardware. There have
been games with awesome gameplay basically since videogames were around.
: For $150, you bet your ass that it's a miracle of engineering to come
: up with a low level SGI Onyx based machine at that price point.
Low level Onyx? Hmmm, not quite. Its hardly a miracle either. It is a
powerful little box, no doubt, but consoles have always been that way. N64
happens to be the newest one right now, and consequently most powerful.
In a year or so newer consoles will come out that will totally eclipse
what the N64 is capable of, probably at the same price. Please though,
try to show a bit of intelligence and dont buy into the hype that the N64
is just a little Onyx.
: I think you are being ignorant. Why did lots of gamers buy the N64
: and not be content with their SNESs? Trust me, we do care and is why we
: buy new hardware. There is something called "sensory overload" and
: immersive graphics. I get goosebumps sometimes playing a game like
: Turok. Except for Virtual Reality, which will be the ultimate next step
: in video games, you almost feel like you are in a real, dense jungle.
People DO buy new consoles of course, but generally it has less to do with
hardware and more to do with software, and in the case of Nintendo name
recognition. Would you have bought a N64 if it had NO games? Just
because it was the more powerful console hardware?
--
m.python
Sean Daugherty wrote:
>
> On or about Fri, 08 Aug 1997 16:01:35 GMT, the accused,
> crow...@mindspring.com (The Crow), was spotted saying:
>
> >"m.python" <m.py...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> Matthew Gaunt <matt...@firtree.u-net.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> >3. Nintendo write the best game software in the world. ^^^^^
> >
> >>this word whould be spelled "writes".
> >Sorry, can't resist:)...that word should be spelled "would"...don't
> >you just love when people nitpick over something stupid like spelling
> >and then spell something wrong while they are correcting someone
> >else?<g>
>
> Sure do. Actually, you spotted incorrectly. I'm going to guess m.python meant
> to say "should" and not "would". Don't you just love when people nitpick over
> stupid like spelling over someone else who spells incorrectly and then totally
> manages to miss the point? <G> Just joking...
i am currently re-organizing my apartment, and you wouldn't believe the
position my keyboard is in. upside down, and crap. no kidding.
but anyway, sean is right, i meant to spell "should". damn funny turn
of events, though.
psxs...@hotmail.com
In article <vidsourcE...@netcom.com>,
vids...@netcom.com (Marty Chinn) wrote:
>
> Amaury Acosta (ama...@webspan.net) wrote:
>
> : "To the average consumer"? I wonder why an average magazine like
> : TIME magazine voted the N64 as the "1997 Machine of the Year"? The fact
> : is that hardware and gameplay go hand in hand. Without the powerful
> : hardware of the N64, a game like Super Mario 64 couldn't be done. All
> : those gameplay features couldn't be done without the proper hardware.
>
> well on the PlayStation.
Exactly what I've been saying, being at E3 I can say these games are
awsome both in looks and gameplay. Croc is better than Gex however. I was
also very impressed with Rascals, I didn't get a chance to play it but it
just looks so damn pretty.
>
> : For $150, you bet your ass that it's a miracle of engineering to come
> : up with a low level SGI Onyx based machine at that price point.
>
> If you think its a low level SGI Onyx, you're really naive. More like an
> O2 which doesn't even touch an Onyx.
> --
Its not even an O2. While it is more powerfull than the PSX, it is no
where near 2X the power of the PSX. Tobal 2 and Wipeout XL prove this
point. The PSX can push more polygons but the N64 has the "dazzling"
effects to mask this.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Ryan Farisslaw
Amaury Acosta <ama...@webspan.net> wrote:
: >
: > You seem to be very misinformed. Why exactly would hardware go hand in
: > hand with gameplay? Do you think there is a "gameplay" ROM inside all the
: > conoles? Or maybe the "gameplay" chip? It might interest you to know
: > that gameplay goes hand in hand with SOFTWARE, not hardware. There have
: > been games with awesome gameplay basically since videogames were around.
: Don't be stupid. If you have ever played Super Mario 64, Waverace 64,
: Pilotwings 64, etc., you would know what I'm talking about. Graphics
: don't make gameplay, but they add to it and they affect the way you
: play.
I have played all those games. In fact I own a N64. I'm simply saying
that having more powerful hardware does not equate to having better
gameplay. Gameplay is a reflection of software more than hardware. Do
you honestly believe there has never been a game with great gameplay
before the N64 came out?
:
: > : For $150, you bet your ass that it's a miracle of engineering to come
: > : up with a low level SGI Onyx based machine at that price point.
: >
: > Low level Onyx? Hmmm, not quite. Its hardly a miracle either. It is a
: > powerful little box, no doubt, but consoles have always been that way.
: Well, the fact is that there isn't right now. The N64 is the best
: and has the cleanist, most effecient chipset than the others.
It is the newest, and most advanced piece of HARDWARE. Software is
another story, and to be honest I'm quite bored with Mario64 and WR64 by
now.
: N64
: > happens to be the newest one right now, and consequently most powerful.
: > In a year or so newer consoles will come out that will totally eclipse
: > what the N64 is capable of, probably at the same price. Please though,
: > try to show a bit of intelligence and dont buy into the hype that the N64
: > is just a little Onyx.
: "Don't buy into the hype". All of you people are airheads. I never
: buy anything because of hype or brand name. I look at the product, see
: what it offers, and see what's going to offer in the future. I liked
: what the N64 offered. Simple as that. I have no company loyalty, except
: for the one I work for.
I purchased it because it looked promising. Its certainly not a bad
system, but I hardly find myself playing these days and with the lineup
the PSX has I doubt that will change. But the idea that the N64 is a
mini-SGI box is pure marketting garbage. It _is_ a powerful machine but
comparing it to a workstation is not very reasonable.
: > People DO buy new consoles of course, but generally it has less to do with
: > hardware and more to do with software, and in the case of Nintendo name
: > recognition. Would you have bought a N64 if it had NO games? Just
: > because it was the more powerful console hardware?
: Well, like I said before, why didn't Nintendo just keep making Mario
: games on the SNES? Why did they even bother to make new hardware.
: Because they know that today's gamer's are looking for a leap in power.
: Personally, I was looking forward to the M2, more than the N64. But
: Matsushita dropped it.
Technology moves along. How could the SNES possibly compete with the
Saturn or PSX? That doesn't explain your reasoning that better graphics =
better gameplay. Gameplay and graphics are two different things.
Jesse Dorland
In a secluded warehouse,
on a pier somewhere in Maine,
gagged and at gunpoint,
dan...@cuci.nl (Danny Kusters) frantically made this plea for help:
>> Also take note of the pop-up in _Starfox 64_'s space scenes,
>>especially the sequences with the asteroids and in the construction
>>yard. It's pretty harsh.
>
>On the overall, PSX games have way more pop-up and polygon errors then
>the average N64 game. Although the N64 DOES have pop-up (Nintendo
>'promised' that 'load time management' would take care of this ;)
Errr... that's LOD management, sometimes mistaken for load management, but
load times have nothing to do with pop-up.
-Jesse
=========================================================
There are two major products that come out of Berkeley:
LSD & UNIX. We do not believe this to be a coincidence.
=========================================================
Amaury Acosta
Ryan Farisslaw wrote:
>
> Technology moves along. How could the SNES possibly compete with the
> Saturn or PSX? That doesn't explain your reasoning that better graphics =
> better gameplay. Gameplay and graphics are two different things.
It does explain my reasoning. If gameplay was the sole reason gamers
buy games, why would Nintendo need to make a much more powerful machine
like the N64 and just stick with their SNES against the likes of the
Saturn and PSX? People play video games as a virtual realistic
experience, especially with today's leap in technology. The mipmapped,
filtered, z-buffered, etc. etc. graphics of Mario 64 allowed the
programmers to come up with some very cool ideas. Take the transparency
effects in the game, like the part where you had to figure out where the
star was in that icy room. Take Mario turning into liquid nitrogen. Take
the owl picking you up and the LOAD/Z-buffer allowing you to see a huge
area over you. Take Pilotwings 64. If you ever played the original one
on the SNES, there were some problems IN THE GAMEPLAY because of the
graphics. Sometimes you couldn't tell how low to the flat ground you
were. What about the limited distancing that would make graphics pop up
out of nowhere that affected where you needed to go next with the
Hanglider? Since you have played Waverace 64, you know that those
incredible, realistic looking waves affected the way your jetski
steers. Isn't that all part of gameplay? Look, I'm getting a headache
trying to remember all the stuff from these games, so I know that I'm
missing tons of stuff where the hardware/graphics affect the gameplay.
You are the one being incredibly naive to think otherwise.
Matthew Gaunt
Ryan Farisslaw wrote:
<snip>
> Good job on telling everyone what they already know. Now, tell me why
> exactly I should drop my PSX that has way more games and certain games I
> really want to play (ffvii, res evil 2, etc.) in favor of the N64, where
> the few games that are out may look a bit more polished and cost me $10-20
> more. Let me guess, because Nintendo is just the God of videogames and
> everything that is Nintendo is incredibly great and better than anything
> else right?
Looks like you've finally been enlightened at last....
Troy Davis
Another example of better hardware better software is the SNES. Without
its Mode-7 effects there wouldnt have been games
like: Super Mario Kart, F-Zero, Super CastleVania (or was it super Gouls
and Ghost?) When one of the levels would flip upside down, Yoshi's
Island when you fight Raphael the Raven you're on a small planet in the
middle of the screen and you have to stomp poles through it to hit the
raven, the whole screen rotates so that your always on top of the
planet. There's many other examples of mode-7 and other SNES effects
that allowed better gameplay that could not be done on genesis. I just
thought of another one, because SNes had more paralax scrolling it
allowed mario to go on the flip side of the gate In the first castle of
Super Mario World.
NintendoCow
In article <vidsourcE...@netcom.com>, vids...@netcom.com (Marty Chinn) wrote:
>Amaury Acosta (ama...@webspan.net) wrote:
>
>: way did they look like they could capture the magic of Mario 64 in
>: graphics and gameplay and overall, fun. Man, you talk about copy cat.
>: Croc was like a wannabe Super Mario 64, but with a stupid looking main
>: character. Croc of shit is what it looked and played like.
>
>Uh you realize you have to play the game first before you can comment on
>how a game plays. For what you said couldn't be done, they did it on the
>32 bit systems. The game play can be duplicated, and believe it or not
>hte graphics are pretty good on both of the games.
Exactly the same statement goes to you. You have to actually play
the released game of Croc before you actually saying that
comments of Super Mario by some one is funny.
>: As far as I know, the "Reality" Coprocessor was designed by SGI,
>: taken after the operative features of a low level Onyx workstation. I am
>: not saying that the N64 is equivalent in power to a SGI workstation, but
>: the chipset design is similiar to their workstations, except of course
>: that their chips run at a much faster mhz and have tons more ram.
>
>Sure its designed by SGI but so are all of their workstations. That
>doesn't mean they're all on the same level. There is no way the N64 is
>comparable to an Onyx. An Onyx is what was running Chocobo De Battle at
>Siggraph. The whole N64 is much more comparable to SGI's low end O2
>rather than an Onyx.
This has been discussed again and again on the subject of
"N64 emulation".
N64 is specifically designed for gaming only.
Onyx is for graphic workstation running Unix-like OS.
It must be more than powerful enough. Otherwise, it won't
be able to emulate N64.
Obviously, Pentium 166 MHz should beat N64's processor.
Can a PC workstation with P166 can even emulate N64 ?
Far from it.
I am not sure what your point is when you emphasize that
N64 is no way comparable to Onyx.
Compare oranges to oranges and apples to apples.
--
NintendoCow
Marky J
--WebTV-Mail-393447831-4634
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Better hardware, better software is right. Remember Final Fantasy 3? One
of the best games ever. The entire outworld and airship were done in
mode-7.
--WebTV-Mail-393447831-4634
Content-Description: signature
Content-Type: TEXT/HTML; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
<html><body><font color=aqua>
~~~~~~~~~~~Mark Jansen~~~~~~~~~~~
<br>
~~~~~~~~~~~~Kool stuff~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<br>
~~~~~~And his web site rules too!~~~~~~
<br>
</font></body></html>
--WebTV-Mail-393447831-4634--
Troy Davis
In article
<ajkko-08089...@news.dimension
al.com>,
aj...@dim.com (Joe Ottoson) wrote:
>
> In article
<33EBA6...@webspan.net>, Amaury
Acosta <ama...@webspan.net>
> > "To the average consumer"?
>
Should you care to ask one, like my
> exroomate (who owned a N64) they'll
be equally impressed by a SPx if you
> show them some of the better games.
(He promptly bought a PSx after seeing
> the FF7 demo)
>
> If you dont' care about hardware,
you decision comes down to games and
> well made PSx games look good even
compared to the N64.
>
like
> > TIME magazine voted the N64 as the
"1997 Machine of the Year"?
>
played all the systems and came to an
> objective conclusion (I'll bet
Tickle me Elmo was "Toy of the year"
as
> well)
>
> > is that hardware and gameplay go
hand in hand.
>
>
> Without the powerful
> > hardware of the N64, a game like
Super Mario 64 couldn't be done.
>
I dont think so, all Tomb Raider
proved was that PSX can make a very
pixellated game out of folding
polygons that break up.
Marty Chinn
NintendoCow (ninte...@bri.com) wrote:
: In article <vidsourcE...@netcom.com>, vids...@netcom.com (Marty Chinn) wrote:
: >Amaury Acosta (ama...@webspan.net) wrote:
: >
: >: Pretty damn sad too. I saw those games on your E3 video tape and no
: >: way did they look like they could capture the magic of Mario 64 in
: >: graphics and gameplay and overall, fun. Man, you talk about copy cat.
: >: Croc was like a wannabe Super Mario 64, but with a stupid looking main
: >: character. Croc of shit is what it looked and played like.
: >
: >Uh you realize you have to play the game first before you can comment on
: >how a game plays. For what you said couldn't be done, they did it on the
: >32 bit systems. The game play can be duplicated, and believe it or not
: >hte graphics are pretty good on both of the games.
: Exactly the same statement goes to you. You have to actually play
: the released game of Croc before you actually saying that
: comments of Super Mario by some one is funny.
Uh I have played these games and if you believe the game play of the
engine which is pretty much final at the time, except of course minor
tweaking, then you really have no clue about game development.
: This has been discussed again and again on the subject of
: "N64 emulation".
: N64 is specifically designed for gaming only.
: Onyx is for graphic workstation running Unix-like OS.
: It must be more than powerful enough. Otherwise, it won't
: be able to emulate N64.
: Obviously, Pentium 166 MHz should beat N64's processor.
: Can a PC workstation with P166 can even emulate N64 ?
: Far from it.
: I am not sure what your point is when you emphasize that
: N64 is no way comparable to Onyx.
: Compare oranges to oranges and apples to apples.
If you looked into the various SGI systems out there, a N64 is nowhere
near the level of an Onyx. The system itself is very comparable to the
low end O2.
: --
: NintendoCow
Troy Davis
Mark Rathwell lied when he said:
>N64 is the least innoative system
Oh yeah? I dont see any other system with Memory expansion, 4 controller
ports, an port on the controller, a reality co-processor that calulates
graphics and sound on the fly and has many graphic functions, an analog
stick as a *standard* thats actually used as an *analog* stick, an
controller with 3 handles (you can use analog and digital pad at the
same time), a trigger button, A line of "Pak" accessories for the
controller slot, Rambus D ram, controller ports capable of data transfer
both ways simutaneously, the use of controller ports as expansion ports,
Multi colored controllers, ect ect.
Justin Pierce
On 7 Aug 1997 23:36:07 GMT, cab...@rescomp.Stanford.EDU (Yuji Higaki)
wrote:
>Matthew Gaunt (matt...@firtree.u-net.com) wrote:
>: I have noticed a number of posts recently "having a go" about the
>: Nintendo 64. Very aggressive posts from people who clearly have some
>: kind of grudge against this machine that goes deeper than plastic and
>: silicon.
>
>If you want to start a flame war, I suggest "dumbing down" your article.
>This essay is definitely one of the more well written pleas
>for attention, and it might go over the head of much of your target
>audience.
>
>For what it's worth, I was very amused.
Well-written, yes, but the argument is still weak. The only thing
about this article that would make me buy an N64 is that Nintento
writes software for it, and frankly, the current N64 offerings aren't
too appealing (StarFox was until I played it).
Sorry, but powerful hardware (and for the supposed power of 64-bit
hardware, the N64 isn't all that powerful), the N-64 isn't all that
and a bag of doodie.
--
/=----------------=\|/=------------------------------------------------=\
| Justin Pierce O- | "You're not me, therefore you're irrelevant." |
| japi...@uiuc.edu | - Dogbert |
\=----------------=/|\=---------------=< NO TALK CCSO >=---------------=/
Amaury Acosta
Mark Rathwell wrote:
>
> : Pretty damn sad too. I saw those games on your E3 video tape and no
> : way did they look like they could capture the magic of Mario 64 in
> : graphics and gameplay and overall, fun.
>
> trying them. That's a clear, objective analysis (NOT)!. What argument are
> you going to give next ... "buy an N64 'cause it's the most powerful game
> system ever made!"? (aka it's also the newest, least innovative and will
> be obsolete when the competition releases their next wave of machines).
> Geez ... buy a system cause it has the games you like. Don't start
> comparing it to other systems 'cause something better will *ALWAYS* be
> around the corner.
>
> Man, you talk about copy cat.
> : Croc was like a wannabe Super Mario 64, but with a stupid looking main
> : character. Croc of shit is what it looked and played like.
>
> snippet of an E3 demo and that's it.
I wouldn't call it a snippet. More like a 3-4 minute view of the way
the game looks and plays. Yes, I didn't play it myself, but I saw one of
the guys play it who was making the tape. Total opposite reaction when I
saw Mario 64 being played on their E3 1996 tape.
Sean Daugherty
On or about Mon, 11 Aug 1997 20:33:21 GMT, the accused, James Suruda
<jsu...@cs.washington.edu>, was spotted saying:
>> Sure do. Actually, you spotted incorrectly. I'm going to guess m.python meant
>> to say "should" and not "would". Don't you just love when people nitpick over
>> stupid like spelling over someone else who spells incorrectly and then totally
>> manages to miss the point? <G> Just joking...
>>
>
>Hey buddy, what do you mean by "when people nitpick over stupid like
>spelling", maybe you should check your grammer before you send in your
>post.
It was a *joke*! Hence the error. Geez, you people are literal...
See the <G>? Sheesh... The "Just joking" remark?!?
Mark Rathwell
: Pretty damn sad too. I saw those games on your E3 video tape and no
: way did they look like they could capture the magic of Mario 64 in
: graphics and gameplay and overall, fun.
Gee that's good. Make an assessment of the game without actually
trying them. That's a clear, objective analysis (NOT)!. What argument are
you going to give next ... "buy an N64 'cause it's the most powerful game
system ever made!"? (aka it's also the newest, least innovative and will
be obsolete when the competition releases their next wave of machines).
Geez ... buy a system cause it has the games you like. Don't start
comparing it to other systems 'cause something better will *ALWAYS* be
around the corner.
Man, you talk about copy cat.
: Croc was like a wannabe Super Mario 64, but with a stupid looking main
: character. Croc of shit is what it looked and played like.
But you just said you haven't even *PLAYED* croc. You saw a quick
snippet of an E3 demo and that's it.
>> Mark <<
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Rathwell
E_Mail: mrat...@uoguelph.ca
Web Page: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~mrathwel
Home of the Incredible Hulk television series page!
James Suruda
On Sat, 9 Aug 1997, Sean Daugherty wrote:
> On or about Fri, 08 Aug 1997 16:01:35 GMT, the accused,
> crow...@mindspring.com (The Crow), was spotted saying:
>
> >"m.python" <m.py...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> Matthew Gaunt <matt...@firtree.u-net.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> >3. Nintendo write the best game software in the world. ^^^^^
> >
> >>this word whould be spelled "writes".
> >Sorry, can't resist:)...that word should be spelled "would"...don't
> >you just love when people nitpick over something stupid like spelling
> >and then spell something wrong while they are correcting someone
> >else?<g>
>
> Sure do. Actually, you spotted incorrectly. I'm going to guess m.python meant
> to say "should" and not "would". Don't you just love when people nitpick over
> stupid like spelling over someone else who spells incorrectly and then totally
> manages to miss the point? <G> Just joking...
>
Hey buddy, what do you mean by "when people nitpick over stupid like
spelling", maybe you should check your grammer before you send in your
post.
Jim Suruda
Joe Ottoson
In article <33EF8B...@webspan.net>, Amaury Acosta <ama...@webspan.net>
wrote:
> I wouldn't call it a snippet. More like a 3-4 minute view of the way
> the game looks and plays. Yes, I didn't play it myself, but I saw one of
> the guys play it who was making the tape. Total opposite reaction when I
> saw Mario 64 being played on their E3 1996 tape.
That's because it didn't say "Nintendo" under the game...
Reviewer for Gamers Island
Troy Davis
"Wait wait wait! Id rather play the games out now" Is what PSX lover say
about N64. Its funny though... When we mention games that are comming
out they say "What about Now?" But when the list PSX games they *ALWAYS*
mention titles in development or not in the US yet. ie. FF7 (you better
thank Nintendo for that, if it wasnt for them it would not exist), RE2,
TK3, you know, the ususl suspects. And I think thats lame, you PSX
lovers are the biggest hypocrites on the planet!
Ryan Farisslaw
Amaury Acosta <ama...@webspan.net> wrote:
: Ryan Farisslaw wrote:
: >
: > Technology moves along. How could the SNES possibly compete with the
: > Saturn or PSX? That doesn't explain your reasoning that better graphics =
: > better gameplay. Gameplay and graphics are two different things.
: It does explain my reasoning. If gameplay was the sole reason gamers
: buy games, why would Nintendo need to make a much more powerful machine
: like the N64 and just stick with their SNES against the likes of the
: Saturn and PSX? People play video games as a virtual realistic
: experience, especially with today's leap in technology. The mipmapped,
You have obviously changed your argument. Before, the argument was that
gameplay related to hardware, and that better hardware meant better
gameplay. I corrected that, noting that gameplay is a software issue.
Now you are just saying gameplay is not the only reason people buy games,
which I agree with.
: filtered, z-buffered, etc. etc. graphics of Mario 64 allowed the
: programmers to come up with some very cool ideas. Take the transparency
: effects in the game, like the part where you had to figure out where the
: star was in that icy room. Take Mario turning into liquid nitrogen. Take
: the owl picking you up and the LOAD/Z-buffer allowing you to see a huge
: area over you. Take Pilotwings 64. If you ever played the original one
: on the SNES, there were some problems IN THE GAMEPLAY because of the
: graphics. Sometimes you couldn't tell how low to the flat ground you
: were. What about the limited distancing that would make graphics pop up
: out of nowhere that affected where you needed to go next with the
: Hanglider? Since you have played Waverace 64, you know that those
: incredible, realistic looking waves affected the way your jetski
: steers. Isn't that all part of gameplay? Look, I'm getting a headache
: trying to remember all the stuff from these games, so I know that I'm
: missing tons of stuff where the hardware/graphics affect the gameplay.
: You are the one being incredibly naive to think otherwise.
Well I guess you're just less technical minded than myself. The cool
looking waves effect your jetski steering, but the way they effect it is
based on calculations, not on how the water looks. In other words, it
could have the same effect on GAMEPLAY even if they were less detailed.
Bottom line is, better graphics = better graphics. Better gameplay =
better gameplay. If you want to combine these two concepts into one, go
ahead, but I don't believe that is the convention.
Devilot
That's grammar, not 'grammer.'
Sean Daugherty
On or about Mon, 11 Aug 1997 16:14:09 -0400, the accused,
ExtraTer...@webtv.net (Troy Davis), was spotted saying:
>controller with 3 handles (you can use analog and digital pad at the
>same time),
This really isn't a major innovation. It's an innovation, but a relatively
minor one, really.
>A line of "Pak" accessories for the controller slot,
Ermmm... Only one or two so far, isn't it? And the rumble pak is stupid
anyway, IMHO.
>Multi colored controllers, ect ect.
I have a black controller for my SNES. They weren't really popular, but they
existed. Colored plastic is not an innovation. <G>
Though I'm not arguing that the N64 isn't innovative, and it is undoubtedly
the most advanced console out there, but some of these "innovations" are
hardly that at all. They're nice touches, certainly (the colored controllers,
the "pak" abilities, etc.) but nothing earth-shattering.
Dennis J. De Rango
In article <33ef82d1...@news.alt.net>,
actually it is......wait till titles like banjo-kazooie and zelda64 come out as well as the many coming this fall/winter.....watch those psx users RUN to buy a n64.
Darien Allen
>>
>
>actually it is......wait till titles like banjo-kazooie and zelda64 come out as well as the many coming this fall/winter.....watch those psx users RUN to buy a n64.
Here we go again, this argument holds NO water. Wait, wait,
wait....sorry I'd rather play a game right now.
[Newsgroups.....absolutely, positively,]
[the quickest way....to spread misinformation!]
[DarienAllen AT IBM.net]
...remove nospam to reply....
KhariSamps
>>Sorry, but powerful hardware (and for the supposed power of 64-bit
>>hardware, the N64 isn't all that powerful), the N-64 isn't all that
>>and a bag of doodie.
>>
>>
>>--
>>/=----------------=\|/=------------------------------------------------=
\
>>| Justin Pierce O- | "You're not me, therefore you're irrelevant."
|
>>| japi...@uiuc.edu | - Dogbert
|
>>\=----------------=/|\=---------------=< NO TALK CCSO
>=---------------=/
>>
>
out
>as well as the many coming this fall/winter.....watch those psx users RUN
to
>buy a n64.
>
>
no way will B&K do it (it's just M64 part two, really). Having never
played the old versions, Zelda has no hold on me. Besides, I'm not
willing to shell out $200-$250 for a N64+DD just to play that one game.
KJS
Darien Allen
Troy you are really becoming more of an idiot daily. MY post has
nothing to do with liking or hating a system. You can talk all you
want about games that are coming out for the N64 PSX lovers as well
can do the same. The point is all of this mean SQUAT right now. When
you go to the store you can only buy what's out right NOW.
Development means nothing right NOW.
Skadar
On Wed, 13 Aug 1997 08:44:36 -0400, "m.python" <m.py...@juno.com>
hastily mentioned:
>> >> Sure do. Actually, you spotted incorrectly. I'm going to guess m.python meant
>> >> to say "should" and not "would". Don't you just love when people nitpick over
>> >> stupid like spelling over someone else who spells incorrectly and then totally
>> >> manages to miss the point? <G> Just joking...
>> >
>> >Hey buddy, what do you mean by "when people nitpick over stupid like
>> >spelling", maybe you should check your grammer before you send in your
>> >post.
A love when someone tries to correct another person's grammar on
Usenet, and they spell the word "grammar" incorrectly. That always
cracks me up.
-----
Steve - ska...@ziplink.killspam.net
Please remove the "killspam" from my email address if sending mail.
It is a feeble attempt to avoid Spammers who need to be educated badly.
Amaury Acosta
Darien Allen wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Aug 1997 06:18:41 -0400, Amaury Acosta <ama...@webspan.net>
> wrote:
>
> >succeed. That wasn't my arguement. You say that graphics have nothing to
> >do with gameplay. That's the arguement. And I say that you are wrong.
> >Leaving cosmetics aside and making you believe you are there, which is a
> >given, better hardware allows programmers to come up with better
> >gameplay features. Remember the SNES with its mode 7, scrolling and
> >rotation? I wonder how many times that has been used?
>
> Zork was pretty popular for a non graphic game....don't you mean that
> gameplay is the higher factor, and that graphics can simply add to
> that? Zork made people feel they were there, Rogue and Gal Trader on
> the VAX at my college were some of the most highly played games, I can
> go back further Telegard on the Commodre Pet Computer. These games
> had crappy graphics yet they received much play time. Now graphics
> can only enhance a game, but in the long run a game with so-so or no
> graphics but good gameplay has a better chance of being played over
> and over again, than just an Eye Candy game....and though Jet Moto
> graphically can't compare to WaveRace 64, the game is fun in it's own
> right.
To each his own. I thought that because of Jet Moto's bad graphics,
it made the game unplayable for me. The control was sluggish and it just
felt like driving through a pixelated mess. Sometimes, I couldn't tell
if I was hitting something because of the messy graphics.
Paul Jensen
> actually it is......wait till titles like banjo-kazooie and zelda64 come
out as well as the many coming this fall/winter.....watch those psx users
RUN to buy a n64.
And then wait till their crack high fades and they take the N64 back.
Paul
Darien Allen
On Tue, 12 Aug 1997 17:16:59 -0400, Amaury Acosta <ama...@webspan.net>
wrote:
> To each his own. I thought that because of Jet Moto's bad graphics,
>it made the game unplayable for me. The control was sluggish and it just
>felt like driving through a pixelated mess. Sometimes, I couldn't tell
>if I was hitting something because of the messy graphics.
Fair enough...hey was that an amicable ending to a thread? Nyah
couldn't be.
Amaury Acosta
Have you ever heard of "eye and hand coordination"? We react to what
we see, don't we? Take the realistic looking waves. As you are playing,
wouldn't you notice the waves alot better and react according to what
was visually happening in the game? How would you know where to turn
your jetski, so it's not pushed off by the churning waves? Imagine they
put the same wave dynamics (calculations) in a game like Jet Moto. How
the hell would you still know that there are physics being applied if
you don't receive the same visual info from what's happening? Have you
ever seen the huge, cheesy water bitmaps in Jet Moto when you bounce up
and down on the water? By the way, you are putting words in my mouth. I
never said that a game with bad graphics and great gameplay would never
succeed. That wasn't my arguement. You say that graphics have nothing to
do with gameplay. That's the arguement. And I say that you are wrong.
Leaving cosmetics aside and making you believe you are there, which is a
given, better hardware allows programmers to come up with better
gameplay features. Remember the SNES with its mode 7, scrolling and
rotation? I wonder how many times that has been used?
PS. Typo when I said that Mario turns into liquid nitrogen. That should
be liquid metal.
Darien Allen
On Tue, 12 Aug 1997 06:18:41 -0400, Amaury Acosta <ama...@webspan.net>
wrote:
>succeed. That wasn't my arguement. You say that graphics have nothing to
>do with gameplay. That's the arguement. And I say that you are wrong.
>Leaving cosmetics aside and making you believe you are there, which is a
>given, better hardware allows programmers to come up with better
>gameplay features. Remember the SNES with its mode 7, scrolling and
>rotation? I wonder how many times that has been used?
Zork was pretty popular for a non graphic game....don't you mean that
gameplay is the higher factor, and that graphics can simply add to
that? Zork made people feel they were there, Rogue and Gal Trader on
the VAX at my college were some of the most highly played games, I can
go back further Telegard on the Commodre Pet Computer. These games
had crappy graphics yet they received much play time. Now graphics
can only enhance a game, but in the long run a game with so-so or no
graphics but good gameplay has a better chance of being played over
and over again, than just an Eye Candy game....and though Jet Moto
graphically can't compare to WaveRace 64, the game is fun in it's own
right.
Jesse Dorland
In a secluded warehouse,
on a pier somewhere in Maine,
gagged and at gunpoint,
khari...@aol.com (KhariSamps) frantically made this plea for help:
>>>Sorry, but powerful hardware (and for the supposed power of 64-bit
>>>hardware, the N64 isn't all that powerful), the N-64 isn't all that
>>>and a bag of doodie.
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>/=----------------=\|/=------------------------------------------------=
>\
>>>| Justin Pierce O- | "You're not me, therefore you're irrelevant."
>|
>>>| japi...@uiuc.edu | - Dogbert
>|
>>>\=----------------=/|\=---------------=< NO TALK CCSO
>>=---------------=/
>>>
>>
>>actually it is......wait till titles like banjo-kazooie and zelda64 come
>out
>>as well as the many coming this fall/winter.....watch those psx users RUN
>to
>>buy a n64.
>>
>>
>Sorry, but if Mario 64, Waverace, and Starfox64 didn't make me want N64,
>no way will B&K do it (it's just M64 part two, really). Having never
That's like saying Tomb Raider is Mario 64 2, because it's in the same genre.
M64 and B-K are platform games, with somewhat cutesy themes, but that's all
they have in common.
>played the old versions, Zelda has no hold on me. Besides, I'm not
>willing to shell out $200-$250 for a N64+DD just to play that one game.
B-K isn't for the 64DD, and Zelda will arrive on cartridges first.
-Jesse
>
>KJS
=========================================================
There are two major products that come out of Berkeley:
LSD & UNIX. We do not believe this to be a coincidence.
=========================================================
m.python
Sean Daugherty wrote:
>
> On or about Mon, 11 Aug 1997 20:33:21 GMT, the accused, James Suruda
> <jsu...@cs.washington.edu>, was spotted saying:
>
> >> to say "should" and not "would". Don't you just love when people nitpick over
> >> stupid like spelling over someone else who spells incorrectly and then totally
> >> manages to miss the point? <G> Just joking...
> >>
> >
> >Hey buddy, what do you mean by "when people nitpick over stupid like
> >spelling", maybe you should check your grammer before you send in your
> >post.
>
>
> See the <G>? Sheesh... The "Just joking" remark?!?
>
> Sean Christian Daugherty
> "Cut my toes off to spite my feet
> I don't know whether to laugh or cry
> Go ahead, have a vision
> I'm the man on the flaming pie!"
> -Paul McCartney, "Flaming Pie"
> ALL UNSOLICITED E-MAILERS WILL BE SHOT ON SITE!
the funny thing is that my original post was supposed to
be a joke.
Dennis J. De Rango
In article <33f1a8e4...@news2.ibm.net>,
darie...@nospamibm.net (Darien Allen) wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Aug 1997 02:03:59 GMT, Dennis J. De Rango
><dou...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>
>>>
>>
>..watch those psx users RUN to buy a n64.
>
>wait....sorry I'd rather play a game right now.
>
>
>[the quickest way....to spread misinformation!]
>
>
>
>[DarienAllen AT IBM.net]
>
uhh...no...actually im playing the best soccer game ever made on my n64 right now......and on august 25th the best 1st person shooter goldeneye will be out as well...rather be playing a game? know what games are out before you make a uninformed comment like that.
Dennis J. De Rango
In article <19970812060...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
khari...@aol.com (KhariSamps) wrote:
>>>Sorry, but powerful hardware (and for the supposed power of 64-bit
>>>hardware, the N64 isn't all that powerful), the N-64 isn't all that
>>>and a bag of doodie.
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>/=----------------=\|/=------------------------------------------------=
>\
>>>| Justin Pierce O- | "You're not me, therefore you're irrelevant."
>|
>>>| japi...@uiuc.edu | - Dogbert
>|
>>>\=----------------=/|\=---------------=< NO TALK CCSO
>>=---------------=/
>>>
>>
>out
>to
>>buy a n64.
>>
>>
>Sorry, but if Mario 64, Waverace, and Starfox64 didn't make me want N64,
>no way will B&K do it (it's just M64 part two, really). Having never
>willing to shell out $200-$250 for a N64+DD just to play that one game.
>
>
zelda will be coming out for both 64DD and n64...both are different games....and the 64DD will cost only $120 and will have a modem (can you say internet n64 gaming?) with the system. if networkable n64 games is not reason enough to buy one i dunno what is!
Sean Daugherty
On or about Mon, 11 Aug 1997 23:44:00 -0400, the accused,
ExtraTer...@webtv.net (Troy Davis), was spotted saying:
>"Wait wait wait! Id rather play the games out now" Is what PSX lover say
>about N64. Its funny though... When we mention games that are comming
>out they say "What about Now?" But when the list PSX games they *ALWAYS*
>mention titles in development or not in the US yet. ie. FF7 (you better
>thank Nintendo for that, if it wasnt for them it would not exist), RE2,
>TK3, you know, the ususl suspects. And I think thats lame, you PSX
>lovers are the biggest hypocrites on the planet!
Ermm... Final Fantasy VII has been out since January in Japan. And yes, I have
played it, I do have knowledge of Japanese, albeit rather broken.
KhariSamps
In article <33F0D2...@webspan.net>, Amaury Acosta <ama...@webspan.net>
writes:
> To each his own. I thought that because of Jet Moto's bad graphics,
>it made the game unplayable for me. The control was sluggish and it just
>felt like driving through a pixelated mess. Sometimes, I couldn't tell
>if I was hitting something because of the messy graphics.
>
>
I agreed until I really sat down and played it. The control is fine--once
you get the feel for it, the bike'll go exactly where you want it to. And
the challenge level really gives this game a lot of longevity.
KJS
KhariSamps
In article <5sqscs$m...@tor-nn1-hb0.netcom.ca>, Dennis J. De Rango
<dou...@netcom.ca> writes:
>zelda will be coming out for both 64DD and n64...both are different
>games....and the 64DD will cost only $120 and will have a modem (can you
say
>internet n64 gaming?) with the system. if networkable n64 games is not
reason
>enough to buy one i dunno what is!
>
>
Given Nintendo's notorious lip service in recent years, I'll believe all
this when I see it. The prospect of network play *is* pretty attractive.
KJS
KhariSamps
In article <33efe3a6...@news.primenet.com>, jessed...@hotmail.com
(Jesse Dorland) writes:
>M64 and B-K are platform games, with somewhat cutesy themes, but that's
all
>they have in common.
>
>
Their relationship seems very much like that of Super Mario World to
Donkey Kong Country (minus the shared history). But I haven't played it,
so...(shrug)
KJS
Darien Allen
Which brings me to another game.....NFS II. I purchased this game
awhile ago, and just chucked it up as unplayable, so-so graphics,
unimaginitive gameplay. Then a few days ago I started playing it
again. Graphicwise the game is still so-so. But I enjoy the
gameplay, the game is fun.
[Newsgroups.....absolutely, positively,]
[the quickest way....to spread misinformation!]
[DarienAllen AT IBM.net]
...remove nospam to reply....
Troy Davis
Sean Daugherty wrote:
>Ermm.. FFVII has been out in Japan since January.
Thats why I said *thats still in development or not in the US yet*.
Sean Daugherty
On or about Wed, 13 Aug 1997 16:02:06 -0400, the accused,
ExtraTer...@webtv.net (Troy Davis), was spotted saying:
>Sean Daugherty wrote:
>>Ermm.. FFVII has been out in Japan since January.
>
>Thats why I said *thats still in development or not in the US yet*.
I'm aware of that, but it's irrelevant, since several people (myself included)
have already played it. It defeats your argument.
Darien Allen
>In article <33f1a8e4...@news2.ibm.net>,
> darie...@nospamibm.net (Darien Allen) wrote:
>>On Tue, 12 Aug 1997 02:03:59 GMT, Dennis J. De Rango
>><dou...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>actually it is......wait till titles like banjo-kazooie and zelda64 come out as well as the many coming this fall/winter.
>>..watch those psx users RUN to buy a n64.
>>
>>Here we go again, this argument holds NO water. Wait, wait,
>>wait....sorry I'd rather play a game right now.
>>
>>
>>[Newsgroups.....absolutely, positively,]
>>[the quickest way....to spread misinformation!]
>>
>>
>>
>>[DarienAllen AT IBM.net]
>>....remove nospam to reply....
>>
>
>uhh...no...actually im playing the best soccer game ever made on my n64 right now......and on august 25th the best 1st person shooter goldeneye will be out as well...rather be playing a game? know what games are out before you make a uninformed comment like that.
First of all, learn how to post, second of all, if you look at the
above quote, I was referring to 2 games that are not out yet Banjo and
Zelda, I happen to know what games are out thank you. IF you can't
figure out what the conversation thread is about, don't bother to
post.
Marty Chinn
KhariSamps (khari...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <33efe3a6...@news.primenet.com>, jessed...@hotmail.com
: (Jesse Dorland) writes:
Actually Mario 64 and BK have A LOT in common. Right down to the exact
same play mechanics and goals.
: KJS
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marty Chinn ** Tokyo Game Show - Sept. 5 - 7, 1997 **
Video Source PlayStation, Nintendo 64, Saturn, Imports
973 Foxglove Dr. M-F: 9:30-6:00, Sa: 10:00-3:00 PST, Sun: Closed
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 Ordering, and Preordering info at:
<408> 720-8575 Voice E-Mail: vids...@netcom.com
<408> 720-8576 FAX WWW : http://www.video-source.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Farisslaw
Amaury Acosta <ama...@webspan.net> wrote:
: > Well I guess you're just less technical minded than myself. The cool
: > looking waves effect your jetski steering, but the way they effect it is
: > based on calculations, not on how the water looks. In other words, it
: > could have the same effect on GAMEPLAY even if they were less detailed.
: > Bottom line is, better graphics = better graphics. Better gameplay =
: > better gameplay. If you want to combine these two concepts into one, go
: > ahead, but I don't believe that is the convention.
: Have you ever heard of "eye and hand coordination"? We react to what
: we see, don't we? Take the realistic looking waves. As you are playing,
: wouldn't you notice the waves alot better and react according to what
: was visually happening in the game? How would you know where to turn
: your jetski, so it's not pushed off by the churning waves? Imagine they
: put the same wave dynamics (calculations) in a game like Jet Moto. How
: the hell would you still know that there are physics being applied if
: you don't receive the same visual info from what's happening? Have you
: ever seen the huge, cheesy water bitmaps in Jet Moto when you bounce up
: and down on the water? By the way, you are putting words in my mouth. I
: never said that a game with bad graphics and great gameplay would never
: succeed. That wasn't my arguement. You say that graphics have nothing to
: do with gameplay. That's the arguement. And I say that you are wrong.
: Leaving cosmetics aside and making you believe you are there, which is a
: given, better hardware allows programmers to come up with better
: gameplay features. Remember the SNES with its mode 7, scrolling and
: rotation? I wonder how many times that has been used?
I'm saying that graphics and gameplay are seperate things, not that they
cannot relate to eachother. Your assertion was that the N64 has better
hardware and so it must have better gameplay. Gameplay seems to be a very
narrow term for you, relating only to graphic detail. You would probably
say that many older games have horrible gameplay because of the low
graphic detail. True, more hardware capabilities may expand the ways
graphics can be manipulated, but it still takes good programming to create
good gameplay. WR64 and Mario64 are great games, but even if the graphics
in Mario64 weren't anti-aliased I doubt the gameplay would suffer. Same
thing goes for WR64. And there are plenty of N64 games which dont have
good gameplay, not because of hardware problems, but because of software.
--
==============================================================================
"One day your ship will come in...Today is not that day." -Zorak
Ryan Fariss Law
[und...@primenet.com]
==============================================================================
Amaury Acosta
Ryan Farisslaw wrote:
>
> I'm saying that graphics and gameplay are seperate things, not that they
> cannot relate to eachother.
"Better graphics = better graphics." "Better gameplay = better
gameplay." You originally asserted that they have nothing to do with
each other. Now you assert otherwise. I know where I stand. Where do
you?
Your assertion was that the N64 has better
> hardware and so it must have better gameplay. Gameplay seems to be a very
> narrow term for you, relating only to graphic detail. You would probably
> say that many older games have horrible gameplay because of the low
> graphic detail.
There you go again. Putting words in my mouth. The classic games of
the past had simple 2D graphical designs. Hence, the gameplay was
simple. But that doesn't mean that I think their gameplay sucked. The
gameplay was limiting in what you could do because of the hardware. But
AT THAT TIME, they were amazing. Take Pac-Man and Asteroids on the Atari
2600. I played the hell out of them when I was a little kid. Only for
nostalgia would I go back and play these games. In today's 3D video game
technology, the N64's superior hardware over the PSX can manipulate real
time graphics in 3D worlds alot better than the PSX and THUS, MAKE THE
GAMEPLAY BETTER. Take Need for Speed 2 on the PSX. Dissapointing, huh?
Why? Graphics and framerate sucked. Driving those super fast cars felt
like driving a Yugo.
True, more hardware capabilities may expand the ways
> graphics can be manipulated, but it still takes good programming to create
> good gameplay. WR64 and Mario64 are great games, but even if the graphics
> in Mario64 weren't anti-aliased I doubt the gameplay would suffer.
Antialiasing. Just 1 of the many graphical tricks that the N64 can do.
Very important when you want to keep edges seperate from the rest and
prevent overlapping. Remember Super Mario 64 and all the latticeworks
without any moire patterns.
Same
> thing goes for WR64. And there are plenty of N64 games which dont have
> good gameplay, not because of hardware problems, but because of software.
Then again, maybe it's because most of those programmers haven't
tapped into the hardware of the N64. Take the horrible Cruisin' USA.
That game shouldn't have been released on the N64. But these games are
excellent in my book:
1. Super Mario 64
2. Waverace 64
3. Pilotwings 64
4. Blast Corps
5. Starfox 64
6. Mario Kart 64
7. Internation Superstar Soccer 64
8. Turok the Dinosaur Hunter
9. Shadows of the Empire
10. Goldeneye 007 - Aug. 25th.
Dinkie-Dino
--------------0161199DAACEAF55FFBC228C
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Ok guys....when is this N64 Vs PSX is gonna end?? when Sega comes out
with its black belt?? People always fight for stupid things...real
gamers play all the games they can get.....Just buy all the systems out
there and go home and play games till your eyes pop out their socket ok?
I am not rich but I have SS, PSX, N64. I think they all are good.
Of course, PSX and SS cannot compete with N64 with graphics, and N64
cannot compete the storage with SS and PSX using its cartrige. but hey!
Tekken2 is good VF2 is good Mario64 is good, Oddysy (don't know how to
spell that) for SS is good, WildArms,WaveRacer...lalalala..etc.
Go play games!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Better hardware does not mean Better game! Hardware wars will never end!
It's the game that makes the difference.
Look at old-timers that's still out there!
If a game is good, play it!
Ryan Farisslaw wrote:
> Amaury Acosta <ama...@webspan.net> wrote:
> : > Well I guess you're just less technical minded than myself. The
> cool
> : > looking waves effect your jetski steering, but the way they effect
> it is
> : > based on calculations, not on how the water looks. In other
> words, it
> : > could have the same effect on GAMEPLAY even if they were less
> detailed.
> : > Bottom line is, better graphics = better graphics. Better
> gameplay =
> : > better gameplay. If you want to combine these two concepts into
> one, go
> : > ahead, but I don't believe that is the convention.
>
> : Have you ever heard of "eye and hand coordination"? We react to
> what
> : we see, don't we? Take the realistic looking waves. As you are
> playing,
> : wouldn't you notice the waves alot better and react according to
> what
> : was visually happening in the game? How would you know where to turn
>
> : your jetski, so it's not pushed off by the churning waves? Imagine
> they
> : put the same wave dynamics (calculations) in a game like Jet Moto.
> How
> : the hell would you still know that there are physics being applied
> if
> : you don't receive the same visual info from what's happening? Have
> you
> : ever seen the huge, cheesy water bitmaps in Jet Moto when you bounce
> up
> : and down on the water? By the way, you are putting words in my
> mouth. I
> : never said that a game with bad graphics and great gameplay would
> never
> : succeed. That wasn't my arguement. You say that graphics have
> nothing to
> : do with gameplay. That's the arguement. And I say that you are
> wrong.
> : Leaving cosmetics aside and making you believe you are there, which
> is a
> : given, better hardware allows programmers to come up with better
> : gameplay features. Remember the SNES with its mode 7, scrolling and
> : rotation? I wonder how many times that has been used?
>
> I'm saying that graphics and gameplay are seperate things, not that
> they
> cannot relate to eachother. Your assertion was that the N64 has
> better
> hardware and so it must have better gameplay. Gameplay seems to be a
> very
> narrow term for you, relating only to graphic detail. You would
> probably
> say that many older games have horrible gameplay because of the low
> graphic detail. True, more hardware capabilities may expand the ways
> graphics can be manipulated, but it still takes good programming to
> create
> good gameplay. WR64 and Mario64 are great games, but even if the
> graphics
> in Mario64 weren't anti-aliased I doubt the gameplay would suffer.
> Same
> thing goes for WR64. And there are plenty of N64 games which dont
> have
> good gameplay, not because of hardware problems, but because of
> software.
>
> --
>
> ==
> ===========================================================================
>
> "One day your ship will come in...Today is not that day." -Zorak
>
> Ryan Fariss Law
> [und...@primenet.com]
> =====================
> ========================================================
--------------0161199DAACEAF55FFBC228C
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML>
Ok guys....when is this N64 Vs PSX is gonna end?? when Sega comes out with
its black belt?? People always fight for stupid things...<B><FONT SIZE=+2>real</FONT></B>
gamers play all the games they can get.....Just buy all the systems out
there and go home and play games till your eyes pop out their socket ok?
<BR>I am not rich but I have SS, PSX, N64. I think they all are good.
<BR>Of course, PSX and SS cannot compete with N64 with graphics, and N64
cannot compete the storage with SS and PSX using its cartrige. but hey!
Tekken2 is good VF2 is good Mario64 is good, Oddysy (don't know how to
spell that) for SS is good, WildArms,WaveRacer...lalalala..etc.
<P>Go play games!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<P>Better hardware does not mean Better game! Hardware wars will <B><U><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">never</FONT></U></B>
end! It's the game that makes the difference.
<BR>Look at old-timers that's still out there!
<BR>If a game is good, play it!
<P>Ryan Farisslaw wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>Amaury Acosta <ama...@webspan.net> wrote:
<BR>: > Well I guess you're just less technical minded than myself.
The cool
<BR>: > looking waves effect your jetski steering, but the way they effect
it is
<BR>: > based on calculations, not on how the water looks. In other
words, it
<BR>: > could have the same effect on GAMEPLAY even if they were less detailed.
<BR>: > Bottom line is, better graphics = better graphics. Better
gameplay =
<BR>: > better gameplay. If you want to combine these two concepts
into one, go
<BR>: > ahead, but I don't believe that is the convention.
<P>: Have you ever heard of "eye and hand coordination"?
We react to what
<BR>: we see, don't we? Take the realistic looking waves. As you are playing,
<BR>: wouldn't you notice the waves alot better and react according to
what
<BR>: was visually happening in the game? How would you know where to turn
<BR>: your jetski, so it's not pushed off by the churning waves? Imagine
they
<BR>: put the same wave dynamics (calculations) in a game like Jet Moto.
How
<BR>: the hell would you still know that there are physics being applied
if
<BR>: you don't receive the same visual info from what's happening?
Have you
<BR>: ever seen the huge, cheesy water bitmaps in Jet Moto when you bounce
up
<BR>: and down on the water? By the way, you are putting words in my mouth.
I
<BR>: never said that a game with bad graphics and great gameplay would
never
<BR>: succeed. That wasn't my arguement. You say that graphics have nothing
to
<BR>: do with gameplay. That's the arguement. And I say that you are wrong.
<BR>: Leaving cosmetics aside and making you believe you are there, which
is a
<BR>: given, better hardware allows programmers to come up with better
<BR>: gameplay features. Remember the SNES with its mode 7, scrolling and
<BR>: rotation? I wonder how many times that has been used?
<P>I'm saying that graphics and gameplay are seperate things, not that
they
<BR>cannot relate to eachother. Your assertion was that the N64 has
better
<BR>hardware and so it must have better gameplay. Gameplay seems
to be a very
<BR>narrow term for you, relating only to graphic detail. You would
probably
<BR>say that many older games have horrible gameplay because of the low
<BR>graphic detail. True, more hardware capabilities may expand the
ways
<BR>graphics can be manipulated, but it still takes good programming to
create
<BR>good gameplay. WR64 and Mario64 are great games, but even if
the graphics
<BR>in Mario64 weren't anti-aliased I doubt the gameplay would suffer.
Same
<BR>thing goes for WR64. And there are plenty of N64 games which
dont have
<BR>good gameplay, not because of hardware problems, but because of software.
<P>--
<P>==============================================================================
<BR>"One day your ship will come in...Today is not that day."
-Zorak
<P>Ryan Fariss Law
<BR>[und...@primenet.com]
<BR>==============================================================================</BLOCKQUOTE>
</HTML>
--------------0161199DAACEAF55FFBC228C--
Mark Rathwell
: Mark Rathwell lied when he said:
: >N64 is the least innoative system
: Oh yeah? I dont see any other system with Memory expansion
Atari 2600.
, 4 controller
: ports
Atari 2600/5200.
:, an port on the controller
This I'll give you.
, a reality co-processor that calulates
: graphics and sound on the fly and has many graphic functions
Gee sounds like a fancy name for a chip that does what many of
the graphics coprocessors in the 3DO/Jaguar/PSX/Saturn do.
, an analog
: stick as a *standard* thats actually used as an *analog* stick
Atari 5200.
, an
: controller with 3 handles (you can use analog and digital pad at the
: same time)
Variation on a joystick style.
:, a trigger button
I had a 2600 stick with that.
, A line of "Pak" accessories for the
: controller slot
Ooh ... ahh. Sorta like the memory track on the Jaguar.
:, Rambus D ram
Variations on flashrom.
, controller ports capable of data transfer
: both ways simutaneously,
Goes back the the days of the 2600.
the use of controller ports as expansion ports,
I'll give you this but you've used the controller example so many
times it isn't funny. What about the system itself???
: Multi colored controllers, ect ect.
This is a *BAD* example. Why is a "multicoloured" controller
innovative? Most controllers I've had on every system I've owned have had
more than 1 colour on them (hence "multicoloured).
You N64 fanatics can been pretty sad at times. Enjoy the system
cause it has good games.
>> Mark <<
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Rathwell
E_Mail: mrat...@uoguelph.ca
Web Page: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~mrathwel
Home of the Incredible Hulk television series page!
Troy Davis
I had a long post but i erased it by mistake and this is basicly a
summarized version.
How come we cant bash PSX N a Nintendo group. If there R so many games
for PSX Y R U not playing it? U R so insecure that you have to come here
and bash N64. I have never posted in a SOny group you can even check
from dejanews or whatever. You can bash N64 all you want as long as its
in rgv sony. My bro and I dont even play our PSX, and I know a few
people who dont play theirs either, they play their N64 more. Just
because you play you PSX more doesnt mean everyone else does. The whole
world doesnt revolve around you, just because you hate N64 doesnt mean
eveyone else should. So do what you love to do, go play your PSX. Just
dont come back here and bash Nintendo and its systems when you can do so
in your own (aka Sony) newsgroup.
Amaury Acosta
Dinkie-Dino wrote:
>
> Ok guys....when is this N64 Vs PSX is gonna end?? when Sega comes out
> with its black belt?? People always fight for stupid things...real
> gamers play all the games they can get.....Just buy all the systems out
> there and go home and play games till your eyes pop out their socket ok?
>
> I am not rich but I have SS, PSX, N64. I think they all are good.
> Of course, PSX and SS cannot compete with N64 with graphics, and N64
> cannot compete the storage with SS and PSX using its cartrige. but hey!
> Tekken2 is good VF2 is good Mario64 is good, Oddysy (don't know how to
> spell that) for SS is good, WildArms,WaveRacer...lalalala..etc.
>
> Go play games!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Better hardware does not mean Better game! Hardware wars will never end!
> It's the game that makes the difference.
> Look at old-timers that's still out there!
> If a game is good, play it!
This has nothing to do with hardware wars. I love games. I own a
PSX and N64. I play lots of games. This arguement has to do with better
hardware making better gameplay, whether directly or indirectly.
Indirecly meaning "emphasizing" gameplay elements, like T2 Mario, which
allows him to sink faster. It's a debate. I'm not doing it to jusify my
purchase of the N64, which the debatee thinks isn't all that it's
cracked up to be and could be done on the PSX. That's all.
Shrap
I can't stop myself from responding....
Matthew Gaunt <matt...@firtree.u-net.com> wrote in article
<33EA48...@firtree.u-net.com>...
> I have noticed a number of posts recently "having a go" about the
> Nintendo 64. Very aggressive posts from people who clearly have some
> kind of grudge against this machine that goes deeper than plastic and
> silicon.
>
> Some facts about the machine...
>
> 1. The Nintendo 64 is a vastly superior computing device to the Sony
> Playstation.
>
So?
The NES was inferior to the SMS, and look....
Jaguar, T16, 3DO.....
All these were superior to their competition in the beginning, but there was
hardly tons of gamers flocking to them.
<so-called facts mixed with opinion snipped>
> 2. MIP-mapped, Filtered and anti-aliased graphics look nicer than
> pixellated graphics.
>
> Of course they do. For a number of reasons. Firstly, it's a far more
> natural effect, and secondly, MIP-mapped & filtered polygons move around
> the screen far more smoothly, eliminating the atrocious "shimmering"
> effect that you see on the Playstation as point-sampled polygons move
> around the screen.
>
Gameplay? Graphics don't mean much when theres no gameplay.
Remember the glut of FMV?
> 3. Nintendo write the best game software in the world.
>
> I'm sure this will provoke an angry response from young adolescent
> Playstation owners who go down the psychological path of
> "self-justification of purchase" - the kind of attitude that makes car
> manufacturers rub their hands together with glee. But it's true - for
> attention to detail and dedication to software, Nintendo have a great
> deal of respect for their customer's eye for quality. I don't like the
> Sony "build it and they will come" attitude.
Some came from Nintendo.
A LOT did.
>Indeed they come, but the
> majority of them bring parcels of shite for sale. Miyamoto's quote "I
> worked so hard on Mario 64 that I thought I was going to die" is hardly
> going to be coming from the mouths of the Jumping Flash team is it?
Jumping Flash?
What the hell is that?
Trying to make a pathetic comparison, are you?
>But
> this is not necessarily my opinion alone. When your opinion about
> Nintendo's software is shared with industry respected publications like
> the UK's "Edge" magazine, and the Japanese "Famitsu" magazine,
Probably bribed them (j/k).
>who gives
> a shit what a teenage boys with low-tech machines, no cash and deep
> attitude problems think?
Obviously Nintendo, since they are the customer.
Or shall we dump the customers in the SuCKeR pile like Nintendo's doing?
Ryan Farisslaw
: > cannot relate to eachother.
: "Better graphics = better graphics." "Better gameplay = better
: gameplay." You originally asserted that they have nothing to do with
: each other. Now you assert otherwise. I know where I stand. Where do
: you?
That is still my assertion. The quotes above don't go against it.
Gameplay can excel even when graphics are virtually non-existant, and
graphics can be breathtaking even when gameplay is horrible.
: There you go again. Putting words in my mouth. The classic games of
: the past had simple 2D graphical designs. Hence, the gameplay was
: simple. But that doesn't mean that I think their gameplay sucked. The
Are you seriously going to propose that every 2D game has had simply
gameplay?
: gameplay was limiting in what you could do because of the hardware. But
: AT THAT TIME, they were amazing. Take Pac-Man and Asteroids on the Atari
: 2600. I played the hell out of them when I was a little kid. Only for
: nostalgia would I go back and play these games. In today's 3D video game
: technology, the N64's superior hardware over the PSX can manipulate real
: time graphics in 3D worlds alot better than the PSX and THUS, MAKE THE
: GAMEPLAY BETTER. Take Need for Speed 2 on the PSX. Dissapointing, huh?
: Why? Graphics and framerate sucked. Driving those super fast cars felt
: like driving a Yugo
I agree that the N64 has superior hardware, but gameplay and graphics are
still not one and the same. If you prefer to only play the newest games,
or only 3D games that are on the N64 that is fine. It seems to me that
the better the graphics, the better you consider the gameplay to be. If
that is the case I simply disagree because I have played many games that
are as/more enveloping than current games, which had no graphics at all.
I believe another poster mentioned some of these games, such as Zork or
any other Infocom text game.
--
==============================================================================
"One day your ship will come in...Today is not that day." -Zorak
Ryan Fariss Law
[und...@primenet.com]
==============================================================================
Roger Christie
Y KANT U RITE LIK A HU MAN? U R WEERD.
Shekhar Singh
Why can't YOU??
Troy Davis
Roger Christie wrote:
>Y KANT U RITE LIKE A HU MAN? U R WEERD
I said it was a summarized version you jackass!! I spelled every thing
correct, all I abbreviated was U (you), R (are), N (an), and Y (why).
You supid fool!
Keith E. Young
NintendoCow (ninte...@bri.com) wrote:
: This has been discussed again and again on the subject of
: "N64 emulation".
: N64 is specifically designed for gaming only.
: Onyx is for graphic workstation running Unix-like OS.
: It must be more than powerful enough. Otherwise, it won't
: be able to emulate N64.
: Obviously, Pentium 166 MHz should beat N64's processor.
: Can a PC workstation with P166 can even emulate N64 ?
: Far from it.
Do you know why? It takes a processor that's 10 times as powerful to
emulate another processor. That's why we're just starting to see the
first wave of emulators now (Coleco, Vectrex, Atari, Old Arcade
machines). Give the computer industry another 5-7 years and you'll
see an N64 emulator, and in about 8-10 there will be one that runs
well.
-Keith
Jesse Dorland
In a secluded warehouse,
on a pier somewhere in Maine,
gagged and at gunpoint,
>Distribution:
>
>: Do you know why? It takes a processor that's 10 times as powerful to
>: emulate another processor. That's why we're just starting to see the
>: first wave of emulators now (Coleco, Vectrex, Atari, Old Arcade
>: machines). Give the computer industry another 5-7 years and you'll
>: see an N64 emulator, and in about 8-10 there will be one that runs
>: well.
>
> We're not as far behind as you think. The NES, SMS, and Gameboy
>have all been emulated well. the TG-16, SNES, and Genesis emulators are
>coming along nicely. I think that it will be another couple of years
>before the NG machines (3DO, Jaguar, 32X, PSX, Saturn, N64) will be well
>emulated though.
I would estimate MUCH longer than that. The power jump from the 16 to 32-bit
systems is enormous; much larger than that from 8- to 16-bit machines. Even a
state-of-the-art PC chokes on Super NES games with sound enabled. The
Playstation, N64, and Saturn are hundreds of times more powerful than the
SNES; imagine what kind of PC would be required to run those games.
-Jesse
>
>--
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Mark Rathwell
>E_Mail: mrat...@uoguelph.ca
>Web Page: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~mrathwel
>Home of the Incredible Hulk television series page!
=========================================================
Mark Rathwell
Distribution:
: Do you know why? It takes a processor that's 10 times as powerful to
: emulate another processor. That's why we're just starting to see the
: first wave of emulators now (Coleco, Vectrex, Atari, Old Arcade
: machines). Give the computer industry another 5-7 years and you'll
: see an N64 emulator, and in about 8-10 there will be one that runs
: well.
We're not as far behind as you think. The NES, SMS, and Gameboy
have all been emulated well. the TG-16, SNES, and Genesis emulators are
coming along nicely. I think that it will be another couple of years
before the NG machines (3DO, Jaguar, 32X, PSX, Saturn, N64) will be well
emulated though.
--
Ryan Farisslaw
Jeff Goelz <jeffg10[at]ix[dot]netcom[dot]com> wrote:
: IF the N64 was a LOT more powerful than a PC, i would have to agree, but the
: fact is, it is not...in fact, it is about the speed of a P66 (RAW
: instructions.....due to more code in the actuall instructions....see info
: about Risc arcetechture).....but where the N64 shines is the graphical
: capabilities....this is easily matched by a 3dfx enhanced graphics card (ALL
: the same hardware functions as N64, Anti Aliasing, Z-Buffering, bi and tri
: linear filtering, etc.)...
Its meaningless to seperate the N64 raw processing power from its
graphical power. Why? Because there is no N64 that doesn't have all the
standard graphical power, its an all-in-one deal. Either way, the simple
fact is that we don't even have perfect SNES or Genesis emulation yet, and
thats 5-6 years after those systems were released. So, when we finally
reach near-perfect SNES and Genesis emulation, then I will think about N64
emulation. Really the only thing PCs can emulate perfectly is rather old
arcade games...the ones that basically just used a 6502.