N64 vs PS1 - game quality

Lets compare the game quality of these two consoles shall we?

Exclusives (not counting PC and other consoles):

- Mario 64 vs Spyro

Mario 64 was quite the groundbreaking game it came out and still holds up well to this day. It's just a timeless classic and that's undeniable. It took Sony quite some time to come up with something that could match it. That something was called Spyro and it was a nice game and a good attempt at countering Mario 64 and the other N64 platformers. However, the game falls a little short on the level design side and just isn't as groundbreaking. While I can see why some would like Spyro more, I do feel Mario 64 is simply the better game. Winner: Mario 64

- Wave Race 64 vs Jet Moto

When Wave Race 64 came out it was amazing. It had amazing water effect and was something not even arcades had. So it's no surprise Sony thried to counter it and PS' answer was Jet Moto. Of course the game was of much lower quality and had seaming graphics and not nearly as pretty water effects but it wasn't that shabby. Tho the clear winner here is Wave Race 64. Winner: Wave Race 64

- 1080 Snowboarding vs Cool Borders

Now this is a real overlooked N64 gem right there. Not only it has great speed, it also has great tracks and nice graphics. Cool Borders were okayish, but they just pale in comparison. Winner: 1080 Snowboarding

- Banjo-Kazooie vs Crash Bandicoot 3

Perhaps not the best comparison since one is a fully 3D platformer while the other is more a 2.5D platformer but nevertheless both are seen as some of the best platformers on their respective platforms and were released in similar times. Now I will agree Crash 3 is pretty much the best platformer out there for the PS1 and easily the best in the series, but in spite of that Banjo-Kazooie is just a masterpiece that, in my opinion, wasn't even surpassed by it's successor (Banjo-Tooie). It's everything that made Mario 64 great, just better. So I have to give it. Winner: Banjo-Kazooie

- GoldenEye 007 vs Medal of Honor

There is no denying that N64 was the console to go for if you were a FPS fan back in the days. And GoldenEye 007 just happened to be one of it's tops. It was trully a small revolution in the FPS genre and is still a good game with some excellent level design (despite the poor framerate). MoH was pretty much PS1's GoldenEye and it did it's job, but it does not have the great level design or pace found in GE. So the winner is quite clear here. And let's not mention Perfect Dark which is even better, yet the PS1 didn't have anything to compete with it (TWINE doesn't count cos it's on the N64 too). Winner: GoldenEye 007

- Diddy Kong Racing vs Crash Team Racing

DKR was the first Mario Kart esque racer that incorporated a story mode and multiple vehicles. Not only that, it also had some nice graphics for it's time, many diverse tracks and was just fun to play. Only problem were the frame drops. CTR was pretty much PS1's answer to Mario Kart and while I did it's job remarkably well and looked very good for a PS1 game (shaky textures tho), I would not say it was better than DKR. DKR just had more content and offered three different vehicles for each racer. Winner: Diddy Kong Racing

- Jet Force Gemini vs MDK

Now the first MDK was quite the game when it came out. It had everything a good game should have, from good graphics to good gameplay. However, JFG on the N64 just upgraded the concept. You had three different characters to choose from, it had massive worlds, amazing graphics, huge bosses, lots of secrets, ect. There was even a multi-player in there. The only problem was the low framerate, but with such graphics and scale that's acceptable. So despite MDK's qualities, I just have to pick JFG over it. Winner: Jet Force Gemini

- F-Zero X vs WipEout 2097

By many the best futuristic arcade racer on the N64 vs by many the best futuristic arcade racer on the PS1. I will say WipEout had the better graphics and more diverse courses, however the sense of speed, track design and soundtrack in F-Zero X is just unmatched. Great 4-palyer mode too. The only thing I could desire would be a track editor (which was released in the F-Zero X Expansion Kit for the 64DD only in Japan). Winner: F-Zero X

- Star Fox 64 vs War Hawk

Perhaps not the best comparsion, but I can't think of any other celebrated PS1 game that could be compared to Star Fox 64 (save perhaps for Rogue Squadron on the N64). Now War Hawk was a pretty cool game with good graphics and action gameplay when it came out, but it didn't really age well imo. Star Fox 64, on the other hand, just got re-released on the 3DS and it's still a good game. Maybe not everything one could desire, but certainly a quality game. So we're essentially comparing a timeless classic against a forgettable Sony game used for graphics demonstation purposes. Winner: Star Fox 64

- F1 World Grand Prix vs F1 97

F1 WGP was also released on numerous other platforms (even the PS1), but the original version of the game was N64 exclusive. Likewise F1 97 is ofter refered to as the defining PS1 F1 racer. Comparing the two isn't easy since the first is a (semi) sim while the other an arcade racer. Also the physics in both games are a little poor and they have some graphical issues. But if I had to choose the game I consider a little better, it would be F1 WGP on the N64. There was also a F1 WGP II (Europe only) which improved some of the problems of the original. Winner: F1 World Grand Prix

- Kirby 64 vs Klonoa

Two cute 2.5D platformers, each remiscent of each other. I have to say Kirby 64 kinda failed to live up to the quality of the SNES and NES Kirby games, but it was still an enjoyable game. I don't consider Klonoa to be that great personally, but I have to give it here (I personally like Kirby 64 more tho). Winner: Klonoa

- Ocarina of Time vs Final Fantasy VII

Now comparing these two is kinda problematic since one is an action-adventure with some RPG touches while the other is a "proper" JRPG. However, both are often celebrated as the "fantasy action game" peaks on their respective systems and were often compared, despite a little different genres. I have to say I find OoT to just be the better, more important game than FF VII. Yes, FF VII was indeed a good game, but it was just too traditional and didn't really bring it's genre to the next level (save for some 3D graphics). While OoT pretty much redefined gaming at the time by combining what was seemingly incompatible and as a "triumphant" transition of the franchise into "glorious" 3-D graphics. Both are great games, but OoT was just the better and more revolutionary game. Winner: Ocarina of Time

- World Driver Championship vs Gran Turismo 2

There is no denying that Gran Turismo was one of the most important console racers ever. However, it was given quite a run for it's money by N64's World Driver Championship. Not only that game had better graphics, it also had some very good physics as well. But as good of a try WDC was, it was not quite a match for Gran Turismo 2, which is simply the better game, with much more content like official cars, tracks, soundtrack, costumization, ect. Nevetheless, WDC will always be N64's finest sim racer. Winner: Gran Turismo 2

- Top Gear Rally 2 vs Colin McRae Rally 2

The first TGR was a very good rally game that gave PS1's V-Rally (later released on the N64 as V-Rally 64) a run for it's money, but the sequel wasn't exactly everything one would hope for. From the blurry graphics to average physics, TGR 2 wasn't the defining rally game in it's generation by any means. Perhaps the problem was that it was made by Kemco and not Boss Studios (who made TGR 1 and WDC). Anyhow, the game was literally destroyed by CMR 2 on the PS1, which is easily the finest rally racer in it's gen. Winner: Colin McRae Rally 2

- Indiana Jones and The Infernal Machine vs Tomb Raider IV

N64's only Tomb Radier-esque game vs what could be seen as the defining Tomb Raider game on the PS1. Now Indy was quite the technically achievement for the N64, thus one of the best-looking games on the system and I'm not really a fan of the Tomb Raider games. But I have to say that Tomb Raider IV seems the better game to me, regardless of my taste. Indy just feels too clunky (Tomb Raider does too tho). Winner: Tomb Raider IV

- Rush 2048 vs Ridge Racer IV

Two arcade racers, each pushing it's respective system to it's limits. Rush 2048 is quite amazing for a N64 game, but so is RR IV very impressive for a PS1 game. Altho technically Rush is better, it also runs slower. It really comes down to what you prefer. Winner: Tie

- Operation WinBack vs Metal Gear Solid

A Kemco game vs a Kojima game. Gee, I wonder what's better? Winner: MGS

- Fighter's Destiny vs Tekken 3

The N64 was quite notorious for it's lack of quality fighters so this is really a no question. We did get Smash Bros. tho. Winner: Tekken 3

This is just some of them since there are many I simply can't compare (like Conker's Bad Fur Day, Majora's Mask, Paper Mario, Perfect Dark, Smash Bros., Soul Reaver, SotN, Chrono Cross, ect.).

Multi-plats:

- Ridge Racer / Ridge Racer 64

Altho PS1 got RR IV, RR 64 is basically a remake of the original RR. And not only it looks much better (smooth graphics), it's pretty much the definitive version of the original Ridge Racer and feels almost like a new game. Winner: RR64 / N64 version

- Rayman 2

This game was clearing made with N64 in mind and it shows. The PS1 version suffers from considerably worse graphics and cut-out levels. Winner: N64 version

- The World is Not Enough

PS1 version has better textures but the gameplay is better in the N64 one. N64 was just the console to go for if you were a FPS fan (PS1 didn't even have an answer to Turok). Winner: N64 version

- Tony Hawk Skateboarding 2

Pixelated graphics vs smooth graphics, I wonder what's better? Tho the game looked better on N64, it kinda feels more at home on the PS1. Winner: Tie

- Quake II

Excellent port vs a semi-decent port. N64 version has smooth graphics, but lacks some animation, has worse texture detail and completely redesigned levels. It's not bad but the PS1 port is just much more impressive, given the systems' limitations. Winner: PS1 version

- Doom / Doom 64

Now Doom on the 64 is basically a completely new version of Doom and could perhaps count for an exclusive, but in spite of this the PS1 version just feels much more true to the PC original, thus better. Winner: PS1 version

- WipEout / WipEout 64

Yet another PS1 port which isn't shabby but could be better. Smooth graphics but notable pop-up and a bit lazy port. Winner: Tie

- Duke Nukem 3D / Duke Nukem 64

The PS1 version is closer to the PC original but has some slowdown while the 64 version has smooth graphics and some new effects, but is censored. N64 version is saved by a great multi-player tho. Winner: Duke Nukem 64 / N64 version

- Shadowman

This game was developed for N64 first and foremost and it shows. The PS1 has a lot worse graphics, slowdown, seaming, ect. Winner: N64 version

Feel free to disagree or write your own comparisons :)

some of those I agree with , some of those I disagree with , like Wipeout, FF7 , etc.

PlayStation, it just felt right. I had regular access to an N64, but the controller was stupid and Pokemon Stadium was what occupied all of my time.

Didn't Tony Hawk Skateboarding 2 have full versions of songs on the PSone? While the N64 version only had like 1 minute shorts? I remember that being a big deal back then. But yeah, you're right about most of em. Tobybradley

I kinda compensated better graphics vs better soundtrack.

Oh, and I forgot Resident Evil 2 - better on N64 imo, due to smoother graphics and higher-res.

[QUOTE="Tobybradley"]Didn't Tony Hawk Skateboarding 2 have full versions of songs on the PSone? While the N64 version only had like 1 minute shorts? I remember that being a big deal back then. But yeah, you're right about most of em. nameless12345

I kinda compensated better graphics vs better soundtrack.

Oh, and I forgot Resident Evil 2 - better on N64 imo, due to smoother graphics and higher-res.

I would sonner compare starfox to the colony wars series and the colony wars games are better imo I also think Final Fantasy and wipeout are better then Legend of Zelda and F-zero

EDIT: in fact in IGN's review of colony wars red sun we get this:

"Way back in 1996, which seems like aeons ago in videogame time, myself and friends were all quite excited about the sequel to StarFox on N64, StarFox 64. The game eventually hit retail stands in spring 1997, along with a four-player mode, and launched with the first Rumble Pak in North America. It was quite exciting to play a "next-generation" game like that, and yet at the same time that we also got to glimpse quick video clips of a little known game that simply blew it away. Psygnosis' StarFox killer for the PlayStation, Colony Wars, went on to become a very popular game indeed, and spawned three games in the series to StarFox's one (on N64). Because I ran N64.com at the time (later to be renamed to IGN64.com), the thought of a better game on a system with less "bits" was rather depressing."

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Tobybradley"]Didn't Tony Hawk Skateboarding 2 have full versions of songs on the PSone? While the N64 version only had like 1 minute shorts? I remember that being a big deal back then. But yeah, you're right about most of em. Darkman2007

I kinda compensated better graphics vs better soundtrack.

Oh, and I forgot Resident Evil 2 - better on N64 imo, due to smoother graphics and higher-res.

The N64 version looked really grunge. I think for every one under 15 that graphics were the last thing on our minds. I'd invite kids over to play my parents SNES and I never got the controller back (I did, but I totally let them play past one life xD).

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

I kinda compensated better graphics vs better soundtrack.

Oh, and I forgot Resident Evil 2 - better on N64 imo, due to smoother graphics and higher-res.

leapMC

The N64 version looked really grunge. I think for every one under 15 that graphics were the last thing on our minds. I'd invite kids over to play my parents SNES and I never got the controller back (I did, but I totally let them play past one life xD).

Naturally I agree with some and disagree with others.

I disagree with many of your reasonings, though. As most of your choices were based on whatever game of the two you feet was more revolutionary for the time and which of the two was more important for games in general. For example, you stated that Ocarina of Time is the superior game because it was more revolutionary...Your decisions are suppose to be based on what game you feel is actually the higher quality title and the more fun game to play today. I could easily say Goldeneye is better than Medal of Honor because it was a much more revolutionary game that redefined the first person shooter genre at the time, but I feel that Goldeneye (as well as Perfect Dark) hasn't aged too well where as Medal of Honor as, which is why I find Medal of Honor to be the more enjoyable game today.

I agree with:

-Mario 64 > Spyro

For me Spyro doesn't hold a candle to Mario 64.

Banjo Kazooie > Crash

Imo Crash 3 is the worst of the original trilogy, and this is coming from someone who has invested thousands of hours into them.

-Diddy Kong Racing > Crash Team Racing

Diddy Kong Racing had a lot more content and was simply put a better game overall imo, but I'd imagine a lot of people would prefer CTR for the more fast paced action. But in the end they're two very different games really.

-Jet Force Gemini > MDK

I personally don't care for either of the two games, but from what I played Jet Force seemed to be the higher quality title of the two (despite the much worse frame rate)

-Klonoa > Kirby 64

I find Klonoa to be a pretty good game and Kirby 64 to be an average at best one.

-Tomb Raider IV >Indiana Jones and The Infernal Machine

Indianna Jones and the Infernal Machine: nice graphics, shame about the gameplay.

I disagree with:

-F-Zero X > Wipeout 2097

I simply find Wipeout 2097 to be the more enjoyable game of the two. With F-Zero X it felt like Nintendo spent all of their time into making the game be able to run at 60 FPS in even four player split screen mode (hence why the graphics/backgrounds are extremely bland and why the audio is all heavily compressed and all in mono) and a lot less at actually making a good, well designed game. The music is pretty awesome though...Well, it is in all of the F-Zero games.

-Goldeneye > Medal of Honor

Goldeneye hasn't aged too well and feels very slow and clunky today. On the other hand, I find Medal of Honor to still be perfectly playable - while it isn't anything amazing I still find the game a lot of fun.

-Ocarina of Time > Final Fantasy VII

It's sillly to compare an action-adventure game to a Japanese RPG in the first place, really. To me, saying 'Ocarina of Time is a better game than Final Fantasy VII' is another way of saying 'I prefer action-adventure games to Japanese RPG's/I prefer real time combat to turn based combat'.

I would sonner compare starfox to the colony wars series and the colony wars games are better imo I also think Final Fantasy and wipeout are better then Legend of Zelda and F-zero

EDIT: in fact in IGN's review of colony wars red sun we get this:

"Way back in 1996, which seems like aeons ago in videogame time, myself and friends were all quite excited about the sequel to StarFox on N64, StarFox 64. The game eventually hit retail stands in spring 1997, along with a four-player mode, and launched with the first Rumble Pak in North America. It was quite exciting to play a "next-generation" game like that, and yet at the same time that we also got to glimpse quick video clips of a little known game that simply blew it away. Psygnosis' StarFox killer for the PlayStation, Colony Wars, went on to become a very popular game indeed, and spawned three games in the series to StarFox's one (on N64). Because I ran N64.com at the time (later to be renamed to IGN64.com), the thought of a better game on a system with less "bits" was rather depressing."

ohthemanatee

Thanks! I've never played any of the Colony Wars games, but I have to give them a go now!

[QUOTE="ohthemanatee"][QUOTE="JuarN18"]Those Colony Wars games look awesome! Also, i think medal of honor is better than goldeneye *runs away*JuarN18

as for the games themselves the first two (colony wars and vengeance) had an interesting concept, branching paths, meaning depending on whether or not you completed your missions the war, the endings and your future missions would change quite a bit. Red Sun abandoned this scheme for a more structured game, i'd say red sun has the best graphics, gameplay, soundtrack and even missions. But the story makes no sense

Vengeance has a deep and engrossing story, but it's really effing hard, the graphics look really good

the original colony wars is the one with the best branching paths feature, yes, even better then it's sequel, but the graphics looks almost 3DO like and it's also a very difficult game. It also bothers me that your ships are chosen for you are the beggining of each mission and you can't upgrade them

Thanks for your opinions! Me personally I liked the PSX more on almost all fronts. Also the PSX rpg library was so much better--that alone would beat the 64 in my mind.

I'm not a fan of PS1 really. I plan on going back and playing some of the games just to give it a fair chance again, but I just don't think the games were nearly as good of quality and were generally improvements on previously designed games from the SNES/Genesis era where the N64 put out more games similar to the PS2/GC/Xbox era.

I have owned both consoles and I thought they were equal in quality.

I'm not a fan of PS1 really. I plan on going back and playing some of the games just to give it a fair chance again, but I just don't think the games were nearly as good of quality and were generally improvements on previously designed games from the SNES/Genesis era where the N64 put out more games similar to the PS2/GC/Xbox era.

magnax1

I feel that Goldeneye (as well as Perfect Dark) hasn't aged too well where as Medal of Honor as, which is why I find Medal of Honor to be the more enjoyable game today.

SpikeyAss777

That's interesting because I feel GE and PD are still very good today (save for the bad framerate and outdated graphics) while I couldn't say the same about MoH. After all, GE was a very good FPS even compared to PC FPSes at the time whereas MoH would at best be an average (and bellow average graphics-wise) PC game.

As for Ocarina - yeah, it's not an easy task to compare the two but the N64 basically has no mention worthy JRPGs while the PS1 had nothing quite like the N64 Zelda games. And the games happened to clash with each another at the time.

I would sonner compare starfox to the colony wars series and the colony wars games are better imo

ohthemanatee

Actually the PS1 did have a direct copy of Star Fox:

Link

And perhaps it would be better to compare War Hawk with Rogue Squadron.

I also like Crash over Banjo.amari24

Well those games are quite different and I understand why some like Crash better.

[QUOTE="amari24"]I also like Crash over Banjo.nameless12345

Well those games are quite different and I understand why some like Crash better.

I personally like the N64 more, but the playstation is still up there as one of my all time favorite consoles.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="amari24"]I also like Crash over Banjo.Darkman2007

Well those games are quite different and I understand why some like Crash better.

Well, I personally feel the 2D Zeldas and the 3D Zeldas have little in common. If anything I'd compare Ocarina to Soul Reaver. Then again, not really.

as are Ocarina and FF7 :P if anything , I suppose I would compare Ocarina to Alundra , it felt quite Zelda-like , even if it was 2D. its also the main reason why I didn't really like Alundra.nameless12345

Well, I personally feel the 2D Zeldas and the 3D Zeldas have little in common. If anything I'd compare Ocarina to Soul Reaver. Then again, not really.

Comparing each consoles biggest hit is kind of better then comparing a great game with a ripoff.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

as are Ocarina and FF7 :P if anything , I suppose I would compare Ocarina to Alundra , it felt quite Zelda-like , even if it was 2D. its also the main reason why I didn't really like Alundra.leapMC

Well, I personally feel the 2D Zeldas and the 3D Zeldas have little in common. If anything I'd compare Ocarina to Soul Reaver. Then again, not really.

Comparing each consoles biggest hit is kind of better then comparing a great game with a ripoff.

thats nonsense, by that account, that would be like saying "lets compare Sonic Adventure to GTA vice city" since both are arguably the biggest hits for their respective consoles. it really doesn't work that way.

[QUOTE="leapMC"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Well, I personally feel the 2D Zeldas and the 3D Zeldas have little in common. If anything I'd compare Ocarina to Soul Reaver. Then again, not really.

Darkman2007

Comparing each consoles biggest hit is kind of better then comparing a great game with a ripoff.

thats nonsense, by that account, that would be like saying "lets compare Sonic Adventure to GTA vice city" since both are arguably the biggest hits for their respective consoles. it really doesn't work that way.

No, but you could compare Sonic Adventure to Jak & Daxter or Mario Sunshine for example (altho Sunshine came years later and the DC was dead by then).

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

[QUOTE="leapMC"]

Comparing each consoles biggest hit is kind of better then comparing a great game with a ripoff.

nameless12345

thats nonsense, by that account, that would be like saying "lets compare Sonic Adventure to GTA vice city" since both are arguably the biggest hits for their respective consoles. it really doesn't work that way.

No, but you could compare Sonic Adventure to Jak & Daxter or Mario Sunshine for example (altho Sunshine came years later and the DC was dead by then).

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

thats nonsense, by that account, that would be like saying "lets compare Sonic Adventure to GTA vice city" since both are arguably the biggest hits for their respective consoles. it really doesn't work that way.

Darkman2007

No, but you could compare Sonic Adventure to Jak & Daxter or Mario Sunshine for example (altho Sunshine came years later and the DC was dead by then).

I thought SA was more of a racing game while Sunshine a cleaning sim :P

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

No, but you could compare Sonic Adventure to Jak & Daxter or Mario Sunshine for example (altho Sunshine came years later and the DC was dead by then).

nameless12345

I thought SA was more of a racing game while Sunshine a cleaning sim :P

I think it would've been better if you were to compare the two consoles by genre.

Nice thread and a fair list, but no WAY is the N64 version of Ridge Racer better than the psx one. The 64, outside of FZero/mariokart, had cr@p racers.

Nice thread and a fair list, but no WAY is the N64 version of Ridge Racer better than the psx one. The 64, outside of FZero/mariokart, had cr@p racers.

Heirren

idk, it has better graphics, more tracks, more cars, ect. ect. The original PS1 RR is quite plain tbh. Unless you mean RR IV but I compared N64's Rush 2049 to it.

I actually think the 64 has some very good racers. It's the fighters that were rather sucky and it had no real JRPGs.

I actually think the 64 has some very good racers. It's the fighters that were rather sucky and it had no real JRPGs.

nameless12345

Zelda would never take up the amount of data memory that a game like Final Fantasy VIII would. The price to manufactual a cartridge capable of holding all of that information would skyrocket the shelf price. @_@

You might be able to fit The Legend of Zelda (either one) onto a disk though, it's long but all of the scenes are previously rendered which if I'm correct would take up a lot less space then an in-game 3D rendering (like the transition from Resident Evil 2 to Code Veronica, double the disks on Dreamcast!).

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

I actually think the 64 has some very good racers. It's the fighters that were rather sucky and it had no real JRPGs.

leapMC

Zelda would never take up the amount of data memory that a game like Final Fantasy VIII would. The price to manufactual a cartridge capable of holding all of that information would skyrocket the shelf price. @_@

You might be able to fit The Legend of Zelda (either one) onto a disk though, it's long but all of the scenes are previously rendered which if I'm correct would take up a lot less space then an in-game 3D rendering (like the transition from Resident Evil 2 to Code Veronica, double the disks on Dreamcast!).

They did stuff N64's Resi 2 into a 64 meg cart tho. That's more than ten times less that a single CD can hold and it still has CGI. Quite an achievement.

FF actually was considered for the 64 but Square decided they would have to cut out too much FMV out of it and since the FF series is heavily dependant on FMV they rather made it for PS1.

Nintendo also bet a lot on the ill-fated 64DD add-on, which was supposed to bring bigger storage space but it got canned in the West and released only in Japan (where it flopped bad). Many of the planned 64DD games simply moved onto bigger carts or were canned or moved to PS1.

[QUOTE="leapMC"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

I actually think the 64 has some very good racers. It's the fighters that were rather sucky and it had no real JRPGs.

nameless12345

Zelda would never take up the amount of data memory that a game like Final Fantasy VIII would. The price to manufactual a cartridge capable of holding all of that information would skyrocket the shelf price. @_@

You might be able to fit The Legend of Zelda (either one) onto a disk though, it's long but all of the scenes are previously rendered which if I'm correct would take up a lot less space then an in-game 3D rendering (like the transition from Resident Evil 2 to Code Veronica, double the disks on Dreamcast!).

They did stuff N64's Resi 2 into a 64 meg cart tho. That's more than ten times less that a single CD can hold and it still has CGI. Quite an achievement.

FF actually was considered for the 64 but Square decided they would have to cut out too much FMV out of it and since the FF series is heavily dependant on FMV they rather made it for PS1.

Nintendo also bet a lot on the ill-fated 64DD add-on, which was supposed to bring bigger storage space but it got canned in the West and released only in Japan (where it flopped bad). Many of the planned 64DD games simply moved onto bigger carts or were canned or moved to PS1.

I liked the N64 for first person shooters and platformers and I liked the PS1 for RPGs and fighting games. N64 didn't have any RPGs that could contend with the excellent line up the PS1 had, and N64 had practically no fighting games on it. I liked both systems equally, because they were so different from each other, but both so great in their own right.

Ridge Racer / Ridge Racer 64

Altho PS1 got RR IV, RR 64 is basically a remake of the original RR. And not only it looks much better (smooth graphics), it's pretty much the definitive version of the original Ridge Racer and feels almost like a new game. Winner: RR64 / N64 versionnameless12345

I'm not sure where you got your info from, but Ridge Racer 64 isn't even remotely a port of PS1 Ridge Racer

Ridge Racer 64 contains tracks from both Ridge Racer, and Ridge Racer Revolution, as well as original tracks. At worst you could class it as an enhanced compendium of the early PS1 games, but thats kind of missing the point as Ridge Racer 64 doesn't really even play that much like those games, due to a completely different physics style caused by being developed by Nintendo, and not Namco.

To me Ridge Racer 64 feels more over the top, in a Daytona fashion. The graphics style, loads of colour, low emphasis on realism and texturing (though probably caused by N64 hardware more than anything else) also gives it a style slightly more reminiscent to Daytona IMO.

All in all I tend to see Nintendo's Ridge Racer as the love child of PS1 Ridge Racers, and arcade Daytona (albeit both games were fairly similar to each other anyway to begin with)

Originally I kept going back and forth between Ridge Racer Type 4, and Ridge Racer 64 trying to make a decision, and ended up deciding that RR4 was the better game (I love the presentation and music), but after a while I decided that both are actually different enough to make them worthwhile, great games, I think both deserve 9/10 for their times (though Type's is a higher 9)

[QUOTE="nameless12345"] Ridge Racer / Ridge Racer 64

Altho PS1 got RR IV, RR 64 is basically a remake of the original RR. And not only it looks much better (smooth graphics), it's pretty much the definitive version of the original Ridge Racer and feels almost like a new game. Winner: RR64 / N64 versionDomino_slayer

I'm not sure where you got your info from, but Ridge Racer 64 isn't even remotely a port of PS1 Ridge Racer

Ridge Racer 64 contains tracks from both Ridge Racer, and Ridge Racer Revolution, as well as original tracks. At worst you could class it as an enhanced compendium of the early PS1 games, but thats kind of missing the point as Ridge Racer 64 doesn't really even play that much like those games, due to a completely different physics style caused by being developed by Nintendo, and not Namco.

To me Ridge Racer 64 feels more over the top, in a Daytona fashion. The graphics style, loads of colour, low emphasis on realism and texturing (though probably caused by N64 hardware more than anything else) also gives it a style slightly more reminiscent to Daytona IMO.

All in all I tend to see Nintendo's Ridge Racer as the love child of PS1 Ridge Racers, and arcade Daytona (albeit both games were fairly similar to each other anyway to begin with)

Originally I kept going back and forth between Ridge Racer Type 4, and Ridge Racer 64 trying to make a decision, and ended up deciding that RR4 was the better game (I love the presentation and music), but after a while I decided that both are actually different enough to make them worthwhile, great games, I think both deserve 9/10 for their times (though Type's is a higher 9)

Well, I did mention it's kinda like a new game but I didn't know the physics were much different. I don't see the Daytona connection either.

As for RR IV, I compared that to Rush 2049.

the original Ridge Racer imo , is mediocre, at least in terms of gameplay.

yes, it looks great for a launch PS1 game (actually it would have still looked good in 1996) , and no doubt sold many PS1s early on ,but the gameplay is lacking, the controls aren't too great ( its almost like the wheels lock every so often) , and was totally outclassed by Daytona on that front imo.

RR4 on the other hand is brilliant, it looks and plays much better than the original , though I haven't played RR64 to compare it.

the original Ridge Racer imo , is mediocre, at least in terms of gameplay.

yes, it looks great for a launch PS1 game (actually it would have still looked good in 1996) , and no doubt sold many PS1s early on ,but the gameplay is lacking, the controls aren't too great ( its almost like the wheels lock every so often) , and was totally outclassed by Daytona on that front imo.

RR4 on the other hand is brilliant, it looks and plays much better than the original , though I haven't played RR64 to compare it.

Darkman2007

I also think the original RR is rather poor. There's just one track in four variations I think.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

the original Ridge Racer imo , is mediocre, at least in terms of gameplay.

yes, it looks great for a launch PS1 game (actually it would have still looked good in 1996) , and no doubt sold many PS1s early on ,but the gameplay is lacking, the controls aren't too great ( its almost like the wheels lock every so often) , and was totally outclassed by Daytona on that front imo.

RR4 on the other hand is brilliant, it looks and plays much better than the original , though I haven't played RR64 to compare it.

nameless12345

I also think the original RR is rather poor. There's just one track in four variations I think.

thats one thing, but I would live with it if the gameplay was better. its just that the controls are iffy. and contrary to popular opinion , its not perfect graphically, it has a huge amount of seaming,

though there is no doubt the game sold many PS1s early on , when the 3D visuals made people buy it (no different than Toshinden)

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

the original Ridge Racer imo , is mediocre, at least in terms of gameplay.

yes, it looks great for a launch PS1 game (actually it would have still looked good in 1996) , and no doubt sold many PS1s early on ,but the gameplay is lacking, the controls aren't too great ( its almost like the wheels lock every so often) , and was totally outclassed by Daytona on that front imo.

RR4 on the other hand is brilliant, it looks and plays much better than the original , though I haven't played RR64 to compare it.

Darkman2007

I also think the original RR is rather poor. There's just one track in four variations I think.

thats one thing, but I would live with it if the gameplay was better. its just that the controls are iffy. and contrary to popular opinion , its not perfect graphically, it has a huge amount of seaming

I don't see why anyone would call it "graphically perfect" in the first place. Looks like something from the 3DO really. Only impressive thing was the smooth framerate (60 fps?). Atleast the 64 version has smoothing in there.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

I also think the original RR is rather poor. There's just one track in four variations I think.

nameless12345

thats one thing, but I would live with it if the gameplay was better. its just that the controls are iffy. and contrary to popular opinion , its not perfect graphically, it has a huge amount of seaming

I don't see why anyone would call it "graphically perfect" in the first place. Looks like something from the 3DO really. Only impressive thing was the smooth framerate (60 fps?). Atleast the 64 version has smoothing in there.

it was 30fps, or it seems that way, no way its 60fps (though the RR4 rerelease of the game was 60fps.

I don't think Id say its 3DO like, its better lookng than something like Need For Speed, faster too. in 1995 , it was impressive no doubt about it.

how in the world is N64 version of duke nukem better? om I get multiplayer and better graphics, but it doesn't have any music and it's really censoredohthemanatee