How come N64 games had so much more fog than PlayStation games? Wasn't it more powerful?

Imagine if Cerny had never invented LOD for Spyro

Attached: 1646290256474.jpg (1080x1027, 74.97K)

>The N64 could theoretically crunch more polygons
I don't think this matters, since we live in the real world and not a theoretical one. Basically every game is lower poly than PS1 games while running worse. This is a 60fps game on PS1, you can see where they had to limit things, the draw distance isn't huge but there's still a lot going on, texture detail is great and there's quite a few effects.

Attached: invasionfrombeyond-ps1.webm (584x480, 2.9M)

>The N64 is still the best at polygon rendering in the 5th gen.
Too bad there aren't any games that used it and even flagship first party games relied on flat low res sprites on flat terrain with low res textures everywhere

Attached: kart.jpg (2042x767, 441.56K)

N64 had a lot of built-in effects the PSX could not do, which made the IQ better theoretically, but it could not render as many polygons per second.

>1999 game vs 1997 game
>emulated comparison
Every single time.

This is not really a fair comparison, as Mario Kart 64 was early in the N64 life and CTR was made by top PSX developers with a very refined engine. Diddy Kong Racing was a better looking game than Mario Kart.

there's LOD in sm64 that came out 2 years prior

Then there's 60fps on the N64. It's a very restrictive genre. There's two two textures, the scope is very limited and the number of on screen polygons can be counted on two hands. This is supposed to be the more powerful system 3 times over but this looks like a superFX game.

Attached: fzerox-amazing-track-design.webm (480x360, 2.09M)

game vs 1997 game
I don't think you understand, the consoles remained the same throughout their lifespans, they didn't upgrade their hardware

>emulated comparison
So we can see the texture design, polycounts, and flat sprites better, it's not like the emulators add polys to one and turn models into flat sprites in the other

I've realized it really just depends on the game
Some PS1 games have really bad draw distances like Gran Turismo 2

Wasn't Turok a fogfest?

>they didn't upgrade their hardware
Yes but developers got better over time. Look at the models in RE1 on PSX vs Saturn. You can see the more clearly segmented models in common in 1996 vs 1997 where they're more well put together.
>it's not like the emulators add polys to one and turn models into flat sprites in the other
No but they do fix the Playstation's aliased and dithered look.

Just on Mario, the environments disappear into the fog.

Alex Hastings pioneered the technique, Cerny told him to do it one way and Alex ignored him and did it his way, then Cerny admitted Alex's version was better than what he had in mind.

Yeah. Every game in the series either limits your view distance to 2 feet or 10 feet depending on the area.

Attached: 64fog.webm (640x480, 2.51M)

>looks like a superFX game
I take it you've never played or seen a Super FX game, because they have nowhere near as many entities on screen at once and they run at a sixth of the framerate.

>Alex Hastings pioneered the technique, Cerny told him to do it one way and Alex ignored him and did it his way, then Cerny admitted Alex's version was better than what he had in mind.
Oh yeah that's how it went, I was remembering it wrong

Attached: Turok first area.webm (640x480, 2.92M)

Hell, compare the models from RE1 to RE2, or Crash 1 to Crash 3. Both on the same console, but one made a couple of years later looks leagues better because the devs have had more time with the hardware and learned how to get the most out of it.

You're illiterate and seething.

yep, 2 feet or 10 feet. It was a bad visual direction.

Attached: shapoco-hatoba-solder.png (1024x1024, 1.24M)

This is a bad example since in this instance it's done intentionally for atmosphere when you're walking towards the final boss, is a much more typical example of Turok 1's fog.

The only PSX 60fps racing game I can think of is the Ridge Racer demo that came bundled with RRT4, and that was only with one other car, as opposed to F-Zero X running at 60fps with 30 cars on screen.

SuperFX games ran at 10-15fps user, look at Stunt Race FX.

>the guy who obsesses over N64 every day of his life is also an anime tranny
Not surprising.

Attached: Paper Mario hammer throw.webm (640x480, 2.93M)

Obsessed zoomie

What are the load times on Turok compared to a shooter on PS?

The improvements for PS1 games mostly came from the new development hardware Sony continued to pump out. Early on documentation was a mess, by 97 they introduced tons of new tools to help developers out. Sony made the smart move of acquiring some key British SDK designers and having them make tools like the performance analyzer to see exactly where the resources were being tapped out on the console.

I was betting on you to show the other example, since you're always looking to defend N64, hence why I mentioned 10 feet. You were there to support me like always.

That's why I posted an example for you.

Attached: 86833538_p0.png (2048x2048, 877.79K)

>y-you're s-seething
Show us a PSX game running at 60fps on native hardware, not emulated, faggot.

ok:

Attached: E3Rii5VVIAIaLyB.jpg (768x1050, 552.01K)

>since we live in the real world and not a theoretical one
We live in the real world where Rare made the most impressive console games of the 5th gen, though.

99% of devs of the era couldn't do shit, especially with the N64, but Rare objectively demonstrates the machines potential with about 6 games.