Could ps1 have been able to run Ocarina of time or SM64?

Could ps1 have been able to run Ocarina of time or SM64?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=5lqgzKjw0zs
xproger.info/projects/OpenLara/
gamespot.com/articles/metal-gear-solid-comes-to-the-nintendo-64/1100-2466851/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Why wouldn't it?

Sure.

Are there any big open world games on PS1 like on N64?

No. Because of pic related.

Basically the larger the polygons, the more distortion. So to do big sweeping textured fields on PS1 like OoT you'd need to subdivide the terrain into a shitload of polygons, way more polygons than the PS1 can handle.

Yes, but not in 1:1 exact copy version, and obviously it'd looked different / worse.

sure but compromises would need to be made
on the other hand it would have had neato pre-rendered cutscenes and probably better looking pre-rendered backgrounds

...

Should be a gif to show the polygons shimmering like michael j fox doing a puppet show.

>SM64

Easily

>OoT

Modified hard, probably. Nintendo and Rare really worked magic on that console

not with that draw distance

>talking out your arse this much
If you're going to make a bullshit codon, at least try to pretend you have evidence to back it up.

Could PS1 have done Conker's Bad Fur Day?

Or not, if you don't mind the warping. Like many devs did not.

Heavy tessellation was a thing only really visual-savvy PS1 devs bothered to utilize exclusively.

at the native 240p, you don't really see the polygons wobble, because the vertices are always placed on a 320x240 sized 2D grid.

OoT actually ran on a modified SM64 engine, and was hard-locked to 20fps to eliminate the obvious frame drops the increased fidelity would've caused.

If PS1 could do a convincing and smoothly running port of Quake 2 of all things back in the days, I fail to see how a same-gen console game of a machine struggling with storage space and texture memory, would cause problems.

Spyro games had huge draw distances thanks to smart LOD uses.

>N64
>draw distance.

Which claim? SM64 is not a graphically impressive game, if that's what you're trying to claim.

Quake 2 has shit fuck all draw distance, and it uses heavy tessellation on walls anyway

>quake 2
>tessellation

the quake 2 port is actually actually re-build in the studio's in house engine specifically for the ps1
still impressive though

Why is it that every time there's a ps1/64 draw distance argument the same game is used?

>and it uses heavy tessellation on walls anyway
>i'll just use words i don't understand and see if anyone notices

I don't see why not.
For starters, people fail to see how tiny N64 games were. That "huge" 512Mbit cartridge is in reality only 64 MegaBYTES; a single PS1 discs could've fit 6 times more data.
In Conker's case, they used the then-new MP3 format to heavily compress all audio, just to fit it in the game.

On top of that, the super limited texture memory / bus width of N64 meant that devs had to be very smart if they wanted to have big or lots of textures on screen at once. Conker actually used quite plenty of Spyro's techniques, like using mostly B&W textures with vertex coloring on top + lots of mirroring / building single surface out of multiple smaller textures, just to make things look more detailed.

Yes son, tessellation.
No, it is not some late-00s invention; the term refers to excessive sub-division of single surfaces. What would appear to be a flat wall could be made out of dozens of smaller squares.

Silent Hill games 1-4 used lots of automated tessellation to smoothen out their dynamic lighting, which is why the draw distance is usually so short. There's plenty of vids with fog disabled, showing this in action.

>MML3 never

it is one of the few better known games with 1:1 ports on both systems. And thus people think that it represents the best of both worlds.

It's funny that they don't use the much bigger title, Resident Evil 2, as the example. Now THAT game was literally considered impossible for N64 all the way to the release.

It's almost like they're cherrypicking, woah.

RE2 looks arguably better on the PS1 doe.

No mate, (You) don't understand basic, old as fuck graphical terms.

On technical sense, yes.
In practice, on the era's typical display devices... the difference was nonexistent. Even slightly in favor for N64 when it came to in-game graphics; more so with Expansion Pak, which enabled 480i resolution.

Yes, FMVs and audio were compressed a lot, but that's understandable. There simply was no space on the carts. That being said, fitting TWO discs into one N64 cartridge, with all the voice acting, music, videos, and even some unique new content... that is still an amazing achievement today.

They removed some cut scenes I thought

>Conker actually used quite plenty of Spyro's techniques, like using mostly B&W textures with vertex coloring on top
That is not Spyro's technique. What Spyro is known for is aggressive LOD where textures are completely dropped past a certain distance and replaced with flat or gouraud shading. Conker does not do this. It does mipmapping instead, which is a much higher quality form of LOD.

>building single surface out of multiple smaller textures
If you're talking about building large textures out of tiled smaller ones, Spyro does not do this. Conker has to do it because the maximum texture size on N64 is 4 KB per texture.

If you're talking about multitexturing (layering textures on top of textures) Spyro does not do it either, but Conker does.

Not really, most people try to act like the N64 looked drastically better than the PS1 when a fucking ton of the games on the N64 ran at like 13 fps with terrible draw distance.

I can still remember the insane slowdown that Smash 64 used to get when too many pokeballs were going off.

Its funny that your posting this im actually working on a youtube video explaing this act of technological genius porting res2 to the N64. Lets hope I dont give up but man collecting gameplay footage of both games is tiering since RE2 is my least favorite resident evil.

You have to remember that this is considered one of the best looking games on PS1

It does look pretty good if you ignore the draw distance though.

Dude, this game is a fucking absolute masterpiece, one of the best things I have ever played in my life, not even joking here.

Someone said large polygons and no perspective correction?

Because i have just the thing:
youtube.com/watch?v=5lqgzKjw0zs

Damn, it looks like the ground is 100% quicksand

no it was coded for a nintendo machine are you stupid

PS1 didn't even take cartridges, jfc

They look the same to me, except with the N64 version being triangulated, while the PS1 version use quads.

That looks pretty good, thank good though hardware has evolved since

>mfw

What do you mean by 'run'?

The architecture and instruction sets of the two machines couldn't be more different. Hell, the N64 is about as oddball as architecture gets. There is literally zero data in those games that could be executed by a PlayStation.

>The architecture and instruction sets of the two machines couldn't be more different.
Both use MIPS CPUs. N64's one is literally backwards compatible with PS1's.

>the N64 is about as oddball as architecture gets
This is a meme repeated by people who don't understand hardware. Saturn, Dreamcast and PS2's hardware is FAR more oddball.

I agree, it looks literally the same.

Am I the only one that thought N64 games looked better? PS1 only was better at FMV cutscenes.

yes, but the games would have looked worse and possibly ran slower. I like when people admit that the ps1 is technically inferior to the n64 but they use the excuse: I like how shit it looks and it is therefore superior to the n64

KEK

Friendly reminder:

xproger.info/projects/OpenLara/

>tfw I grew up with PCs instead n64 or ps1
3d games look like shite on TVs

Pay more attention to the picture, looking at the feet and wrists in particular.
It's the same surfaces, except on the N64 example, the quads are composed by two triangles.
It's just a internal model format difference that won't even be present during the rendering, as the RE2 engine will have to subdivide the quads into triangles anyway for the PS1 to handle it.

N64 games did look better from a "technologically advanced" perspective. You'd have to be blind to think otherwise.

Some PS1 games did have a better artstyle though. Ridge Racer Type 4 can't display more than 3 cars on screen at once, but its artstyle is really nice. World Driver Championship on N64 pushes more polygons than any PS1 game ever made but it has a generic Western artstyle which isn't aesthetically interesting.

You got to admit there's a charm to it

Style is greater than graphical power, even more so now.

I like how you're posting a launch PS1 game to make it seem worse.

>Tomb Raider
>launch
people born after ~1995 need to get the fuck out

64? Maybe with a bit of overclocking but Zelda? Only Insomniac could work that kind of draw distance witchcraft.

lmao imagine the loading times.

>Only Insomniac could work that kind of draw distance witchcraft.
By that do you mean sucking out all of the detail of anything more than a few feet away?

It came out a whole year after release, it's still an early release title. There were a lot of better looking PS1 games released.

It's like using FF7 to shit on PS1 graphics when everyone knows 8 and 9 look drastically better.

>It came out a whole year after release
It came out 2 years after the console's release

The equivalent on N64 is Banjo-Kazooie.

With less texture mapping and load times, sure.

That's my most favorite #1 video-game of all time.
For what it was worth back then, it was a lot.
Everything about it, still holds up to today.
Except for the block puzzles, of course.
>and the fact LoK died various times
>from that shitty single-player reboot
>to that failed & cancelled L4D clone
>neither of which were even released
>That we'll all never get to see again

There's a lot more to system architecture than CPU, user-kun.

>N64's one is literally backwards compatible with PS1's.
OP didn't ask about the N64's ability to run PS1 software, and the CPU's don't run the meat of a game anyway. You do realize MIPS refers to a long-running family of many different chips with vastly different capabilities?

>This is a meme repeated by people who don't understand hardware
Says the person who thinks that an x64 instruction set isn't vastly different than an x32 even in the same family of chips.

>Saturn, Dreamcast and PS2's hardware is FAR more oddball.
Compared to what? I think you're conflating 'complex' with 'oddball'

PS1 was pretty weak, even for its time. N64 was no doubt more powerful. PS1 was only honestly good at pushing polygons, as seen in Crash Bandicoot

What a shame that N64 had no 2D games.

Could n64 have run Metal Gear Solid?
gamespot.com/articles/metal-gear-solid-comes-to-the-nintendo-64/1100-2466851/

Looks incredible