When people say ps1 textures are "warped" what does it mean? Why doesn't N64 textures warp?

When people say ps1 textures are "warped" what does it mean? Why doesn't N64 textures warp?

...

PS1 hardware could not do perspective-correction and Z-buffering, and also lacked sub-pixel accuracy for vertices. This resulted textures twisting and bending around unnaturally when viewed at various angles / when camera moved past them, and also explains why the 3D models themselves jiggle around if you up the resolution in emulators.

N64 supported all of said graphical techs, and also supported anti-aliasing and texture filtering to boot.

So PS1 was a meme console and N64 was much better console?

PS1 had CDs which meant MASSIVELY larger file size was possible and production of the physical game itself was way cheaper.

yes

PS1 was practically a 2D console, creating a very convincing impression of 3D world with various tricks. N64 had much more mature 3D technology, which shows how much the tech pushed forward in just two short years that day and age.

Had N64 used discs for larger storage space, it wouldn've easily BTFO of Sony's system, and would've most likely still held some of the heavy-hitter 3rd party games, like Final Fantasy.

The PS1 one looks better, but jaggier.

I'd rather have slightly warped textures than blurry messes you can barely make out

The jagginess would have been imperceptible on a CRT at 480i you underage morons.

When was the last time you used a CRT?

Not him, and they really were not. And PS1 games ran at real deal 240p.

source: I had both back in the days.

everyone keeps saying this shit but ps1 just used affine texture mapping. provide proof for this "no z buffer" mumbo jumbo

they were both shit and i'm glad we've moved on

Maybe I'm retarded but I literally can't see a difference between those two images. Is that the reason PS1 went for the simpler and faster textures, because only turbo autists would notice/care about the difference?

>Maybe I'm retarded but I literally can't see a difference between those two images.

Look at the brick wall user.

>provide proof for this "no z buffer" mumbo jumbo
the fact that emulators have been trying to implement it into the games for a decade now, with stuff like PGXP kinda getting it right?

It's one reason why the are weird overlapping of polygons in some scenes at times.

This comparison's a bit easier for the eyes. Look at the bookshelves, the tilings on walls and ceilings, and even the windows.

In move, the effect is much more apparent and astonishing. Running PS1 games at REAL widescreen, 8x rendering res and non-wobbly polys and textures is just amazing.

PS1 games looked awful in motion. Everything was constantly warping and twisting around. Screenshots from a fixed perspective don't do it justice. The PS2 was miles forward.

look at the guys face. look at the tiles on the roof.

dat ass

Is that the mansion from TR1?

Sad the Reality Coprocessor bottlenecked the NEC VR4300 which was the most powerful cpu of the generation.
no your thinking of the saturn

it's been a while since I've played any of the PS1 TRs, but it is one of them yeah.

>no your thinking of the saturn
No, I'm not.
PS1 can only place and move vertices on a 320 by 240 -sized 2D grid, lacking sub-pixel accuracy for 3D elements altogether. At the native 240p res on old CRTs, this obviously wasn't an issue, but emulation draws out all these shortcomings with stark contrast.
Together with the lack of Z-buffering, which can cause faces colliding in funny ways at times, the end result is simply a convincing "2.5D", just formed out of polygons.

Saturn was simply even more primitive and restricted system, not being able to even do transperencies without checkerboarding.

Why is that? The warping looks unnatural