2D > 3D

what about Supper monkey ball Tuch and roll ^^

Oni-Ninja said:
The DS will never produce visuals as good as GoldenEye; etc

The DS has SHITE textures. No filtering.

Indeed the textures are lame, but arguably the models look better on DS...

I mean, some of the models on OOT were very stick like

SuperLink said:

Oni-Ninja said:The DS will never produce visuals as good as GoldenEye; etc

Actually, the models on Goldeneye arent actually that good, Ive seen better on DS believe it or not. The scenery might be great on Goldeneye, but the DS can do better models than that.

I do believe you have your wires crossed to a certain extent. Models and scenery are not really two different entities. They're made out of exactly the same stuff; Texture-mapped polygons. The N64 can not only render significantly more polygons per second than the DS, it's texturing abilities are also superior. In short, the N64 can produce more, and better texture-mapped polygons per annum than the DS.

I've already explained (a million times.. ) why Mario 64DS looked better than the N64 original. Here's the short version; The original only used 50% of the machine's power (according to Shigsy), and was stored on a measly 8MB cartridge. The DS can easily produce an N64 port graphically superior to the original (we all know the DS version controls like a tank), if the original N64 game was made under such limiting circumstances.

I think it's generally unfair to compare N64 games to DS titles, anyway (especially the earlier N64 stuff). For the people making Super Mario 64, at that time, it would have been there first 3D game! A few members of the development team may have had some extremely limited experiance with polygon effects and such. At the most a game like Starfox (which would really come under 2.5D).

This goes for alot of the famous N64 games you could name (including GoldenEye). Devs spent as much time trying to get their heads around just making a 3D game, nevermind making a good-looking one which uses the full potential of the console it's on. Those were the early days for 3D games in general. You have to look towards the later N64 stuff to see what the machine could really do. Those games (Perfect Dark, Conker's BFD, Majora's Mask, etc..) totally cain anything on the DS, graphically (and just generally :tongue.

When developers start making a game these days, they usually bring with them years of exhaustive knowledge of the dos and do nots of making 3D games. How to code a frightningly fast rendering engine. How to make your graphics more effeciant. State-of-the-art texturing and modelling techniques, etc. Developers can harness the power they have available to them much better, now. Games haven't become better looking just because of hardware advances, it's the developmental advances that have played a major part, too.

Okay, say you've got a (sorry, this is going to sound random) caveman with a ton of wood, and I've only got half a ton. With all my modern fire-lighting techniques, tools and such, I could make a much bigger fire that lasts for a lot longer, than the caveman with his twice as much wood, and his pathetic fire-lighting methods.

Now, if you could take that seemingly irrelevant example, and try and apply it to this situation... are we on the same wavelength? Trust, if someone went to make an N64 game now, they could really raise a few eyebrows. Yet another way of looking at it would be, imagine going back in time to 1996, and showing everyone Perfect Dark. They'd be utterly blown-away (and you'd probably be crowned as some kind of deity).

It's not just the machine, the period in which these games were made is also important. Back when the '64 came out, and for a while after, making 3D games was pretty new and exciting stuff. Suddenly developers had all this power with which to craft their wildest dreams, in full, actually real 3D. But it'd be a long while before they really knew what the fuck they where doing. That, and the fact that the N64 was an incredably complicated beast of a machine.

And besides, GoldenEye could not be done on DS with out some significant comprimises. Yes, the DS could technically produce 'better' models, but only of the said models were rendered in a featurless black void, where all the DS would have to do is the characters. Games obviously don't work like that.

It's also worth noting that N64 games were very limited in the meagre spaces that the cartridges afforded. It wasn't until the end of the machine's life that they really got around that. DS games have a whole 128MB to throw their weight around in.

( Edited on 26.11.2006 22:20 by Oni )

But there are better models than the goldeneye ones in games like FFIII, & A.S.H...

& Tony Hawks games on DS are pretty good too, not to mention the models on the new Star Wars game look really good... *hides*

FF III:

GoldenEye:

I'm not seeing an improvement in model at all, really. All I can spot is the pixalated textures of the DS game. In any case, there will never be any DS games that look as good as the following:

Etc. One must then take into account that N64 games run in significantly higher resolutions, sometimes drastically higher resolutions. There's no arguing, man. The N64 is more powerful than the DS. This is no slur on the DS. It's just a little portable machine, and for what it is, it does just fine.

Btw, look at this awsome stuff I found while looking for pics!

)

( Edited on 26.11.2006 22:45 by Oni )

Oni, just out of curiosity... Do you even HAVE a DS?

Yes?

Oni-Ninja said:
Yes?

Okay. Just checking.

Don't you just wish you had infinite time and resources to gather things like that to your abode so that they may be looked at once or twice and then locked away, or if they're lucky put on a shelf?

Sigh.

One day I shall be rich enough to fulfill such pointless endeavors!

I've been wondering this ever since the DS was announced, why the heck did they not give it texture filtering? Explain that too Oni, since your in the explaining mood.

That's a pretty shexsi boxset. I think I'd rather have an OOT one though

Jacob4000 said:
Ive been wondering this ever since the DS was announced, why the heck did they not give it texture filtering? Explain that too Oni, since your in the explaining mood.

Not sure. I guess at the time, the DS was already becoming abit beastly in terms of size (in hindsight, the original model is pretty bulky), and Nintendo had to take those kind of things into consideration. What they wanted it to do, and of what it had to be able to do. Sometimes those two things don't go together. At the time, they just couldn't make a two-screened portable console that was small enough, and as powerful as an N64. One of the most obviouse things to chuck out was the anti-aliasing. You don't notice the pixelation on those small screens so much, anyway.

I don't think Nintendo ever actually marketed it as a 'portable N64' as such, it's just that it shared a launch game with the N64, and you know what people are like; Before you knew it, everyone was saying it was an N64. But it's not! Ahhh!

What's a DS ?

Slydevil said:

Is that gesture is wanking gesture you deserve a star.

Oni-Ninja said:

Jacob4000 said:Ive been wondering this ever since the DS was announced, why the heck did they not give it texture filtering? Explain that too Oni, since your in the explaining mood.

Not sure. I guess at the time, the DS was already becoming abit beastly in terms of size (in hindsight, the original model is pretty bulky), and Nintendo had to take those kind of things into consideration. What they wanted it to do, and of what it had to be able to do. Sometimes those two things dont go together. At the time, they just couldnt make a two-screened portable console that was small enough, and as powerful as an N64. One of the most obviouse things to chuck out was the anti-aliasing. You dont notice the pixelation on those small screens so much, anyway.I dont think Nintendo ever actually marketed it as a portable N64 as such, its just that it shared a launch game with the N64, and you know what people are like; Before you knew it, everyone was saying it was an N64. But its not! Ahhh!

That could be true as far as size; comparing my Lite to the Phat is surprising--it never seemed so big! lol

And, according to wikipedia, the DS DOES have anti-aliasing, though I don't know if its crappy aliasing. It also has texture filtering, but its nearest neighbor which isn't very good--obviously.

As for people assuming it to be N64 power; wasn't it Iwata who trumpeted it as being "slightly" less powerful than the N64? Not that it matters to me though, I love the DS games, regardless of lack of filtering etc.