• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Nintendo 64 Vs. PlayStation: Which console was more innovative?

Sosokrates

Founder of western console warring.
The psx was exclusively a 3D machine it had no 2D hardware. It just that 3D in 1994 for under 400 dollars had to have compromises made. Having a FPU and a Z buffer and support for AA, trilinear mipmapping etc... wouldve cost thousands of dollars.

Whatever the reason, to me because of this the N64 graphics were far superior.
I mean ps1 couldn't even do stable 3d...
 

T0minator

Member
PlayStation

/ thread
This, PlayStation broke the 100 million barrier and brought in so many new people into gaming. The games were mini movies for the first time. The N64 had a few great classics though. Both played their part in the industry
 

IFireflyl

Member
Lol audio as being innovative what kind of rabid blind fanboy you have to be to use that as a point...when the console can even do proper 3D "but but but cd audio"

The N64 C buttons were designed for 3D camera controls which is the same purpose a second stick is used for. N64 pioneered that gameplay concept its a FACT. That the physical tools for such concept were improved upon later is irrelevant.

I admitted i was wrong when it was pointed out to me a couple of post later. Pay more attention youre too enraged because all your points are being destroyed in this thread. You need to calm down .

I never said the PSX didn't have pitfalls, so your first point is ridiculous. You can be innovative in one area and lacking in another. It was the first game console with CD-quality audio. That is innovation. If you don't see that then you're scraping the bottom of the barrel with your I.Q.

The C-buttons function LIKE a second stick, but as I said before, there is less control and precision with C-buttons than with the second analog stick that the PSX had. This isn't debatable. You have four directional buttons versus an 8-directional stick (that was later improved to have full 360 degree range of motion). PSX's stick implementation was far superior in this regard than N64's C-buttons.

You can edit your post. Instead of correcting yourself somewhere else and expecting me to follow every conversation you have with others, try correcting the post where you were initially wrong. If you chose not to do that you can still be less of a dick and just say, "Hey, sorry. I corrected myself in a later post. I saw I was wrong there." Telling me to pay attention as if I were somehow expected to shadow everything you've said in this forum to other users is idiotic.

I'm going to reiterate this because you seem to still be on the side of me being a fanboy: both consoles did great things. Both consoles were innovative. I have not picked a side about which was more innovative. All I have done is corrected misinformation. If you or anyone else wants to get upset because I said PSX actually did some good things, that makes you people the fanboys.
 

ReBurn

Gold Member
Nintendo did not copy anything and technically the N64 stick was digital not analogue. It worked like a traditional PC-mouse with a small ball where the stick was bolt in.
Nintendo and Sony both brought the Rumble feature to the market in April 1997 at the same time.
Either way, the N64 did not introduce analog controls to console gaming, thus it was not their innovation. Which is the actual point.
 
Whatever the reason, to me because of this the N64 graphics were far superior.
I mean ps1 couldn't even do stable 3d...
Well no console or even PC could until 1995/96. The custom PCs the N64 was based on and the Arcade custom chipsets SEGA and others were using were extremely expensive and the 1st true 3D PC game was 1995 Descent so going by that the Psx by 1994 at less than 400 was a good machine. Its just that technology was evolving so fast it became obsolete very soon.
 
Either way, the N64 did not introduce analog controls to console gaming, thus it was not their innovation. Which is the actual point.
Technically it wasnt analogue and technically wasnt the first one. But it was the one to go mainstream first and most important it came with actual games that made use of it to its full 3D capabilities unlike Segas crappy Xe-1 pad for MegaDrive.
 

TMLT

Member
Hardware wise, probably the N64. But the following generations of gaming followed more in the footsteps of the PS1 in terms of more cinematic/story driven kinda games targeted towards a more mature audience than prior generations.
 

Sosokrates

Founder of western console warring.
Well no console or even PC could until 1995/96. The custom PCs the N64 was based on and the Arcade custom chipsets SEGA and others were using were extremely expensive and the 1st true 3D PC game was 1995 Descent so going by that the Psx by 1994 at less than 400 was a good machine. Its just that technology was evolving so fast it became obsolete very soon.

Its funny that some people think an explanation somehow changes things.
I get fat from eating to many burgers, I still dont like being fat.
 

EDMIX

Member
Yeah ive read it had great audio capabilities

Revolutionary. Matched up with the CD able to hold more data, they are able to have voice over stuff like you saw in Metal Gear Solid 1, being able to do this literally is a standard thing in gaming with voice acting, cut scenes, large games etc I'd argue PS1 is the start of modern gaming as we know it as the concept holds today, not much with N64 tech wise continued compared to PS1.

So if we are to say which was more innovated, PS1's concepts are modern gaming right now... I'd say Sony and MS simply did better jobs moving the industry forwards after a certain point compared to Nintendo, now they seem to be more into what helps them solely vs the whole industry. What Sony and MS do now, legit becomes industry standard, but we simply can't say that about Nintendo today, I'd argue we could have said that about NES, SNES etc.

Once PS1 dethrones Nintendo as industry leader, it basically continues with Sony and MS deciding what will be staple, standard etc. Thats not even to take anything away from what they did right with N64 btw, they simply missed the mark and seem to be tone deaf to what developers were asking for at the time as to how they even lost out on FFVII. A game called FFVII could be made on any system, but how we know FFVII to be TODAY could have only been done on PS1 in terms of consoles, it simply doesn't exist the same way, same functions etc.
 
Its funny that some people think an explanation somehow changes things.
I get fat from eating to many burgers, I still dont like being fat.
If you bothered to read the thread you would ve realized im actually in the N64 camp all the way. I was trying to offer an explanation as to why Psx had such crappy 3D. And why it wasnt because Sony were incompetent bufoons. Basically everything except the very high end stuff had crappy graphics back then.
 

Sosokrates

Founder of western console warring.
If you bothered to read the thread you would ve realized im actually in the N64 camp all the way. I was trying to offer an explanation as to why Psx had such crappy 3D. And why it wasnt because Sony were incompetent bufoons. Basically everything except the very high end stuff had crappy graphics back then.
Thank you but I already knew this. Thanks anyway
 
Last edited:
Revolutionary. Matched up with the CD able to hold more data, they are able to have voice over stuff like you saw in Metal Gear Solid 1, being able to do this literally is a standard thing in gaming with voice acting, cut scenes, large games etc I'd argue PS1 is the start of modern gaming as we know it as the concept holds today, not much with N64 tech wise continued compared to PS1.

So if we are to say which was more innovated, PS1's concepts are modern gaming right now... I'd say Sony and MS simply did better jobs moving the industry forwards after a certain point compared to Nintendo, now they seem to be more into what helps them solely vs the whole industry. What Sony and MS do now, legit becomes industry standard, but we simply can't say that about Nintendo today, I'd argue we could have said that about NES, SNES etc.

Once PS1 dethrones Nintendo as industry leader, it basically continues with Sony and MS deciding what will be staple, standard etc. Thats not even to take anything away from what they did right with N64 btw, they simply missed the mark and seem to be tone deaf to what developers were asking for at the time as to how they even lost out on FFVII. A game called FFVII could be made on any system, but how we know FFVII to be TODAY could have only been done on PS1 in terms of consoles, it simply doesn't exist the same way, same functions etc.
Nice textwall there buddy. To bad none of what you say is even remotely true. Do you ever bother informing yourself a bit before going on these rants? Ot
 

EDMIX

Member
Nice textwall there buddy. To bad none of what you say is even remotely true. Do you ever bother informing yourself a bit before going on these rants? Ot

? relax buddy, don't burst a blood vessel. Who is more innovated is simply an opinion on how we feel that generation played out.. Smh you too triggered, emotion and immature to discuss anything, going off topic to attack users that disagree?

Added to ignore.
 

marquimvfs

Member
In my opinion, N64 was more innovative between the two. I get that basically any feature that appeared in those consoles, including rumble, were already used in other consoles and arcades. But, to some extent, if Nintendo didn't managed to include them in N64, maybe it could take some time for us to see them in the mainstream market.
 
? relax buddy, don't burst a blood vessel. Who is more innovated is simply an opinion on how we feel that generation played out.. Smh you too triggered, emotion and immature to discuss anything, going off topic to attack users that disagree?

Added to ignore.
Lol youre a funny man and not in a good way im afraid
 

IDKFA

Member
PlayStation.

It had games on a disc for a start. Something that Nintendo didn't originally believe in, but they were soon proved wrong and their next console was disc based.

PlayStation brought gaming into the mainstream. Before the PlayStation, video games were still seen as kids toys or hobbies for absolute nerds. People playing wipeout in nightclubs while rushing their tits off on ecstasy. That's how much the PlayStation changed the gaming landscape.

People talk about the N64 analogue stick, but it was just the one stick. The PS1 topped that with the original Duelshock controller that had two analogue sticks. It redefined console gaming and set the standard for game controllers.

I loved the N64. It had some of the best games ever made grace it's platform, but the PlayStation was clearly the more innovative console.
 

EDMIX

Member
PlayStation.

It had games on a disc for a start. Something that Nintendo didn't originally believe in, but they were soon proved wrong and their next console was disc based.

PlayStation brought gaming into the mainstream. Before the PlayStation, video games were still seen as kids toys or hobbies for absolute nerds. People playing wipeout in nightclubs while rushing their tits off on ecstasy. That's how much the PlayStation changed the gaming landscape.

People talk about the N64 analogue stick, but it was just the one stick. The PS1 topped that with the original Duelshock controller that had two analogue sticks. It redefined console gaming and set the standard for game controllers.

I loved the N64. It had some of the best games ever made grace it's platform, but the PlayStation was clearly the more innovative console.

Pretty much. Lots of what N64 did, simply didn't carry on compared to PS1.

Disc based gaming allowing for more data, voice acting, dual joysticks etc, they are now standard in gaming. Most of what N64 did couldn't even carry over to the Gamecube and they end up using disk, dual joysticks etc as they need to work off of what Sony PROVED worked.

Going forward Sony and MS became industry leaders and Nintendo was left to follow.

Struggling to make a standard controller, struggling to make a standard online....well anything, can't make a format that sticks, they seem to be in this odd place of fighting to get anything to really be standard. So I'd say Sony and MS do great jobs in getting TRUST behind their designs, online, dual joysticks, disk, they are not just gimmicks to those companies, they are new ways for gaming going forward and in order to get the community to trust this, they need to trust those ideas themselves. Nintendo simply didn't do that with N64 and I think that back and forth is what ultimately had those 3rd parties and most of the hardcore community move on to PS and XB. They know for sure those systems can carry on those ideas long term to have establish IP build real homes on those platforms vs ok we are using disk, ok we are not, ok we have dual joysticks, ok we have waggle now, ok we have a tablet feature now....no one is fucking buying that shit long term to really build a install base. That might work to sell gimmicks for Nintendo, it doesn't work with the massive gaming community or developers looking to establish those IP. Stabilizing and making those concepts standard might be an innovation all together. Its hard to build trust when the company is going back and forth on formats, controls every 5 fucking seconds.
 

fart town usa

Gold Member
Pretty much. Lots of what N64 did, simply didn't carry on compared to PS1.

Disc based gaming allowing for more data, voice acting, dual joysticks etc, they are now standard in gaming. Most of what N64 did couldn't even carry over to the Gamecube and they end up using disk, dual joysticks etc as they need to work off of what Sony PROVED worked.

Going forward Sony and MS became industry leaders and Nintendo was left to follow.

Struggling to make a standard controller, struggling to make a standard online....well anything, can't make a format that sticks, they seem to be in this odd place of fighting to get anything to really be standard. So I'd say Sony and MS do great jobs in getting TRUST behind their designs, online, dual joysticks, disk, they are not just gimmicks to those companies, they are new ways for gaming going forward and in order to get the community to trust this, they need to trust those ideas themselves. Nintendo simply didn't do that with N64 and I think that back and forth is what ultimately had those 3rd parties and most of the hardcore community move on to PS and XB. They know for sure those systems can carry on those ideas long term to have establish IP build real homes on those platforms vs ok we are using disk, ok we are not, ok we have dual joysticks, ok we have waggle now, ok we have a tablet feature now....no one is fucking buying that shit long term to really build a install base. That might work to sell gimmicks for Nintendo, it doesn't work with the massive gaming community or developers looking to establish those IP. Stabilizing and making those concepts standard might be an innovation all together. Its hard to build trust when the company is going back and forth on formats, controls every 5 fucking seconds.
Right.

The N64 was innovative but only for a few years. Biggest thing to me with the N64 is the analog stick and 4 controller ports. Rumble is a moot point, and that applies to any console. We'd be just fine without it, it's not a game changer IMO.

Lots of people get hyper defensive when it comes to certain Nintendo consoles. So let me say this so everyone can hear, The N64 is an absolute turd to play in 2021 whereas the PSX has dozens upon dozens of games still worth playing.

And let's be honest, the level of story-telling capable in PSX titles trumped Mario having analog controls or Star Fox coming with a rumble pak. PSX changed console gaming forever in a really positive way.
 
Last edited:

TLZ

Member
This Psx fanboys are as funny today as they were in 1998. For a console that couldnt even do 3D graphics they sure are passionate lol.

"the level of story-telling capable in PSX titles" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
CD Rom being an innovation in 1994!

These people are an endless stream of entertainment
You're not helping with these types of posts.

IFireflyl IFireflyl
Isn't it the 3DO that came out with the better CD audio sound quality first?

I don't know who came out with CD audio first though, Sega CD or PC FX. But I'm not sure how good their sound quality were.
 

fart town usa

Gold Member
This Psx fanboys are as funny today as they were in 1998. For a console that couldnt even do 3D graphics they sure are passionate lol.

"the level of story-telling capable in PSX titles" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
CD Rom being an innovation in 1994!

These people are an endless stream of entertainment
My first post on this earlier in the thread, I pointed out I was a total Nintendo fanboy when the N64 released. I didn't get a PSX until 1998 and when I got a PSX, I knew I had been missing out. Also, we're talking about home consoles, not PC games. PSX brought a level of storytelling to the masses like we'd never seen before in home console videogames. Hell, SNES did storytelling better than the N64 and the best storyteller, Square, became a flagship developer for PSX. What did N64 get, fuckin' Quest 64, lmao.

It is what it is dog, the N64 has some great titles that are still worth playing but the PSX leaves it in the dust. An analog controller that degraded by simply using it and a rumble pak are a fart in the wind compared to what the PSX did.
 
Last edited:
My first post on this earlier in the thread, I pointed out I was a total Nintendo fanboy when the N64 released. I didn't get a PSX until 1998 and when I got a PSX, I knew I had been missing out. Also, we're talking about home consoles, not PC games. PSX brought a level of storytelling to the masses like we'd never seen before in home console videogames. Hell, SNES did storytelling better than the N64 and the best storyteller, Square, became a flagship developer for PSX. What did N64 get, fuckin' Quest 64, lmao.

It is what it is dog, the N64 has some great titles that are still worth playing but the PSX leaves it in the dust. An analog controller that degraded by simply using it and a rumble pak are a fart in the wind compared to what the PSX did.
Shit, I still have Quest 64. It's truly a game worthy of FART TOWN USA. The sad thing is, that's the ONLY game I have left for the system. I use it to test N64s that I get.
 

IDKFA

Member
This Psx fanboys are as funny today as they were in 1998. For a console that couldnt even do 3D graphics they sure are passionate lol.

"the level of story-telling capable in PSX titles" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
CD Rom being an innovation in 1994!

These people are an endless stream of entertainment



I love both consoles, but you can't deny that the PSX was the more innovative out of the two. It completely changed the gaming landscape.
 

Dream-Knife

Member
Right.

The N64 was innovative but only for a few years. Biggest thing to me with the N64 is the analog stick and 4 controller ports. Rumble is a moot point, and that applies to any console. We'd be just fine without it, it's not a game changer IMO.

Lots of people get hyper defensive when it comes to certain Nintendo consoles. So let me say this so everyone can hear, The N64 is an absolute turd to play in 2021 whereas the PSX has dozens upon dozens of games still worth playing.

And let's be honest, the level of story-telling capable in PSX titles trumped Mario having analog controls or Star Fox coming with a rumble pak. PSX changed console gaming forever in a really positive way.
The N64 still looks good on a CRT. PS1 can't even have a stable wall and looks much worse (talking about 3d gaming).

Story games? Yes by virtue of having Square games on the system.

PSX did nothing revolutionary. It just happened to be the cheapest CD console with decent specs at the time of its launch. It was better than Saturn, Jag, and 3do, while being cheaper.

The success of both the PSX and PS2 being the technically inferior consoles is what led Nintendo to copy that attitude with the Wii, while hilariously Sony went the other direction with the PS3.
 

IFireflyl

Member
Isn't it the 3DO that came out with the better CD audio sound quality first?

I don't know who came out with CD audio first though, Sega CD or PC FX. But I'm not sure how good their sound quality were.

Shoot, man. You made me learn something new. The 3DO was a colossal failure, but it still beat out the PSX here. If we're only comparing N64 and PSX then my point that PSX had CD-quality audio is still valid. But Sony was not the first to implement CD-quality audio into a console, so I stand corrected on that. Nice catch!
 
Im just trying to help you be less ignorant. Its not easy tho
I'll take the bait despite your posts lacking in comedic value, entertainment, and you seem to be haunting the N64 topic like you're in some time loop of the war between the PSUX and the glorious and Holy Shigeru Miyamoto?

You state that it's simply the limitations of CRT Television, but N64 games are still blurry despite Playstation games having more jarring graphics that are sharper, but display polygon warping and the jagged "rough" appearance which most people point to as a trademark of the Playstation. However, the N64 has more features like Zbuffering, Anti Alaising built in, and near instant load time. With all of this tech built inside, why is it that most N64 games look like a Vaseline smeared mess? You can't blame the CRT technology of the time or the video cable connections as both were on RF Modulators and AV Cables with Europe having Scart cables. I've seen N64 games not blurry, but those were oftentimes Nintendo's own output. Those games never tried to do realistic textures and were honestly more flat shaded which led to certain artstyles such as Mario 64 or Donkey Kong. However, we had an entire generation trying to push graphics which lead to most N64 games looking like a Vaseline smeared mess while the Playstation had sharper yet more rougher edged games. I would even go to say that the Sega Saturn's quadrilaterals looked better on regular tvs over N64s 3d graphics at the time because they didn't look like blurry messes most of the time, nonwithstanding that the output on both systems was better and filled different niches while N64's overall production is woefully outdated in today's era and not worth playing unless there's memories behind it.
 
I'll take the bait despite your posts lacking in comedic value, entertainment, and you seem to be haunting the N64 topic like you're in some time loop of the war between the PSUX and the glorious and Holy Shigeru Miyamoto?

You state that it's simply the limitations of CRT Television, but N64 games are still blurry despite Playstation games having more jarring graphics that are sharper, but display polygon warping and the jagged "rough" appearance which most people point to as a trademark of the Playstation. However, the N64 has more features like Zbuffering, Anti Alaising built in, and near instant load time. With all of this tech built inside, why is it that most N64 games look like a Vaseline smeared mess? You can't blame the CRT technology of the time or the video cable connections as both were on RF Modulators and AV Cables with Europe having Scart cables. I've seen N64 games not blurry, but those were oftentimes Nintendo's own output. Those games never tried to do realistic textures and were honestly more flat shaded which led to certain artstyles such as Mario 64 or Donkey Kong. However, we had an entire generation trying to push graphics which lead to most N64 games looking like a Vaseline smeared mess while the Playstation had sharper yet more rougher edged games. I would even go to say that the Sega Saturn's quadrilaterals looked better on regular tvs over N64s 3d graphics at the time because they didn't look like blurry messes most of the time, nonwithstanding that the output on both systems was better and filled different niches while N64's overall production is woefully outdated in today's era and not worth playing unless there's memories behind it.
Thats a lot of words to say nothing of worth.
 
You're not helping with these types of posts.

IFireflyl IFireflyl
Isn't it the 3DO that came out with the better CD audio sound quality first?

I don't know who came out with CD audio first though, Sega CD or PC FX. But I'm not sure how good their sound quality were.
TBH PC-Engine CD probably beats them both, that came out a bit earlier than Mega CD and had CD-quality audio IIRC (I mean, it's in the name).

Looks like the rest of this thread turned into a minefield, I'm going back out to the sidelines with my popcorn.
 
TBH PC-Engine CD probably beats them both, that came out a bit earlier than Mega CD and had CD-quality audio IIRC (I mean, it's in the name).

Looks like the rest of this thread turned into a minefield, I'm going back out to the sidelines with my popcorn.
Pc engine and mega cd were add ons unless we count the pc engine duo which was an all in one. The 3do is the first cd rom system released without need for add ons.
 

fart town usa

Gold Member
The N64 still looks good on a CRT. PS1 can't even have a stable wall and looks much worse (talking about 3d gaming).

Story games? Yes by virtue of having Square games on the system.

PSX did nothing revolutionary. It just happened to be the cheapest CD console with decent specs at the time of its launch. It was better than Saturn, Jag, and 3do, while being cheaper.

The success of both the PSX and PS2 being the technically inferior consoles is what led Nintendo to copy that attitude with the Wii, while hilariously Sony went the other direction with the PS3.
Sorry but lots to disagree with here.

The GCN "failing" was why Nintendo went the Wii route, had nothing to do with Sony. PSX games look fantastic on a CRT w/ S-Video, same thing applies to Saturn, N64 and other retro consoles. Storytelling was more than just Square. Capcom (RE), Konami (MGS), friggin' 989 Studios even with Syphon Filter.

N64 had better wrestling games and multiplayer games. That's about it. And good luck playing any of those carts with having batteries that aren't dead. You can order a new PSX memory card off Amazon for a few bucks.

The N64 will always hold a special place in my heart, I own one still. But the few things it did that wowed people at the time pale in comparison to the ingenuity with console gaming that the PSX ushered onto the masses.

IT"S GETTING HOT IN HERE BOYS, HOW LONG UNTIL THE MODS SHUT THIS MOTHER DOWN.
shooting old west GIF by GritTV
 

Dream-Knife

Member
Sorry but lots to disagree with here.

The GCN "failing" was why Nintendo went the Wii route, had nothing to do with Sony. PSX games look fantastic on a CRT w/ S-Video, same thing applies to Saturn, N64 and other retro consoles. Storytelling was more than just Square. Capcom (RE), Konami (MGS), friggin' 989 Studios even with Syphon Filter.

N64 had better wrestling games and multiplayer games. That's about it. And good luck playing any of those carts with having batteries that aren't dead. You can order a new PSX memory card off Amazon for a few bucks.

The N64 will always hold a special place in my heart, I own one still. But the few things it did that wowed people at the time pale in comparison to the ingenuity with console gaming that the PSX ushered onto the masses.

IT"S GETTING HOT IN HERE BOYS, HOW LONG UNTIL THE MODS SHUT THIS MOTHER DOWN.
shooting old west GIF by GritTV
Nintendo viewed loosing despite having a more powerful system with both the N64 and GC as a reason to not bother with the power race.

PSX looks acceptable on a CRT, but still looks pretty bad due to pixelation and texture warping.

I forgot about RE. Just finished that last week. Was good, but minimal story and the story was so bad it was good. I enjoyed the game, but viewed it as a parody of 80s cheap horror films.

I played MGS1 on PC. Couldn't get into Syphon Filter.

N64 had the Zelda games, Mario 64, the best console FPS's at the time (Goldeneye, Turok, Perfect Dark, Rainbow Six), F-Zero X, etc. But this thread isn't about libraries.

Few N64 games used batteries. The batteries on my NES games still work FWIW.

PSX just had a ton of third party support at a pivotal moment in gaming.
 

GarlicPrawn

Neo Member
A bit off-topic regarding innovativeness and dont know if it has been mentioned before, but the PS1, as far as I know, was the only one of the two that was hacked. You could basically buy the console, have a chip soldered on for fairly cheap and buy games for 10 euros from anyone who could copy them. This might have made the PS1 even more mainstream.
 

TLZ

Member
Nintendo viewed loosing despite having a more powerful system with both the N64 and GC as a reason to not bother with the power race.
I believe personally Nintendo shot themselves in the foot with the wrong decisions on both N64 (convoluted controller, carts limited to very small storage, carts pricing) and GC (smaller discs again insisting on smaller storage, can't be used as a media player was such a shame at a time media players were a thing). It's not the power that's the problem.
 

IFireflyl

Member
Dont forget about bribing. Their bribes to 3rd parties were the best ever.

Sorry man, but everything you say screams, "I'm a Nintendo shill!" Literally every time you mention Playstation/Sony it is to mock or lambast them. It is extremely apparent that you have zero objectivity in this thread.
 
Top Bottom