How can anyone claim N64 games looked good, even for their time...

Because most N64 games, like the one you posted, look fine aside from shitty textures.

Less textures=more imagination

Aside from better character models and facial animations, I don't know how anyone thought HL2 looked great especially since it came out *after* Doom 3 which had normal maps on every god damn material in the game. Some areas of HL2 looked so flat in comparison.

Ever heard of the term wabi sabi? It means things that have aged imperfectly and are worn are beautiful things that should be treasured. Also these are still some killer graphics. It looks better than 90% of indie games and over half of all the bland AAA shooters on the market, and all of Nintendo's pseudo-good graphic games that look like they were doused in oil. Rare was truly ahead of their times.

Attached: screen_ConkersBadFurDay-02.jpg (640x480, 38K)

This is the correct answer

It looked good then due to standards not being lowered.. but shattered and redefined by the first 3d Mario game..

It gets good when you start exploring the other parallel universes, or PU's as i like to call them

PS1 was always better.

N64 using atmospheric perspective to put less strain on the cpu while still adding a sense of realism.

It's amazing how they squeezed as much power out of the systems at the time.

Pic related, they used an even lower poly model for when the camera is pulled far away.

Attached: C6jghZUWYAAt8mM.jpg (1200x665, 120K)

There were plenty of early 3D shit that looked better than most N64 games.

it looks nice and has a nice feel, it objectively sucks but it looks really good for the low poly and maybe you're just someone who can't appreciate that kind of look.

It's like playing with papercraft.

Play tearaway. Its minimalism with better lighting.

>You had to be there.
Nah. I started gaming with the NES and didn't like the 5th gen at all. I thought all that early 3D stuff was jank, and ugly.

Attached: 1513783708460.jpg (500x375, 29K)

For mario 64 in particular it's because it ran well and looked good without ridiculous tricks like Spyro's levels full of fucking nothing or Crash's 2.5d gameplay

If you are talking about the ps1, most of it was garbage.

That's because you grew up with the ps1. N64 graphics aged way better.

Attached: final-fantasy-vii-real-cloud.png (633x446, 305K)

No you weren’t.

I had both.

>thinking Mario 64 looked or played better than Spyro
Now that's what I call delusional

Ff8 and 9 looked miles better.

I grew up in Nintendo and didnt play psone titles until recently(27). A lot of them look good when they put aesthetic first.

You guys just dont know how to enjoy things for what they are.

literal truck dragon running around flat open nothing areas, with ridiculous, wide open innacurate spreadshot fire attacks to hide how shitty the d-pad controls are

there's a reason modern 3D platformers go for the Banjo/64 style instead of a Spyro style

Low-poly stands out and became its own style that will continue to have its uses in the future just like pixel art has.

Low-poly may have been bred from limitation but it should be set free from the mindset that it's inferior for being old and is instead an artistic choice that offers a different feeling.

Attached: olimarcoffe.png (300x300, 53K)

Most kids didn't care about "muh graphics". Neighbor had n64 and i had ps1. Good times when it comes to video games. Obviously n64 was better for multiplayer because 4 port.

This still looks more real than prevAILSanything from BoTW. The color textures are so earthy, and the why they dealt with object distance back then made everything truly look organic. Anyone saying the n64 wasn't peak soul is lying.

Attached: 66543-Zelda_Ocarina_of_Time_Multi_Pack-3.jpg (447x330, 27K)

Sorry had some autocorrect hiccups

To be fair though, those normal maps made a lot of stuff look like it was covered in oil, and with the added normal maps, texture resolutions overall took a hit compared to other games of the time.

That lighting can't be beat though. Those stencil shadows of the time were pure sex.

I was though, I grew up with the PS1 but N64 games look like unfinished programmer art concepts to me
>no unified artstyle
>extremely low poly
>blurry textures
>strewn with generic looking stock assets
>distance fog
>arbitrary level and character design
>etc
I guess you could say they were still establishing the 3D style but the SNES games already looked good and unified, meanwhile PS1 games like Spyro and Crash managed to be charming and unique and consistent on their first try

Mega Man Legends feels like it's a whole new gen compared to Mario 64

Attached: braid.jpg (960x1080, 441K)

video memory on the N64 made it certain that eveyr game looks like smeared dogshit

Most of everything is garbage, but the best of PS1 blows out the best of N64 10 out of 10 times, when it comes to visuals

Snes was built off the knowledge of pixel art from the nes.

Image you provided is lowpoly that isn't fleshed out.

Play any 2.5d platformer on the PSP then come back, or klanoa(psone).

What do you think all of indie games going for a lowpoly art style? Like Paratopic, Petscop, etc. Seems like PS1 is the most popular style to emulate.

Actual n64 doesn't look like that. The alpha transparency in the textures isn't fucked up like in that screenshot, and you can't really see aliasing on polygons on actual hardware, especially when viewing it on a 240p crt like everybody had in those days.

Muh realism fags got to have video games and art do all the work.

Attached: lego-imagination-ad-2.jpg (612x832, 22K)

Here's what the game really looked like back then for all of you zoomers who don't know.

Attached: sm64.jpg (1804x1432, 2.58M)

My tube TV's phosphor strips weren't that even. Was more like a weird vertically stretched honeycomb pattern.