Posted April 6, 2008 How can you say that a youtube video cant compare graphics, then use a youtube video yourself. If you compare a youtube video of each game, its the same.. Theyre both equal quality... Also you haven't proven anything to me yete, the 'facts' you given me may as well be made up. I never did watch those youtube videos. I played that game once, and I've played plenty of PS1 games, and I don't know about you, but I was a gamer who was actively there back in the day when these consoles were new. I showed you the GT2 clip because it clearly showed both the lack of perspective correction and soft textures. The reason I said that I said that you can't compare youtube videos is because details, like blocky textures and shaking objects are lost. In the video I showed, both those things are clear. That If you haven't noticed that the PS1 lacks that, I have to ask you whether you've actually ever played any PS1 games. These are details that made it easy to differ PS1/Saturn games from N64 games back in the day. Also on the PS2, if you pop in a PS1 game, you can select in the options if you want soft textures to be turned on or of. Do that, and you'll immediatelly understand the difference. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 6, 2008 I never did watch those youtube videos. I played that game once, and I've played plenty of PS1 games, and I don't know about you, but I was a gamer who was actively there back in the day when these consoles were new. I showed you the GT2 clip because it clearly showed both the lack of perspective correction and soft textures. The reason I said that I said that you can't compare youtube videos is because details, like blocky textures and shaking objects are lost. In the video I showed, both those things are clear. That If you haven't noticed that the PS1 lacks that, I have to ask you whether you've actually ever played any PS1 games. These are details that made it easy to differ PS1/Saturn games from N64 games back in the day. Also on the PS2, if you pop in a PS1 game, you can select in the options if you want soft textures to be turned on or of. Do that, and you'll immediatelly understand the difference. listen to me here because you are starting to annoy me... we are talking about CRASH TEAM RACING and MARIO KART 64! NOT the ps1 and n64..nobody is disbuting which is the more powerful system..showing us clips of gt2 etc is pointless and irrelevant to this threads discussion.. the fact is that mk64 is 5 years older than ctr and it's no shame that the game would look worse..Obviously if they were released around the same year then the difference would be far in favour of n64. Yes maybe ctr is "techically" graphical inferior due to system limitations and what not but in art style and direction is just looks like the far better game:) To anyone with eyes though ctr has far more track detail it may lack antialiasing which made a lot of ps1 games look jaggy and less clear than n64 games but a lot of other things but honestly ctr didnt suffer from this problem.Naughty dog always took full advantage of the ps1 hardware and here is a perfect and albeit last example. you have vague memories of ctr is sounds like and i don't really trust that..Moogleviper stated that he grew up with the playstion and had played both games in depth so I accept his opinion much more than yours. you "remember" awkward controls? Well.... it's a driving game....There was nothing awkward about the controls,they were simple and effective any reviewer would tell you so. you'd swear you were talking about a mmorpg here. It may have "handled" differently but mario kart 64 dated horribly in that field..They both did but mk64 moreso. You never said ctr was the worse game but you said mario kart was the best:) so therefore you think ctr is worse than it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 6, 2008 I never did watch those youtube videos. I played that game once, and I've played plenty of PS1 games, and I don't know about you, but I was a gamer who was actively there back in the day when these consoles were new. I showed you the GT2 clip because it clearly showed both the lack of perspective correction and soft textures. The reason I said that I said that you can't compare youtube videos is because details, like blocky textures and shaking objects are lost. In the video I showed, both those things are clear. That If you haven't noticed that the PS1 lacks that, I have to ask you whether you've actually ever played any PS1 games. These are details that made it easy to differ PS1/Saturn games from N64 games back in the day. Also on the PS2, if you pop in a PS1 game, you can select in the options if you want soft textures to be turned on or of. Do that, and you'll immediatelly understand the difference. listen to me here because you are starting to annoy me... we are talking about CRASH TEAM RACING and MARIO KART 64! NOT the ps1 and n64..nobody is disbuting which is the more powerful system..showing us clips of gt2 etc is pointless and irrelevant to this threads discussion.. the fact is that mk64 is 5 years older than ctr and it's no shame that the game would look worse..Obviously if they were released around the same year then the difference would be far in favour of n64. Yes maybe ctr is "techically" graphical inferior due to system limitations and what not but in art style and direction is just looks like the far better game:) To anyone with eyes though ctr has far more track detail it may lack antialiasing which made a lot of ps1 games look jaggy and less clear than n64 games but a lot of other things but honestly ctr didnt suffer from this problem.Naughty dog always took full advantage of the ps1 hardware and here is a perfect and albeit last example. you have vague memories of ctr is sounds like and i don't really trust that..Moogleviper stated that he grew up with the playstion and had played both games in depth so I accept his opinion much more than yours. you "remember" awkward controls? Well.... it's a driving game....There was nothing awkward about the controls,they were simple and effective any reviewer would tell you so. you'd swear you were talking about a mmorpg here. It may have "handled" differently but mario kart 64 dated horribly in that field..They both did but mk64 moreso. You never said ctr was the worse game but you said mario kart was the best:) so therefore you think ctr is worse than it. Like metroid said, its not other gameswere comparing. Its CTR and MK64... I loved CTR a lot more, this was because of the great controlls and the superb handeling IMO.. Things look better also in my oppinion, played better, and ill always stand by my views even if 5000000000 university students who think they know everything argued with me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 7, 2008 Oh my God! I wasn't the only one that loved CTR!!!! I kind of know Mario will win, which sort of contributed to my decision, but I also think I genuinely prefered playing with rockets and bombs! Never forget the priceless memory of the last boss (I can't believe I forget his name, I'm such a noob! He was a dragon of some sort...) cheating by jumping the gun at the start. Why oh why did I give that game to my younger cousin??? He won't appreciate it! I DESERVE IT!!!!!! You're thinking of Diddy Kong Racing, the best of the lot In the end ctr is unquestionably far far better than mario 64..And my posts scream fanboyism. Fixed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 7, 2008 Fixed. (note im a fanboyism for what you idiot? and lol i love one game and i'm a fanboy? Look up fanboy I have metroid in my username in case you accusing me of being a sony fanboy. Not my fault you got your head up your arse to have better taste in games. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 14, 2008 The whole "opinion" thing's rubbish, the tracks on CTR are just way more interesting and twisty etc etc. And MK64 certainly isnt polished...The red shells don't even do what they're supposed to most of the time. I do however prefer a blue shell that can hit anyone as it goes forward... I do like the way no-ones argued against my skill argument (or the better boosting thing); CTR is far more fair to people that are actually good at it, instead of simply giving everyone Blue Shells etc. Many shortcuts take skill to do aswell, and there are far more (and more intereting ones), instead of a simple Mushroom Boost to cut off one little corner. Also.....it's a nice little note to have that the "trick" system on Mario Kart is rather similar to the 2nd boost system on CTR I can understand comparing the later Mario Karts to CTR, but 64 just does compare when it comes to fair factor. I think this thread has shown what's wrong with gamers today though...Just enjoy the games, they're supposed to be for fun. "Poomp" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 14, 2008 Despite the multiplayer issues on MK64, it is my favorite game. DKR is a close second with a very nice story/adventure single player mode (Multiplayer too if you knew the magic code). I only played CTR once so it's going to be my distant third. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 23, 2008 I would have to say CTR - Mario Kart 64 was probably the worst MK in the series, to be honest. It seemed to be lacking wow at the time for me...the music, visuals, overall racing - all the more recent versions seem to have injected a breath of life into it that wasn't present for me before. CTR though - loved it, loved it loved it. Bloody great game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 24, 2008 Usually I understand someone's opinion, whether it not be in agreement with my own, but CTR is better than MK64. The courses were pretty much twice as big as the 64 ones and there was a lot more going on, seperate paths and shortcuts, more boosts and obstacles. After looking at that 64 video from youtube i now realise it is so poor. That's meant to be it's signature track, yet nothing really happens in it apart from a glitch and some dodgy looking drifting. The boosting in CTR was quality because you could do it as little/ as much as you wanted. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
