Why did the ps1 suffer from weird video jaggies?

That question has always been in my mind for a while, Why does the ps1 have weird jaggies while the n64 had solid 3d graphics? is it due to the so called "z-fighting"?

 

It's simple really.. The PS (and even PS2) lacked anti-aliasing and because of the low resolution (often half that of TV's) and lack of texture filtering the edges appeared jagged aka the ladder effect. It was also evident in N64 but because it outputs a 'cleaner' filtered image the edges appeared to be smoother and the objects more solid. The Dreamcast had FSAA in hardware but I don't think any graphically-intensive titles ever used it because of the performance hit that entails.

 

See also: bilinear filtering.

 

see also, perspective correction and z-buffering

 

All of the above!

 

Resolution was the biggest problem. It was great for it's time, but the amount of video ram and the fill rate were too low. The System 12 arcade hardware was better, more ram & video ram & a higher clock speed. But of course retail units were stuck with 1994 specification.

Back in 1994 Sony built a console that was easy to program and they could make a profit when they sold a console. Pity they forgot about that.

 

Yah, N64 just had graphics hardware almost a generation ahead of PS1. N64 had mip mapping(using multiple representations of a texture at different sizes), z-buffering(So polys that are hidden(full or in part) aren't rendered), linear filtering so textures close to you don't look blocky, just blurry, fog effects, environment mapping (Used to create metal mario in Mario 64). Lovely bit of kit N64 for 1996. N64 is a like a baby 1996 Silicon Graphics workstation.

When I got my N64 I just thought "F*** Saturn and PS1 for 3D Graphics". It's horrific to think there was a time when people didn't have linear filtering or zbuffering, basic stuff like this makes my life so much easier. Without zbuffering you have to sort your polys into a list to make sure they're rendered correctly. Nasty. And they still don't look right.

If you want a comparison check out Rayman 2 on PS1, N64 and Dreamcast. Dreamcast looks the best of course, N64 version looks very comparable to the Dreamcast version, especially in highres, PS1 version looks like shit. I have the PS1 version. It's 'orrible.

Back in 1995 Nintendo made the world's most advanced video game console. Pity they forgot about that.

 

the point is that mainly the N64 is played and outputted in NON-RGB form, and that give a fake feeling of smoothness on CRT tvs.

 

I had to laugh. The N64 was crippled by the features you mention. Z-buffering almost halved the performance of the CPU alone. Most N64 games created by 3rd parties looked a blurry chunky mess. Nintendo and Rare were the only ones that ever really pushed the machine.

 

Yeah, I wouldn't call the N64's output 'cleaner'... it's like looking through greasy spectacles...

Oh and even though the PS1 was limited, I gotta say their hardware design (having programmed it at register level) was very interesting to say the least.

 

That's true.

Depends on people's definition of 'clean'. I didn't say I prefered the blurred output of the N64 but compared to its 32-bit counterparts it looked 'neater'. Some fps titles like Turok and Doom 64 also looked stunning at the time. True I only had a S3 Virge at the time so Turok didn't look like its N64 counterpart (only 2 megs of VRAM weren't enough to render all textures properly) but from the filtering trickery it looked 'superior' compared to pixelated fps attempts at the time (note the quotation marks).

 

Wasn't Soul Calibur on System 12? And Tekken Tag? I'd have loved PS1 if it had an arcade perfect port of Soul Calibur. It's a shame that the 16-bit generation hadn't held out longer so that Sony would have made a System12-like PS1. Ofcourse I also wish Sony had done something to expand the Video RAM for ports of NeoGeo and CPS2 games.

 

The Sony Playstation hardware was probably used by more companies in unique boards then any other hardware as Taito, Capcom, Konami and Namco all had hardware with the Playstation CPU and GPU, Konami and Namco even pushed the boat out and used funky sound hardware. It also was a long living system starting from System 11 back in 1995 all the way up to System 10 and Bemani hardware to 2004.

When I first saw Ridge Racer back in 1994, my first thought was why are the polygons warping as they come near you and why did it look like it was raining as you drive past a hill.

 

The blurry part... i remember that. Some games were impossible for me to play. The damn blurryness made my eyes hurt.

Still, mipmapping helped a lot on the texture department.

The biggest problem of the PS1 was the video ram. Even with this problem some masterpieces were created on it.

Soul Calibur and Tekken Tag? On the PS1? I think you are asking too much.

Tekken 3 port was already a big challenge for Namco. Still, they created a fantastic game for the PS1. The only drawbacks were the stage backgrounds

 

And thats because, IIRC, the backgrounds in the arcade version were stored on a hard disk, seperate from the rest of the game data. Please correct me if im wrong, but i swear i remember reading that somewhere.

 

Well the PS1 had half the VRAM. But that is what I'm saying, I really wish the System 12 level of hardware had been in the PS1 console. Faster CPU, more memory. And then ofcourse I wish they had a RAM card like the Sega Saturn did for porting NeoGeo and CPS2 games that needed more space for graphics.

 

Yeah but if they would have done that it would have quite possibly been more expensive, or come out a little later ( was the System 12 hardware around or in development when the PS1 first came out? I cant remember right now.). It would have been nice however.

 

Well I believe PS1 came out late 1994, like December in Japan. But it was around September 95 before it came out in the US. Also I don't think it would have hurt too much if initially the PS1 had cost a bit more if they could have had more VRAM and a bit faster clock speed. Or just the faster clock speed and some sort of port/slot for the installation of additional VRAM/RAM. I don't see why they didn't think of that. Surely they could have forseen that memory prices would fall and the ability to add more to the system would greatly increase the capability of the system. It's not like you can change the CPU in a console later, but adding memory definitely would have been doable.

 

Upgrades are universally loathed - by the public, who don't understand the notion; by game retailers who have to explain to the public why they need to spend extra to play certain games; and by game developers who have to decide whether they take advantage of the smaller install base of extra memory and make a better game, or target the wider install base of default memory and be curtailed by the original spec. It's a nightmare for all involved, and while a RAM upgrade hasn't been seen in consoles since the N64, the issue is mirrored today in the HDD situation on the 360. Having a variable spec causes nothing but problems for videogame consoles.

I think you're also underestimating the impact of the "$299" price announcement for the PSX at launch. It was a decisive move in combating the Sega Saturn.

 

http://www.eidolons-inn.net/tiki-index.php?page=SegaBase%20Saturn

The Scribe chronicled the downfall of Sega in this interesting article. It does get a bit technical but basically Sony were aiming for a mainstream console that's relatively easy to program for and cost-effective. It's only with the PS2 that Sony started taking real risks (which IMHO didn't really pay off for us gamers―Jaggies in PS2 games and an expensive BD drive that most games don't take advantage of).