>puts a shit ton of spikes in the water>all races always have four racers but if you get fourth place you have to retireHm.
Its another overhyped N64 game, ruined by the abysmal framerate. It would have been another good title but nothing special if it was on the PS1.
>puts ramps in race>Actually going on the ramps and doing air jumps is massively slower than just riding past them
>>7967681I have never known or cared that the game was 20fps until I read your post, got confused about someone saying the FPS is bad and had to Google it. Never even knew it was 20.
Isn't it great?I wish we had a course creator. Imagine the crazy shit you could make.
>>7967761>>7967781That shit loops choppy even to me, and I'm used to playing PAL Gran Turismo 2 at 25 FPS.
>>7967612>>7967742Samefag, Blue Fortress and that shitty City course one is filtering me enough to quit and sell the cart I got for $3
>>7967681Agreed, except the framerate is fine. It was the 90s man.
>>7967681The PS1 wouldn't even be able to run this game.
>>7969160You can run everything on anything with the right adjustments, the thing is that PS1 japanese devs would have never made a racing game that runs this slow, it runs the way it does because N64 standards for framerates were non-existent.
>>7969198>You can run everything on anything with the right adjustmentsYes, it's called a shitty port. The PS1 would explode just trying to run the Water physics -which is the most important part of the game.
>>7969223There's nothing shittier than a game that runs slow, PS1 racers run lightning fast compared to the slop on the Ninty console, excluding F-Zero X but that game also looks like complete ass.
>>7969229But that's the thing, those games are running slower because they're way more complex than than the PS1 games. F-Zero was stripped back graphically because performance and the amount of cars on the track were priority. Back in the 90s this shit was impressive. Same with Pilot wings and its physics engine. There's nothing like that on the PS1. High frame rates were achievable because on PS1 because was doing a whole lot less under the hood. Its like saying Thunder Force III is more impressive on the Mega Drive than Star Fox because its running at 60fps.
>>7969234First i don't see where the complexity is in a racing game with just 4 vehicles in a race, second i don't see how whatever its simulating graphically or mechanically is more complex than a game like Wipeout or even Gran Turismo, third whatever the N64 could do the PS1 did and often better, fourth Thunderforce is indeed more impressive as a game than Star Fox since it pushed the Mega Drive hardware pretty far while keeping great playability, meanwhile SF is a unplayable mess that even at the time looked like complete shit, fifth what slowed down the games were the detailed meshes, often paired with a lack of tight rendering distance limiters, that's what killed their framerates.
>>7969291I've already mentioned it, the Water physics were the most important part of the game, aka the Physics Engine. Back in the day when 3D was new, this type of stuff was really impressive even running at 20FPS. 16:39https://youtu.be/V4MMlKhJfGIDespite Thunderforce's awesomeness, it wasn't exactly mind-blowing back then as seeing something like Star Fox. For the same reason as Wave Race, Star Fox was equally impressive when it came out. Its doing a lot more than Thunderforce under the hood, the SFX chip alone is just running the maths. I dont think you'd find many people who were not impressed by that game in 1993.
>>7969229That's why snowboard kids' port for the ps1 runs slower, and looks worse.
>>7967781>>7969160>>7969223>>7969327Is this enough proof that PS1 could handle wave race 64? I've never played it so can't comment on its physics but the Coco Bandicoot levels had great physics as well. https://youtu.be/yQHdY_wMNschttps://youtu.be/45k5-c2LXdg
>>7969223>PS1 would explode just trying to run the Water physicsLike in Crash 3 and the Moto Racer series?Faggot.