View Full Version : Biggest success as a console?
In the line of the failure thread, which is the biggest success, both handheld and home?
Would it be the NES/Famicom for rebooting the video game industry and making Nintendo a household name? The GameBoy for starting Nintendo's dominance in the handheld market and carrying them through the tough times when Sony was around? The PS1 for setting up Sony as a dominant player in the console arena, or the PS2 for being the most sold console in current history?
NayusDante
06-20-2010, 11:56 PM
I think that the biggest success must be measured in raw sales and profitability. A huge innovation does nothing without sales. I would love to say the NES for its industry impact and legacy, but the sales don't support it enough in the face of the others.
The PSX is a great console, but it was only "preaching to the choir." The PS2 opened the door to a true mass market. Its sustained growth over a decade is certainly worth noting, and whether the Wii can surpass it is still unknown. I see the PS2 as the BetaMax of gaming, with consoles before it being akin to film and other early home video formats. I see the Wii as VHS, but how long before DVD replaces it?
As for handhelds, the DS wins with 128.89 million units shipped, over the 118 million Game Boys and 89 Million GBAs. However, the iPhone is quickly driving toward these numbers.
I don't accept those sale splits. DSi is to DS as GBA is to GB. If all DSi sales are included in the DS, then GBA sales should be included with the GB, in which case you're talking 200 Million GameBoys.
Arkhan
06-21-2010, 12:25 AM
The PCE CD is a massive success to me as it paved the way for CD based consoles that weren't retarded.
It didn't do so hot in the states, but it (and the PCE itself) tore through Japan :D
Also the PS2, as it has had probably the best run of any console.
It has been out over 10 years now and has still gotten new titles just this year.
However, the iPhone is quickly driving toward these numbers.
Whooop deee dooo. It isn't a console.
You do realize many people buy the iPhone for the OTHER things it does, like checking email / internet stuff, and yknow, being a PHONE.
NayusDante
06-21-2010, 12:34 AM
GBA is a completely different architecture to GB. DSi is the difference between GB and GBC, but that's a stretch.
You can't lump an original architecture from 2000 in with one from 1990 that had seen several revisions.
Hmm, you're right. GBC has 2x the CPU clock and 4x the RAM of the GB, same as the DSi to DS.
Still, I'd rather see the sales split up between GB and GBC and DS and DSi as well.
I mean putting the PS1 and PSone together and the PS2 and PS2 Slim together makes sense, they're just repackaging of the same internal hardware and play the same games, but the GB and GBC are significantly different.
Gavica
06-21-2010, 12:47 AM
nes
/end thread
Whooop deee dooo. It isn't a console.
Apple's been marketing it as such since the 3G, and the iPod touch 2G even moreso as a game system. Their largest App store category is games, and the Gyroscope included in the iPhone 4 is specifically for gaming purposes. Not to mention, with the internet, online gaming is a key component of a game system, so having phone integration makes perfect sense. If you want to look at straight up game sales, look at the iPod touch, not everyone gets one as a gaming system either, but a lot more people get an iPod touch for gaming than the iPhone.
You do realize many people buy the iPhone for the OTHER things it does, like checking email / internet stuff, and yknow, being a PHONE.
It sucks pretty bad as a phone, and is mediocre as a PDA, gaming is its strongest point. And, it has such a massive game library that it has more good games than the PSP has including crappy games.
There's also a lot of people who buy it for gaming but won't admit it. If you've got an iPhone it doesn't necessarily look like you're playing games. You could be typing on an app, or browsing the net if someone isn't looking over your shoulder, so among adults in certain circles it's more acceptable. That's an area the Zodiac 2 failed in - it was supposed to go for business people but the problem was it clearly looked like a game device (something the Casio E-100 - E-125 also worked for, as it had a good layout for emulation but still was obviously a PDA and gaming wasn't imediately obvious).
TheClash603
06-21-2010, 12:58 AM
Gameboy has to be the winner here.
Though the DS sold more, it was solely based on Nintendo already being known as THE best in handhelds, which is all because of the Gameboy,
I like the Genesis for taking on the SNES and winning at times, and the Atari 2600 for starting the console revolution; but these are obviously smaller success stories that don't add up to the huge numbers generated by Gameboy,
I think the interesting thing with the Genesis is they're still able to ride it, as you can see with PlaySega. Obviously that's not anywhere near the success that Nintendo has had, but unlike Atari with the 2600, Sega has a lasting legacy from the Genesis.
Doonzmore
06-21-2010, 01:02 AM
PS2: Ten year anniversary coming up and still 10 games or so on the release docket. Led the market against Xbox, Gamecube and Dreamcast and still hung in there after more powerful consoles were released.
Nes: Revitalized the gaming industry and had a 8-9 year run in NA.
Anything with the name Game Boy attached. Two reasons, TETRIS and POKEMON.
Wii: Sales are phenomenal and its reaching a whole new audiences. I hear a lot older people express there love for it and will only play interactive games for it. Brilliant stroke for Nintendo.
I'm really not so sure about Tetris being a big deal as it's made out to be. Yes it was a great game, but when the GameBoy launched the only game I cared about was Super Mario Land.
Pokemon's a clear cut winner for the GBC though, and I don't think the GBA had anything like that.
pepharytheworm
06-21-2010, 01:56 AM
I know its not a console but I would like to add the Commodore 64. Best selling, longest running personal computer 1982-1994.
Besides that PS2 is the most succsessful selling console. Where I would give the NES the most successful period, I have a feeling it far surpassed expectations of the time, sells aren't the only measure of success.
Yeah, I was thinking about the Commodore 64 as well, the first home system I played a game on was a C64. I actually played on a Lynx before a GameBoy, so there's a bit of nostalgia for me there too.
When comparing sales it's always difficult because as time goes on there are more people. It used to be one TV in a household, now it's up to 1 TV per room in some places, and people are buying multiples of the same console. I doubt in the NES days you'd have a household with two NESes, but I've got two PS2s sitting beside me right now and I've heard of more than a few people with multiple Xbox 360s and PS3s.
Oldskool
06-21-2010, 03:29 AM
Without a doubt it's got to be the PS2.
A Black Falcon
06-21-2010, 04:32 AM
I think that the biggest success must be measured in raw sales and profitability. A huge innovation does nothing without sales. I would love to say the NES for its industry impact and legacy, but the sales don't support it enough in the face of the others.
Every generation sells more overall than the one before it, so by this standard the DS, Wii, or maybe PS2 (for the moment, before it gets passed by another major console; the DS is already past it of course) are the only choices... but given that every generation is more successful than the one before it, I'd think that some kind of model that takes that into account might make more sense. Should a system be considered a bigger success just because it had the good luck of coming out later and thus at a time when gaming was more popular than it used to be, as has been true in every console generation? I'm no so sure... no, something proportional would make more sense I think.
I'd agree with that, there's also the consideration that success in one generation leads to success in the next. The PS1's market dominance gave the PS2 a huge leg up due to backwards compatibility as well as name recognition, and conversely the failure of the Saturn really dented the chances of the Dreamcast. The Xbox 360 is doing fairly well, but it didn't have a huge amount of momentum from the original Xbox.
The NES' success and market dominance set up Nintendo for a second round win with the SuperNES and I think strongly contributed to the GameBoy's success, and Nintendo's been riding that wave ever since, carrying them through two systems that were relative failures.
Comparatively, while the Atari was hugely successful in its own time, it wasn't enough to make the 5200 and 7800 successes. The PS2 similarly is a bit dampened in success as Sony entirely lost momentum, and I'm finding the PS2 sticking around to be rather similar to the 2600 sticking around and encroaching on the sales of its successor.
bcks007
06-21-2010, 05:29 AM
Yeah, I was thinking about the Commodore 64 as well, the first home system I played a game on was a C64. I actually played on a Lynx before a GameBoy, so there's a bit of nostalgia for me there too.
When comparing sales it's always difficult because as time goes on there are more people. It used to be one TV in a household, now it's up to 1 TV per room in some places, and people are buying multiples of the same console. I doubt in the NES days you'd have a household with two NESes, but I've got two PS2s sitting beside me right now and I've heard of more than a few people with multiple Xbox 360s and PS3s.
I have 6 working ps2's right now, with 3 ps1's and a ps3. I do collect for the ps2, so that's my main reason for having so many.
duffmanth
06-21-2010, 08:18 AM
If you're talking strictly sales, nothing comes close to the PS2 for consoles. The DS would rule the roost for hand helds I would imagine?
Hep038
06-21-2010, 08:59 AM
I really do not see how it could be anything but Gameboy/Nes.
^It depends on your criteria. Total sales it's the PS2/DS.
There's an argument to me made for the iPhone - while not strictly a game console it has the largest game library available of any handheld, and as far as I can tell, a larger one than every handheld to date combined. That certainly has to be worth something in terms of success. Of course it's rather hard to tell at this point as the market is still trying to find its feet and iOS is still in its infancy.
Baloo
06-21-2010, 11:29 AM
I'd agree with that, there's also the consideration that success in one generation leads to success in the next. The PS1's market dominance gave the PS2 a huge leg up due to backwards compatibility as well as name recognition, and conversely the failure of the Saturn really dented the chances of the Dreamcast. The Xbox 360 is doing fairly well, but it didn't have a huge amount of momentum from the original Xbox.
The NES' success and market dominance set up Nintendo for a second round win with the SuperNES and I think strongly contributed to the GameBoy's success, and Nintendo's been riding that wave ever since, carrying them through two systems that were relative failures.
Comparatively, while the Atari was hugely successful in its own time, it wasn't enough to make the 5200 and 7800 successes. The PS2 similarly is a bit dampened in success as Sony entirely lost momentum, and I'm finding the PS2 sticking around to be rather similar to the 2600 sticking around and encroaching on the sales of its successor.
Virtual Boy was one failure, what was the other? Gamecube? Gamecube still sold 30-something million units, which really isn't a failure IMO. Dreamcast and Saturn both had 10 and 9 million units sold, that's a failure.
But best success for a console? Yeah, it's pretty much gotta be either NES or PS2, they just blew everything away. Although noting how in this generation both DS and Wii are really tearing through the market.
garagesaleking!!
06-21-2010, 12:03 PM
Apple's been marketing it as such since the 3G, and the iPod touch 2G even moreso as a game system. Their largest App store category is games, and the Gyroscope included in the iPhone 4 is specifically for gaming purposes. Not to mention, with the internet, online gaming is a key component of a game system, so having phone integration makes perfect sense. If you want to look at straight up game sales, look at the iPod touch, not everyone gets one as a gaming system either, but a lot more people get an iPod touch for gaming than the iPhone.
It sucks pretty bad as a phone, and is mediocre as a PDA, gaming is its strongest point. And, it has such a massive game library that it has more good games than the PSP has including crappy games.
There's also a lot of people who buy it for gaming but won't admit it. If you've got an iPhone it doesn't necessarily look like you're playing games. You could be typing on an app, or browsing the net if someone isn't looking over your shoulder, so among adults in certain circles it's more acceptable. That's an area the Zodiac 2 failed in - it was supposed to go for business people but the problem was it clearly looked like a game device (something the Casio E-100 - E-125 also worked for, as it had a good layout for emulation but still was obviously a PDA and gaming wasn't imediately obvious).
dude come on, dont really try to say that people buy the iphone mainly for gaming, i think checking email has to be main reason, and the fact that it functions as your ipod as well.
anyways, its the ps2, despite the fact the xbox i liked better and was a much better system.
Rob2600
06-21-2010, 01:21 PM
This is the only answer that makes sense:
Atari 2600
NES
Game Boy
PlayStation
PlayStation 2
Game Boy Advance
DS
Wii
MachineGex
06-21-2010, 01:24 PM
My top 3:
Atari VCS
Nintendo NES
Sony Playstation
Zthun
06-21-2010, 03:14 PM
If you're looking at just raw sales in terms of success (which is usually a good indicator), then the following is the top ten systems with the total number of units sold:
1. Sony PlayStation 2
142.8 million
2. Nintendo DS
128.9 million
3. Game Boy and Game Boy Color
118.69 million
4. Sony PlayStation
102.49 million
5. Game Boy Advance
81.47 million
6. Nintendo Wii
70.93 million
7. Nintendo Entertainment System
61.91 million
8. PlayStation Portable
60.2 million
9. Super Nintendo Entertainment System
49.10 million
10. Microsoft Xbox 360
40 million
j_factor
06-21-2010, 03:39 PM
I would give it to Playstation, myself. It was the first console to dominate worldwide, and while not the first to do them, it really ushered in optical media and 3D polygonal games as standard. Plus Sony built that success from the ground up. PS2 just rode in on PSX's coattails and benefited from a larger market (as well as some good moves by Sony, and bad moves by their competitors).
Game Boy is out to me because personally, I don't see how the word "console" includes handhelds.
Rob2600
06-21-2010, 04:10 PM
I would give it to Playstation, myself. ...it really ushered in optical media and 3D polygonal games as standard.
3D polygon games weren't standard until Super Mario 64.
Virtual Boy was one failure, what was the other? Gamecube? Gamecube still sold 30-something million units, which really isn't a failure IMO. Dreamcast and Saturn both had 10 and 9 million units sold, that's a failure.
N64 was a straight up failure, although it came in 2nd place behind the PS1, although that generation was essentially all PS1. GameCube was in last place, and if Nintendo didn't have the handheld market to carry it through that, they'd have probably had to bow out of the hardware market.
But best success for a console? Yeah, it's pretty much gotta be either NES or PS2, they just blew everything away. Although noting how in this generation both DS and Wii are really tearing through the market.
Wii sales are slowing down, they had a lot of early momentum because the PS3 was too expensive and had no games, and the 360 had the RRoD, it'll remain to be seen if the Wii stays the winner of the whole generation or if it's just round one. DS it's the same deal, it's got a good lead on total units sold, but in terms of sales per year iOS devices are doing just as well, and with the addition of the iPad it'll be even higher.
dude come on, dont really try to say that people buy the iphone mainly for gaming, i think checking email has to be main reason, and the fact that it functions as your ipod as well.
8GB isn't enough for the music collections people have. 32GB is starting to hit it, but it's by no means something people get just as a music player. It's not even particularly good at that. Email neither, if you want something for Email it's a BlackBerry. All you need to do is look at sites like Touch Arcade and see that many people are buying them just for gaming.
I know a lot of people don't want to admit it's a game system (for some bizarre reason, maybe they hate Apple more than I do....), but Nintendo has admitted it and said that Apple's the #1 threat to them right now. And that in itself is a massive success, for Nintendo to consider their dominance in the handheld market to be threatened.
Game Boy is out to me because personally, I don't see how the word "console" includes handhelds.
I did say in the original post both handheld and home console.
NayusDante
06-21-2010, 04:20 PM
Don't forget, Quake predated Mario 64 by one day. 3D polygonal games were widespread on PC even before that.
Rob2600
06-21-2010, 04:20 PM
N64 was a straight up failure
Thank you for posting this. Now I know never to take you seriously. You saved me a lot of time.
And for the record, many of the top-selling (and top-rated) games of that generation were for the N64.
Don't forget, Quake predated Mario 64 by one day. 3D polygonal games were widespread on PC even before that.
Of course there were 3D games before Super Mario 64, but after that game came out, 3D became the de facto standard. Developers started designing all of their games to be like Super Mario 64.
Thank you for posting this. Now I know never to take you seriously. You saved me a lot of time.
It sold less than a third of the # of consoles as the PS1, and that was in what was practically a two console race. And this is coming from completely dominating the industry in previous generations, to having the PS1 completely dominate. The N64 lost a lot of devs, showed that flash media isn't viable for home systems and had a very small selection of games. Hardly anyone was inspired to go out and buy a GameCube afterwards either. By Nintendo's standards that's a failure.
The GP32 selling 30,000 units and seeing the followup GP2X sell 60,000 is a major success given the scale of the company - they're staying in business and carving themselves a little niche, something other handhelds haven't been able to do with even more sales. For Nintendo to do anything under 50 million is really bad, especially given that as time goes by sales should be going up, and With Nintendo they went down from the SNES, lower to the N64 and even lower to the GameCube.
And for the record, many of the top-selling (and top-rated) games of that generation were for the N64.
Its best selling game is Mario 64. That's not saying much as the first title with the word "Mario" in it for a Nintendo console will always sell like hotcakes.
pepharytheworm
06-21-2010, 04:51 PM
It sold less than a third of the # of consoles as the PS1, and that was in what was practically a two console race. And this is coming from completely dominating the industry in previous generations, to having the PS1 completely dominate. The N64 lost a lot of devs, showed that flash media isn't viable for home systems and had a very small selection of games. Hardly anyone was inspired to go out and buy a GameCube afterwards either. By Nintendo's standards that's a failure.
The GP32 selling 30,000 units and seeing the followup GP2X sell 60,000 is a major success given the scale of the company - they're staying in business and carving themselves a little niche, something other handhelds haven't been able to do with even more sales. For Nintendo to do anything under 50 million is really bad, especially given that as time goes by sales should be going up, and With Nintendo they went down from the SNES, lower to the N64 and even lower to the GameCube.
Its best selling game is Mario 64. That's not saying much as the first title with the word "Mario" in it for a Nintendo console will always sell like hotcakes.
Wait, you know Nintendo's standards? Do you work for them? And you bought Mario's Early Years? I don't remember it selling like "hotcakes".
It seems to me you are either a success or failure in your eyes, theres no inbetween. To me the N64 was a mixture in both, in some ways it succeded and others failed.
The 3 points of failure
Failure to anticipate
Failure to perceive
Failure to carry out a task
Out of 5 home consoles, Nintendo has had the sales lead with 3 of them, and with each handheld console Nintendo has dominated by an absolutely massive degree. The N64 not only saw a 20 million sales drop from the SNES, it also so the GameCube drop another 10 million. Not only could it not entice people to buy it after Nintendo had the market lead, 1/3 people who owned an N64 (roughly) didn't want to buy Nintendo's next console.
Mario's Early Years wasn't the first Mario game for the SNES.
The thing with the N64 and GameCube, is any time there's a product out, at least someone will buy it. If you have it being a sequel to a previous product, a portion of the people who bought the previous one will automatically buy the sequel. You just need to look at movie sales, if a movie is good, usually the sequel will pull in even bigger numbers, and unless that's good, #3 will flop.
Nintendo had some sales, yeah, but a certain number of them are automatic, they don't count towards success. If the N64 sold 0 consoles, that would be an epic fail, but not taking the lead when you had it before is pretty bad, and losing 3:1 to the PS1 and 15:2 to the PS2 is really, really, bad. The only success of the N64 was Super Smash Bros - they managed to create a strong IP that they didn't have before - everything else, Zelda, Mario - those IPs were established on the NES.
Nintendo also had a number of previously exclusive developers jump ship from them in the N64 days, that's pretty bad considering it kicked them back to mostly having only their own IP to rely on, and still with the Wii that effect is being felt with not many 3rd party games being regarded as good. They also had to admit that cartriges weren't the way to go and shift gears with the GameCube.
It's one thing for Nintendo to have a 6:1 lead with the NES over the SMS - Sega came in as the underdog anyway, and they managed to build that up quite nicely with the Genesis. Nintendo came in with a massive mindshare and lead, for them to lose so badly to the PS1 is even worse.
You can't call the N64 a success any more than the PS3 is a success right now - yes it helped Sony win the format war, but that's on the same level as SSB.
Arkhan
06-21-2010, 07:27 PM
Apple's been marketing it as such since the 3G, and the iPod touch 2G even moreso as a game system.
So? I could market a cell phone as a spatula, it doesn't mean it is one.
Their largest App store category is games, and the Gyroscope included in the iPhone 4 is specifically for gaming purposes.
Cause playing flash-esque games you can find for browsers for free is killer. I've got friends with the iPhone. I've played a ton of the games. I then laughed at a ton of the games.
There is a word for the iPhone gamers:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=flid
Not to mention, with the internet, online gaming is a key component of a game system, so having phone integration makes perfect sense. If you want to look at straight up game sales, look at the iPod touch, not everyone gets one as a gaming system either, but a lot more people get an iPod touch for gaming than the iPhone.
remember when they said the iPhone/iPod Touch had more entertainment titles than the PSP and DS? and then acted like they were pioneering shit because psp and ds didn't have an APP STORE!? iPod/iPhone gaming is marketed at ignorant dinguses, like all of apples products.
"WERE CUTTING EDGE. WE DO WHAT NOONE ELSE IS DOING" <<<< lol except they arent!
You know most of those games that are selling are games like ROCKET FART.
Totally worth buying.
Totally.
The only thing Apple has succeeded at is convincing the idiots of the world that they are the elite.
Einzelherz
06-21-2010, 10:09 PM
See when you don't post with all of your links to your books people actually answer you!
pepharytheworm
06-21-2010, 10:27 PM
See when you don't post with all of your links to your books people actually answer you!
What:?
camarotuner
06-21-2010, 11:05 PM
Sales wise? PS2 for the consoles and DS for the handhelds. It's easy and quantifiable since we have sales records.
However from the more "success" type of end I'll put it down to two
NES - The system "saved" (though it would have re-bounded anyways) the industry. In reality it's the most warm-and-fuzzy-feeling generating system and the cash-cow it became turned nintendo from an itty bitty to one of the big boys. Mario, zelda, donkey kong, pokemon etc are all part of mainstream america and everyone knows who they are. It's hard to argue with that.
PS1 - I've made this argument before, I will make it again. This system, more than any other, made it "cool" to be a gamer. The nes/snes/genesis all the way up to the PS1 were for nerds. For whatever reason, the PS1 clicked with a whole new audience. All the sudden gaming went more mainstream and with a larger variety of customers than ever before. To me the PS1 represents the beginning of the modern generation of consoles. This modern generation isn't anything like the older systems. TV commercials, G4, video game awards shows on tv, movies, all of this seemed to sprout up due largely to the success of the PS1. The PS2/Xbox really hit the big-time but it was all made possible due to the PS1.
Auto-Fox
06-21-2010, 11:39 PM
I'd say, from a certain point of view, the Sega Genesis. Why? Because it paved the way for the multi-console "wars" we've grown so used to in recent years. Without the Genesis, Nintendo, or some other company, would completely dominate the market.
Thanks to Sega, we have the diverse, dynamic industry we see today.
Also, 16 million units is a respectable number.
NayusDante
06-21-2010, 11:50 PM
The N64 is by no means the failure that you're making it out to be, Migo. The PSX just did really well, the best Nintendo could do was hold their ground. The problem is that Nintendo was still catering to gamers at the time, while Sony was heading toward "games for everybody." One increases sales volume, the other does not.
Nintendo knew what they were doing by avoiding optical storage. Developers just padded those big 700mb CDs with FMV, which hasn't been good for gaming at all. Final Fantasy VII is over 2GB, but the non-FMV content fits on one disc. The PSX succeeded because people wanted to watch cutscenes, which were still cool at the time.
Arkhan
06-22-2010, 12:20 AM
n64 did just fine. It was the punch line of the late 90s for anyone who liked RPGs though.
PLEASE INSERT CARTRIDGE 2
ahwehahahahahwhfhewsfhahahaha
and then we continued to FFVII and Beyond the Beyond it up.
So? I could market a cell phone as a spatula, it doesn't mean it is one.
You'll never win this argument. Nintendo has already admitted that Apple's their #1 threat in the mobile gaming market. That's the end of the story.
Cause playing flash-esque games you can find for browsers for free is killer. I've got friends with the iPhone. I've played a ton of the games. I then laughed at a ton of the games.
There is a word for the iPhone gamers:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=flid
You won't have the last laugh. A better port of Final Fantasy 1 and 2 than you'll find elsewhere since RPGs are better suited to a mouse or touch interface anyway. Street Fighter 4. First person shooters like NOVA that actually work. Dual analog shooters galore. iOS is a far more viable gaming platform than the PSP, and wins out over the DS in a lot of areas too.
remember when they said the iPhone/iPod Touch had more entertainment titles than the PSP and DS? and then acted like they were pioneering shit because psp and ds didn't have an APP STORE!? iPod/iPhone gaming is marketed at ignorant dinguses, like all of apples products.
Oh I remember, and they were right. Even if 90% of the games are crap, with the 10% of good games they still have more than the PSP and DS have titles combined.
"WERE CUTTING EDGE. WE DO WHAT NOONE ELSE IS DOING" <<<< lol except they arent!
They do it a lot better, just look at the abortion that is the PSPGo. At least Nintendo kept backwards compatibility with the DSi and are working into it.
You know most of those games that are selling are games like ROCKET FART.
This is a myth that's already been disproven numerous times.
The only thing Apple has succeeded at is convincing the idiots of the world that they are the elite.
No different from Sony a while back. Except right now Apple's providing what people want, while Sony's trying to push their proprietary crap. The PS1, PS2 and PS3 somehow avoided it entirely, but the PSP, and pretty much every other Sony product got loaded up with it.
The N64 is by no means the failure that you're making it out to be, Migo. The PSX just did really well, the best Nintendo could do was hold their ground.
They didn't hold ground, they lost ground. They went from 50 million with the SNES to 30 million with the N64.
The problem is that Nintendo was still catering to gamers at the time, while Sony was heading toward "games for everybody." One increases sales volume, the other does not.
I'm a gamer, I don't see any games that particularly cater to me. Sure the Star Wars fighter games were fun, but not enough to buy a system for.
Nintendo knew what they were doing by avoiding optical storage.
Not entirely - you can get major losses if a game doesn't sell in the volume you expect. CDs the cost to make the product is minimal, while with a cartridge it's quite high.
Developers just padded those big 700mb CDs with FMV, which hasn't been good for gaming at all.
It created new experiences. Now with the PS3 we can have the same or better quality covered with the in game engine, but it was a decent stop gap until technology moved that far.
Final Fantasy VII is over 2GB, but the non-FMV content fits on one disc. The PSX succeeded because people wanted to watch cutscenes, which were still cool at the time.
It's amazing how providing people what they actually want drives sales.....
Nintendo had to throw in the towel with cartridges because people don't want them for home gaming systems. They had to throw in the towel on their controller too - nobody ever copied it, while everyone's pretty much going after the DualShock design.
I'd say, from a certain point of view, the Sega Genesis. Why? Because it paved the way for the multi-console "wars" we've grown so used to in recent years. Without the Genesis, Nintendo, or some other company, would completely dominate the market.
Thanks to Sega, we have the diverse, dynamic industry we see today.
Also, 16 million units is a respectable number.
I think Sony would have still come in. They entered the gaming market because Nintendo screwed them over, and that would have happened either way.
Rob2600
06-22-2010, 11:35 AM
Nintendo had to throw in the towel with cartridges because people don't want them for home gaming systems. They had to throw in the towel on their controller too - nobody ever copied it, while everyone's pretty much going after the DualShock design.
The N64 controller's analog stick and Rumble Pak are what caused Sony to make the Dual Shock in the first place.
So yeah, Sony didn't copy anything. You're right once again. Keep batting 1.000.
YoshiM
06-22-2010, 12:59 PM
You'll never win this argument. Nintendo has already admitted that Apple's their #1 threat in the mobile gaming market. That's the end of the story.
I have to agree on that. I read articles that Iwata had claimed that.
They didn't hold ground, they lost ground. They went from 50 million with the SNES to 30 million with the N64.
I think NayusDante was talking about that particular generation ("32/64 bit" era-1995 to 1999ish) they held ground, not in their overall standing. They were solid second place between the PS1 and the Saturn.
I'm a gamer, I don't see any games that particularly cater to me. Sure the Star Wars fighter games were fun, but not enough to buy a system for.So you don't like shooters (Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, the Turok games, Quake 2, a great version of Doom), wrestling (THQ's/AKI's awesome WCW vs NWO and the later Wrestlemania 2K and WWF No Mercy-those games are classic and IMO there has never been a better series of wrestling games), racing (Beetle Adventure Racing, Excitebike 64 [Jim Rivers!], Top Gear Rally, San Francisco Rush, F-Zero X, Diddy Kong Racing), platformers (Yoshi's Story, Banjo Kazooie/Tooie, Jet Force Gemini, Mischief Makers, Donkey Kong 64), or even quirky games like Space Station Silicon Valley, Blast Corps or Tetrisphere? Note I avoided the "money making names" like Mario, Zelda, Kirby, Pokemon, etc.
The N64 had a pretty diverse library of games (though was a bit heavy on the racers), so what are you saying that the exclusive titles weren't your cup of tea or just in general?
Nintendo had to throw in the towel with cartridges because people don't want them for home gaming systems. They had to throw in the towel on their controller too - nobody ever copied it, while everyone's pretty much going after the DualShock design.
When you say "DualShock design", are you saying that people were going for 2 sticks on a controller or essentially "clones" of the controller? I'm assuming 2 sticks, which I'll give you but both the Gamecube and the Xbox controllers featured "staggered" sticks (left stick higher than the right) for more comfort.
As for Nintendo throwing in the towel on controllers: you're talking the N64 controller, right? N64 controller was unique and got nailed to the wall by many. Personally I loved it-most comfortable controller I ever used. It was really designed for 3D gaming (like platformers). If I'm not mistaken, the original DualShock came AFTER the N64 launched AND after the Rumble Pak came out (1998 in America compared to 1996 and 1997 respectively). So Sony obviously sucked off Nintendo's idea, combined the technologies and added a stick. Funny, though, how Sony is doing it again almost exactly with Playstation Move :D .
Sales wise, the N64 wasn't the best out of Nintendo's historic stable, but it influenced the market with its games and concepts over the next two generations and created standards. Analog control, rumble, 4 controller ports, an emphasis on multiplayer gaming, game style (Z targeting, which I think got dissed in this thread, got adopted by a LOT of third-person adventure games since OoT).
physics223
06-22-2010, 01:18 PM
I'm just going to say that the migo's tastes must be pretty much esoteric AND exclusive. I already wanted to buy an N64 with just GoldenEye. N64, even without the Mario and Zelda franchises, had a lot of great games.
pepharytheworm
06-22-2010, 01:20 PM
I'm just going to say that the migo's tastes must be pretty much esoteric AND exclusive. I already wanted to buy an N64 with just GoldenEye. N64, even without the Mario and Zelda franchises, had a lot of great games.
Agreed. Loves Apple, hates N64.
garagesaleking!!
06-22-2010, 04:40 PM
N64 was far from a failure, I think as a whole its games are more memorable as a whole to the ps1/n64 generation, although the ps1 sold more units. Ocarina of Time, Super Mario 64, Super Smash Bros., Donkey Kong 64, Those games have a much longer lasting memory than any ps1 titles.
Arkhan
06-22-2010, 06:13 PM
You'll never win this argument. Nintendo has already admitted that Apple's their #1 threat in the mobile gaming market. That's the end of the story.
That's the same as admitting that the majority of the population is mental. Nintendo DOES have to be worried about mass-idiocy. People like OMGSHINEYNEWTHING, and thats what Apples "doing". Idiots can be threats too. I mean shit, you give a chimp a loaded gun, and hes now a threat!
You won't have the last laugh. A better port of Final Fantasy 1 and 2 than you'll find elsewhere since RPGs are better suited to a mouse or touch interface anyway. Street Fighter 4. First person shooters like NOVA that actually work. Dual analog shooters galore. iOS is a far more viable gaming platform than the PSP, and wins out over the DS in a lot of areas too.
SWEET. Lets buy expensive phones to play a game from 1987. AWESOME. Another Final Fantasy 1 and 2 port. APPLES OUT OF CONTROL WITH ENTERTAINMENT SOFTWARE MAN. WHATS NEXT, CHIPS CHALLENGE AND COMMANDER KEEN? HOW ABOUT JEZZBALL AND SKI FREE.
I don't know about you, but tile-based RPGs aren't really cool with mice/touch interfaces. You have to poke around all damn day. Screw that jive. Play the Vay port for Iphone. It was cool for about an hour and then it was tiresome and left me longing for a dpad.
and, lol. Street Fighter 4 for the iPhone. Give me a break. everyones phones will be a smudged up mess of failed shoryukens. Followed by flying iPhones when some dick online just spams fireballs with Akuma all day because its the only thing he can manage to hamfist on the piece of crap.
FPS on all handhelds blow. Metroid Prime Hunters? huduhdrrr? Can you imagine playing a dual analog shooter on a touch screen? Cause I sure can't. You'll just be smearing your thumbs around all day like a dumbass while intelligent people are playing on a real console, or a computer.
the OS isn't a more viable gaming platform than the DS or the PSP. That is just stupid. You're high. Let me know when GOOD commercial games start coming out that compete with the likes of the DS and PSP library, and we will talk. I want to see a Crisis Core competitor, and a Pokemon competitor. I don't think it is going to happen, guy.
Oh I remember, and they were right. Even if 90% of the games are crap, with the 10% of good games they still have more than the PSP and DS have titles combined.
So you have to wade through piles of shit, to get to the not-so-shit shit? Sweet.
They do it a lot better, just look at the abortion that is the PSPGo. At least Nintendo kept backwards compatibility with the DSi and are working into it.
the PSPGo is the Sony iPhone! Whats the problem? Its the same concept as the iDisasters that you are wanking to as you post! Biased toolery much? If they stuck a big shiney apple on it, you would love it forever, yeah?
Cutting Edge would imply something innovative. Not something deceptive, and elitist.
No different from Sony a while back. Except right now Apple's providing what people want, while Sony's trying to push their proprietary crap. The PS1, PS2 and PS3 somehow avoided it entirely, but the PSP, and pretty much every other Sony product got loaded up with it.
Got loaded up with what? Good games, and relatively cheap portable media experiences without having to be locked into horse shit like apple?
I'm a gamer, I don't see any games that particularly cater to me. Sure the Star Wars fighter games were fun, but not enough to buy a system for.
What games make the iPhone worth buying then, you crazy gamer you!
The N64 controller's analog stick and Rumble Pak are what caused Sony to make the Dual Shock in the first place.
So yeah, Sony didn't copy anything. You're right once again. Keep batting 1.000.
The N64 controller had a retarded analog stick in the middle design. Sony added rumble and analog, but they came with a design that lasted for 3 console generations and has been copied by everybody (including Nintendo with a small tweak for the GC controller and quite blatantly with the Wii Classic controller, and Microsoft with the Xbox/360 controller, again with the minor tweak of changing the left analog position). Nintendo created a winner with the NES design, and improved on it with the SNES design, and completely fucked with it for the N64 and hasn't really found their ground for a good controller since.
I think NayusDante was talking about that particular generation ("32/64 bit" era-1995 to 1999ish) they held ground, not in their overall standing. They were solid second place between the PS1 and the Saturn.
The Saturn was barely in the race, I mean technically the N64 wasn't last place, but if you round the numbers, they're tied for last place. They got the certain number of sales they were guaranteed to get just by releasing a product, but had they been like Sega and not had anything else to fall back on, the N64 and GC might have kicked them out of the console business. It's the GameBoy and DS that kept them alive.
So you don't like shooters (Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, the Turok games, Quake 2, a great version of Doom),
I love shooters, but they suck on all iterations for consoles. Keyboard and mouse is the only way to play them. Turok, Quake, Doom, I played all of them - on Windows.
wrestling (THQ's/AKI's awesome WCW vs NWO and the later Wrestlemania 2K and WWF No Mercy-those games are classic and IMO there has never been a better series of wrestling games),
OK, nope, I don't care one bit about wrestling games.
racing (Beetle Adventure Racing, Excitebike 64 [Jim Rivers!], Top Gear Rally, San Francisco Rush, F-Zero X, Diddy Kong Racing),
Going up against Gran Turismo and Wipeout.... hmmm. Excitebike and F-Zero are the only recognisable names there to me, and they were games I played on the GameBoy and SNES... nothing significant there.
platformers (Yoshi's Story, Banjo Kazooie/Tooie, Jet Force Gemini, Mischief Makers, Donkey Kong 64),
I like platformers, but I strongly prefer them in 2D. 3D platformers were an interesting experiment, but I just don't feel it was the medium for them.
or even quirky games like Space Station Silicon Valley, Blast Corps or Tetrisphere?
I quite love Quirky games, one of the reasons I'm fond of the PS3 this generation, but it's not like I heard of any of those when the N64 was out. It was Doom 64, Perfect Dark, Goldeneye, Mario 64, Super Smash Bros, Zelda - they were the ones people were talking about. I'd bet you'd need to already have an N64 and be looking for more games to play to notice the last ones you just listed.
Note I avoided the "money making names" like Mario, Zelda, Kirby, Pokemon, etc.
Yeah, and each one of those IPs was started on the NES and GameBoy. Those games speak more to their respective success than to the N64s.
The N64 had a pretty diverse library of games (though was a bit heavy on the racers), so what are you saying that the exclusive titles weren't your cup of tea or just in general?
The ones I heard about, and the ones my friends with N64s played. Really the only N64 games that appealed to me at all were the X-Wing games, and that's just not enough to buy a system for (not that I was in a position to at the time anyway).
When you say "DualShock design", are you saying that people were going for 2 sticks on a controller or essentially "clones" of the controller? I'm assuming 2 sticks, which I'll give you but both the Gamecube and the Xbox controllers featured "staggered" sticks (left stick higher than the right) for more comfort.
2 sticks specifically, but the staggered stick design is also pretty close. I actually find the symmetrical layout is more comfortable, as I always get cramps in my left hand with the Xbox 360 but never my right.
As for Nintendo throwing in the towel on controllers: you're talking the N64 controller, right? N64 controller was unique and got nailed to the wall by many. Personally I loved it-most comfortable controller I ever used. It was really designed for 3D gaming (like platformers). If I'm not mistaken, the original DualShock came AFTER the N64 launched AND after the Rumble Pak came out (1998 in America compared to 1996 and 1997 respectively). So Sony obviously sucked off Nintendo's idea, combined the technologies and added a stick. Funny, though, how Sony is doing it again almost exactly with Playstation Move :D .
The thing that sony did though is they figured out a much more logical and long lasting design. Yeah, they took inspiration from it, but they did far less copying of the N64 controller than Nintendo did of the DualShock with the GameCube controller.
Sales wise, the N64 wasn't the best out of Nintendo's historic stable, but it influenced the market with its games and concepts over the next two generations and created standards. Analog control, rumble, 4 controller ports, an emphasis on multiplayer gaming, game style (Z targeting, which I think got dissed in this thread, got adopted by a LOT of third-person adventure games since OoT).
OK, I'll give you that, particularly the analog control. Rumble I'm not so sure about as it's really more of a gimicky feature compared to force feedback joysticks.
Agreed. Loves Apple, hates N64.
No, I quite hate Apple, but I can't deny that they have a really solid portable gaming platform.
N64 was far from a failure, I think as a whole its games are more memorable as a whole to the ps1/n64 generation, although the ps1 sold more units. Ocarina of Time, Super Mario 64, Super Smash Bros., Donkey Kong 64, Those games have a much longer lasting memory than any ps1 titles.
Compared to Final Fantasy 7, Gran Turismo, Resident Evil, Tekken and Metal Gear Solid?
That's the same as admitting that the majority of the population is mental. Nintendo DOES have to be worried about mass-idiocy. People like OMGSHINEYNEWTHING, and thats what Apples "doing". Idiots can be threats too. I mean shit, you give a chimp a loaded gun, and hes now a threat!
So I'd guess you're a big PSP fan since it's taking a thrashing from both the DS and iOS, and since you can't claim that the DS isn't a real hardcore gaming system as was said when it launched you're spewing the same about iOS. GTA Chinatown Wars, Alpha Protocol, Splinter Cell Conviction, Assassin's Creed - all major titles that are on iOS. Saying iOS isn't a gaming platform is the same as saying Windows isn't a gaming platform.
SWEET. Lets buy expensive phones to play a game from 1987. AWESOME. Another Final Fantasy 1 and 2 port. APPLES OUT OF CONTROL WITH ENTERTAINMENT SOFTWARE MAN. WHATS NEXT, CHIPS CHALLENGE AND COMMANDER KEEN? HOW ABOUT JEZZBALL AND SKI FREE.
Actually, a lot of games from the old days that are exclusively a single gameplay element, like Circus Atari or Pac-Man are a lot of fun. Nobody would pay big dollars for them, but at 99 cents, or free, they're certainly worth it. That's something iOS has that neither the DS or PSP can offer, and one of the reasons it's doing so well. It's like Nintendo's blue ocean strategy with the Wii of targetting regular people with party games, sure it's debatable how much of a hardcore gaming system it is, but it does get its share of hardcore games (like Okami and Xenoblade), and it's not debatable that it is a gaming system, nor that it's a successful gaming system.
I don't know about you, but tile-based RPGs aren't really cool with mice/touch interfaces. You have to poke around all damn day. Screw that jive.
Final Fantasy works much better with touch than a controller. Diablo II I find a bit iffy with mouse, but Oblivion is a hell of a lot better on PC than console. Baldur's Gate is really solid with keyboard and mouse, BG:DA for PS2 certainly does a good transition to console, but overall a point and select interface works better.
Play the Vay port for Iphone. It was cool for about an hour and then it was tiresome and left me longing for a dpad.
There are certainly games that are unplayable or tiresome on iOS. Secret of Monkey Island was poorly ported. Bomberman is completely unplayable. Sonic and Giana Sisters are OK, but then there are games like NOVA, Skies of Glory, Street Fighter IV, GTA Chinatown Wars, Flight Control, Civilization Revolution, Final Fantasy, Dizzy Pad, Spider the Secret of Bryce Manor, Snake Galaxy, Plants vs Zombies, Alive 4-Ever, Siberian Strike, Pix'n Love Rush, Zen Bound, and many, many more that are a lot of fun. Hell, thanks to Sony's retardedness and not including a second analog stick on the PSP iOS is the ONLY device viable for dual analog stick shooters.
and, lol. Street Fighter 4 for the iPhone. Give me a break. everyones phones will be a smudged up mess of failed shoryukens.
Check out the Neo-Geo forum. Plenty of people assumed it would be unplayable, but everyone who tried it actually liked it. And I can nail Shoryukens on SFIV on iOS much easier than I can on SFII for SNES or even SFIV on PS3 with a DualShock controller (arcade stick is another matter entirely, and blows everything else out of the water, but with the exception of the Neo Geo Pocket there isn't anything even close for handhelds).
Followed by flying iPhones when some dick online just spams fireballs with Akuma all day because its the only thing he can manage to hamfist on the piece of crap.
People spam fireballs on Street Fighter anyway, that's all anyone does and that has been the case since 1994, it's not something new on iOS.
FPS on all handhelds blow. Metroid Prime Hunters? huduhdrrr?
Metroid Prime Hunters was pretty bad, but it was played with touch screen and D-Pad.
Can you imagine playing a dual analog shooter on a touch screen? Cause I sure can't.
The problem is you think dual analog sticks is remotely viable for First Person Shooters. As a PC Gamer, I know better, and iOS comes closer to a PC like experience of first person shooters than any console has before, look behaves the same way it does with a mouse, so it works far better than anything you'd play on a PS2 or Xbox.
You'll just be smearing your thumbs around all day like a dumbass while intelligent people are playing on a real console, or a computer.
Intelligent people don't even suggest a console for an FPS. On a handheld a keyboard and mouse isn't an option, and iOS is the best option given what's available.
the OS isn't a more viable gaming platform than the DS or the PSP. That is just stupid. You're high. Let me know when GOOD commercial games start coming out that compete with the likes of the DS and PSP library, and we will talk.
LMAO! I already did, you just haven't bothered looking for them.
I want to see a Crisis Core competitor, and a Pokemon competitor. I don't think it is going to happen, guy.
It'll happen, there's FF Tactics War of the Lions coming out for iOS, and Square has already experimented with Chaos Rings. It'll happen. Square's developing full featured, modern games for iOS, it doesn't even need a competitor, give it a bit more time and you'll actually see Crisis Core on it.
So you have to wade through piles of shit, to get to the not-so-shit shit? Sweet.
As opposed to the PSP, which is also mostly shit but has a fraction of the total titles and far less good games. Sure, it'd be nice if all the games were good, but no successful system ever manages to escape the crap games. Neo Geo Pocket Color and Dreamcast are both regarded as having largely free of crap libraries, but neither system was successful.
the PSPGo is the Sony iPhone! Whats the problem? Its the same concept as the iDisasters that you are wanking to as you post! Biased toolery much? If they stuck a big shiney apple on it, you would love it forever, yeah?
It's not the Sony iPhone. iOS has games that max out at $10, and most are in the $1-$4 range. The PSPGo has a fraction of the titles that the PSP has, costs more than the PSP, and even though you download them they cost just as much as the hard copies. Not to mention that the same games on PSP as iOS cost more than twice as much. The PSPGo is a failure for the same reason the GameBoy Micro was, too expensive for what you get and less features than an already existing system by the same company.
Cutting Edge would imply something innovative. Not something deceptive, and elitist.
I never said anything about it being cutting edge, but multitouch capacitive screens are pretty innovative, while nothing about the PSP is. Nintendo isn't elitist, but Sony certainly is, and they've only learned to be more humble now that they're not dominating in any market. Certainly Apple users are quite elitist as well, and nobody's more arrogant than Steve Jobs, but you're even worse than pro-Apple fanboys by trying to claim iOS isn't viable for anything.
Got loaded up with what? Good games, and relatively cheap portable media experiences without having to be locked into horse shit like apple?
Relatively cheap my ass. The PSP has been horribly expensive from the start and only recently come to a reasonable price. It got saddled with UMD which was a stupid idea from the start, and MemoryStick which is just unnecessarily expensive and offers nothing over CF or SD. Watching movies on the PSP was an utter fail, and with the PSP you're locked into horse shit with MemoryStick and UMD. The DS is relatively cheap, the PSP isn't. It also has a serious lack of good games. There's barely anything worth getting on the PSP that you can't get better on the PS3. If you insist on having everything Sony, sure, go for it, but right now the best options for gaming, depending on your preference are either Windows 7 and PS3 for home and iPod touch 3G and DSi for handheld.
What games make the iPhone worth buying then, you crazy gamer you!
Plenty, which I've already named, plus the fact that at the price you pay for games on iOS, you're paying hardly more than the cost of hardware, whereas even with the PSP Favourites special, with just 10 games you've run yourself up another $100. You can load yourself up with a large number of games just for free by waiting for specials where they discount them, and otherwise you're spending $1 for the game. If you restrict yourself to only one purchase per month on iOS you can stick to $12 over the year, whereas on the PSP you're at a minimum of $120, and that's only now after they launched the Favourites. Before that the price was trippled. iPod touches can be had for cheaper than PSPs on craigslist too, so if you've got a budget it's far easier to stay under it with an iPod touch than with the PSP. That's the same reason the DS/i is slaughtering the PSP, it's cheaper to buy outright and the games for it are cheaper.
pepharytheworm
06-22-2010, 08:22 PM
Aghhhh! Quote alert! I don't even know whats going on anymore. I must add that the Gamecube controller was based on the Hori N64 controller more than anything else. It has more in common with the Dreamcast controller than the PS1. And the PS1 controller is based heavily off the SNES controller, same for the classic controller
To get us back on track somewhat:
The Virtualboy was a "success" at being a "failure".
OK, the tl;dr version:
iOS is a gaming platform the same way Windows is. If you want to argue it's not a console for the same reason PCs aren't considered them that's one thing (although it's not the same argument since the iPhone/iPod touch revisions are rather like the Xbox 360 revisions more so than the wide range of customisability on a PC), and it's certainly successful.
The N64 thread can't be tl;dr
Back to the original topic, I'm leaning towards in the home console market the PS1 being the most successful. It sold the most consoles to date when it was current, and backwards compatibility with the PS1 led to the PS2 being incredibly popular, so not only did it succeed in its own generation, it succeeded into the next. The PS1 also did this going up against the juggernaught that was Nintendo at the time, and took the title away. The NES by comparison, while it set Nintendo up to last through 3 decades and still be going strong had virtually no competition, and even though it had a stranglehold on the market with restrictive licensing deals, it couldn't hold that lead, losing marketshare from the NES to SNES days, and Nintendo's licensing practices likely lead to their strained developer relations which damaged their dominance later on, so part success but a dose of failure there.
The GameBoy would be the most successful by the same criteria, when it launched it was up against the Lynx, GameGear and Turbo Express, so it had some fairly stiff competition initially, but it lasted through the first wave, and then handled the second one with the NeoGeo Pocket and the WonderSwan. The DS while selling more did so later on when people had more money, and would also buy multiples (in all likelihood when the GameBoy was selling you might have one per family, while now you'd have one DS for each child, and several people would collect multiple models and would go from the DS to DS Lite, whereas when the Pocket came out, if you had the GameBoy you'd stick with it, and the Pocket would be a benefit to someone who comes in late). The DS also came in after the GBA had no real competition and they had total market dominance, which was created by the GameBoy. Total sales it's a bit different, but looking at how difficult it was in each generation, and adjusting for population growth I think that's pretty reasonable.
j_factor
06-22-2010, 08:58 PM
3D polygon games weren't standard until Super Mario 64.
It's pretty ridiculous to attribute the shift to 3D polygonal graphics down to one game. Mario 64 was the template that many 3D platformers followed, but it's not the reason games went 3D.
In any case, Playstation was the system that made polygonal 3D standard for most people, by the sheer virtue of it selling the most units by far. And even before N64 launched, I think more PSX owners were playing games like Resident Evil, WipEout, Ridge Racer, Tekken, and Destruction Derby, than any of the 2D games for the system, except Rayman.
kupomogli
06-22-2010, 09:04 PM
Considering that the Wii didn't have a good game for quite some time and people still bought it, it's cheaply made, and Nintendo rarely developed anything for it. I'd say that the Wii is the biggest success.
Also. Top five with sales starting from the highest. Taken from http://www.vgchartz.com/hardware_totals.php
Sony Playstation 2
Nintendo DS
Nintendo Gameboy
Sony Playstation
Nintendo Wii
Arkhan
06-22-2010, 10:31 PM
I love shooters, but they suck on all iterations for consoles. Keyboard and mouse is the only way to play them. Turok, Quake, Doom, I played all of them - on Windows.
K&M is only way to go, yet you say the touchscreen is going to be the bees knees.
Pick a side, dingus.
I like DS and PSP. I do not like iPhone games. I've played plenty of them to know it's not really worth my time.
The thing has no Crisis Core competitor. No pokemon competitor.
If they already did better on iPhone, tell me the name of the game then.
bejeweled doesn't count.
Rob2600
06-22-2010, 11:26 PM
It's pretty ridiculous to attribute the shift to 3D polygonal graphics down to one game. Mario 64 was the template that many 3D platformers followed, but it's not the reason games went 3D.
In any case, Playstation was the system that made polygonal 3D standard for most people, by the sheer virtue of it selling the most units by far. And even before N64 launched, I think more PSX owners were playing games like Resident Evil, WipEout, Ridge Racer, Tekken, and Destruction Derby, than any of the 2D games for the system, except Rayman.
Not 3D polygon graphics, but platform/action/adventure games that take place in 3D free-roaming worlds.
Out of all the PlayStation games you listed - Resident Evil, WipEout, Ridge Racer, Tekken, and Destruction Derby - none of them were 3D free-roaming platform games. But after Super Mario 64 was released, the market was suddenly flooded with them: Spyro, Gex, Croc, Glover, 40 Winks, Ape Escape, Banjo-Kazooie, Donkey Kong 64, Rayman 2, Shadow Man, and even Mega Man and Castlevania.
For better or worse, Super Mario 64 single-handedly destroyed 2D gaming. As a result of that one game, 3D games became the standard for everyone.
I love shooters, but they suck on all iterations for consoles.
And once again, you've proven that nothing you post should be taken seriously.
physics223
06-23-2010, 12:05 AM
It seems he hasn't even played GoldenEye on N64. I've played Syphon Filter and a lot of shooters on the PS, but nothing ever beat GoldenEye, and I'm not even a gamer.
NayusDante
06-23-2010, 01:19 AM
This thread was doomed from the start, with no set definition of success to go by. We have a few posts that point out the sales statistics, which are hard facts, and then we have three pages of arguing over ideological successes, which are opinions. Half of it is the OP arguing his opinions as facts, when the thread asked for opinions. Whether a console has games in genres you like determines how successful it was? That's interesting logic, which brings me to an important lesson I've learned:
The Saturn was barely in the race, I mean technically the N64 wasn't last place, but if you round the numbers, they're tied for last place.
Now I know that 32.93 rounds down to 9.5. The Saturn did just as well as the N64! I've been using bad arithmetic all these years...
buzz_n64
06-23-2010, 01:36 AM
It's simple
Consoles
Late 70s/Early 80s
2600
Late 80s
NES
Early 90s
Genesis/SNES
Late 90s
Playstation (though I prefer N64)
Early 00s
PS2
Late 00s
Wii
kupomogli
06-23-2010, 01:52 AM
Not 3D polygon graphics, but platform/action/adventure games that take place in 3D free-roaming worlds.
For better or worse, Super Mario 64 single-handedly destroyed 2D gaming. As a result of that one game, 3D games became the standard for everyone.
I have to say that Tomb Raider is the first action/adventure/platformer that has open world levels. Neither Super Mario 64 or Tomb Raider are actually open world due to certain barriers.
Super Mario 64's castle is nothing more than a hub in which you are able to travel to the rest of the stages in any order of your choosing, much like Super Mario Bros 3 and Super Mario World's still hubs, or even better, Chakan's and Bubsy's hubs which you go to which stage you want.
Tomb Raider is three very large connected areas which just like Super Mario 64's stages, you can tackle however you want and are free to go wherever you want and you need to actually search for the items in order to proceed. However, once leaving one of those areas, it locks behind you and is unable to be returned to(making two different saves allow you to traverse each of the three areas.)
Both games have stages that are open world, but the games themselves are not.
King's Field, although not a platformer, is an open world action/adventure game. You could technically call it a platformer because in order to get to some areas and some of the special items, you're required to walk off an edge and land on another. The only difference here is you can't jump.
There's also Daggerfall. The second Elder Scrolls game, but the first of them to allow you to jump and you are required to do so. Another game that was released prior to that of Super Mario 64 being an action adventure game, this one requiring platforming in order to complete. This is the only game listed that is an action/adventure/platformer that is infact open world.
j_factor
06-23-2010, 01:22 PM
Not 3D polygon graphics, but platform/action/adventure games that take place in 3D free-roaming worlds.
Out of all the PlayStation games you listed - Resident Evil, WipEout, Ridge Racer, Tekken, and Destruction Derby - none of them were 3D free-roaming platform games.
"Free-roaming" is not relevant to my original statement. You're throwing in unrelated qualifiers to artificially boost Mario 64's importance.
But after Super Mario 64 was released, the market was suddenly flooded with them: Spyro, Gex, Croc, Glover, 40 Winks, Ape Escape, Banjo-Kazooie, Donkey Kong 64, Rayman 2, Shadow Man, and even Mega Man and Castlevania.
Those games would have been 3D anyway. Mario 64 only influenced how they did it, not the mere fact of being 3D.
For better or worse, Super Mario 64 single-handedly destroyed 2D gaming. As a result of that one game, 3D games became the standard for everyone.
You can't be serious. No one game can do that. There was an industry-wide shift. There are plenty of 3D games before and after Mario 64 that had an impact.
Also, 2D gaming was not destroyed in late 1996. You'd probably get that impression if your only system was N64.
buzz_n64
06-23-2010, 01:55 PM
Super Mario 64 was monumental in 1996. It basically did for 3d games, what Super Mario Bros. did for platformers. When SM64 came out, that was all I could think about, and then waited for Super Mario 64 2 to come out, but to no avail.
Check out my Super Mario 64 review http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhpMssIeRis
Rob2600
06-23-2010, 03:05 PM
Those games would have been 3D anyway.
No, if it weren't for Super Mario 64, those games I listed wouldn't have existed in the first place.
You can't be serious. No one game can do that. There was an industry-wide shift. There are plenty of 3D games before and after Mario 64 that had an impact.
Also, 2D gaming was not destroyed in late 1996. You'd probably get that impression if your only system was N64.
You're right, there was in industry-wide shift...because of Super Mario 64. And how many 2D PlayStation platform games were released after Super Mario 64?
To deny the success, importance, and overwhelming influence of Super Mario 64 on the video game industry is silly.
pepharytheworm
06-23-2010, 03:59 PM
You're right, there was in industry-wide shift...because of Super Mario 64. And how many 2D PlayStation platform games were released after Super Mario 64?
How many were released before? Not many and not many after.
EDIT: found this list on this site of 2D ps1 us titles
http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?t=54374
More than I thought but I wonder how many came before and then after Mario 64.
NayusDante
06-23-2010, 05:03 PM
How many were released before? Not many and not many after.
Castlevania... Mega Man 8, X4, X5, X6... Lots of Street Fighter...
Considering that the Wii didn't have a good game for quite some time and people still bought it, it's cheaply made, and Nintendo rarely developed anything for it. I'd say that the Wii is the biggest success.
Well it was going up against the Xbox 360 which had a horrible RRoD problem and the PS3 which didn't have any good games for about the same amount of time and cost 3x as much. If you bought a 360 it was like throwing $450 down the toilet, and if you bought a PS3 it was like spending $600 that could have been in a bank collecting interest. The Wii cost $280 and had some interesting potential. GameCube backwards compatibility also helped it out through the start.
K&M is only way to go, yet you say the touchscreen is going to be the bees knees.
Pick a side, dingus.
I never said it was the bees knees, you're making a straw man argument. I said it was better than any other option on a portable.
I like DS and PSP. I do not like iPhone games. I've played plenty of them to know it's not really worth my time.
You still haven't played even a small fraction of all the games available nor have you bothered to look at the titles being put out and the developers working on them given the patently false claims you were making about it.
The thing has no Crisis Core competitor. No pokemon competitor.
It has Square Enix developing for it, and you say it has no Crisis Core competitor? You can make subjective claims about what counts as a CC competitor, or not, but you'll be eating your hat once Square ports it. As for Pokemon competitor, if that's your thing, then sure, get a DS. But neither the DS, and espeically the PSP (with it's single analog stick fail) has a single dual analog shooter, and iOS has at least 50.
If they already did better on iPhone, tell me the name of the game then.
bejeweled doesn't count.
The best selling game on the PSP is Monster Hunter Freedom's Unite at 3.5 million sales. Assassins Creed 2 on iOS hit over 8.5 million sales, and it's not even the highest selling game. You have no argument. iOS has hugely successful games by big name developers that are preferring it as a platform to the PSP and DS - notice the lack of Sonic 4 on either platform.
For better or worse, Super Mario 64 single-handedly destroyed 2D gaming. As a result of that one game, 3D games became the standard for everyone.
I think you're neglecting the importance of 3dfx on the PC with games like Quake.
And once again, you've proven that nothing you post should be taken seriously.
You're not making a great case for yourself with nothing to back up quips like this.
It seems he hasn't even played GoldenEye on N64. I've played Syphon Filter and a lot of shooters on the PS, but nothing ever beat GoldenEye, and I'm not even a gamer.
You claim not to be a gamer, yet you're here. You're comparing GoldenEye on the N64 to the PS. I'm comparing it to the slew of far better FPS games for the PC. It's thoroughly unimpressive.
This thread was doomed from the start, with no set definition of success to go by. We have a few posts that point out the sales statistics, which are hard facts, and then we have three pages of arguing over ideological successes, which are opinions. Half of it is the OP arguing his opinions as facts, when the thread asked for opinions. Whether a console has games in genres you like determines how successful it was? That's interesting logic, which brings me to an important lesson I've learned:
You're twisting things. The only genre that the N64 has anything that I have no interest in is wrestling. It's poor in the FPS department simply on account of being a console. Racing it doesn't hold up to the PS. Quirky games, while great, I never heard of, none of my friends with N64s ever talked about them nor did I ever see them mentioned on forums or getting front page treatment on game sites. As I didn't have an N64 I didn't go digging deeply for them, but if there isn't even any mention of them as there is nowadays with echochrome and Flower showing up on non PS3 specific blogs, it can't be counted as that much of a success.
Now I know that 32.93 rounds down to 9.5. The Saturn did just as well as the N64! I've been using bad arithmetic all these years...
Round to 1 significant figure, the PS sold an order of magnitude larger than the N64 and Saturn. It's not a solid second place that it had, it's an incredibly weak second place.
No, if it weren't for Super Mario 64, those games I listed wouldn't have existed in the first place.
Crash Bandicoot was released on the PS before anyone knew anything about Mario 64. They would have happened all the same. 3D platformers on the PS were competing with each other more than they were with Mario 64.
You're right, there was in industry-wide shift...because of Super Mario 64. And how many 2D PlayStation platform games were released after Super Mario 64?
They were releasing 3D platformers on the playstation before Mario 64, so it's not like it had as amazing a shift as you're claiming.
To deny the success, importance, and overwhelming influence of Super Mario 64 on the video game industry is silly.
It had success yes, importance, not really, overwhelming influence - hardly. Nothing from the N64 or GameCube eras had overwhelming influence on the video game industry. That was all Sony.
Rob2600
06-23-2010, 05:52 PM
Nothing from the N64 or GameCube eras had overwhelming influence on the video game industry.
Wow. I'm done.
Greg2600
06-23-2010, 05:58 PM
Biggest success? NES. Hands down.
Arkhan
06-23-2010, 06:28 PM
I never said it was the bees knees, you're making a straw man argument. I said it was better than any other option on a portable.
I don't know chief, I think I would prefer the actual thumbstick on a PSP over a frictiony touch screen.
I also think most people don't want an FPS on a 5" screen and that is why they aren't the big focus of handhelds.
Next, iPhone is best for VR Sims because of the touch interface being more realistic than a controller, right?
You still haven't played even a small fraction of all the games available nor have you bothered to look at the titles being put out and the developers working on them given the patently false claims you were making about it.
Neither have you. Flid.
I've played enough games to know that if there is a ton more like what I DID play, then it isn't worth two fucks of my time.
It has Square Enix developing for it, and you say it has no Crisis Core competitor? You can make subjective claims about what counts as a CC competitor, or not, but you'll be eating your hat once Square ports it. As for Pokemon competitor, if that's your thing, then sure, get a DS. But neither the DS, and espeically the PSP (with it's single analog stick fail) has a single dual analog shooter, and iOS has at least 50.
I will believe it when I see it for Crisis Core competitors. It's not a subjective claim. It's plain as day. I want to see a graphic intensive handheld action RPG with voice overs/cutscenes, and at least 20 hours of solid gameplay. Where is it. The stuff Square put on the iCrap is not very epic. Just because Square made it doesn't mean it can compete with it. Next you will tell me that the FF1 and FF2 ports are great and compete with Crisis Core right?
iOS has 50 shooters. of the 50, 48 of them suck more man shaft than a back alley hooker on a saturday in July.
You have no argument. iOS has hugely successful games by big name developers that are preferring it as a platform to the PSP and DS
Citation needed.
Round to 1 significant figure, the PS sold an order of magnitude larger than the N64 and Saturn. It's not a solid second place that it had, it's an incredibly weak second place.
Leave the statistical analysis to someone who isn't operating at <50% mental capacity.
No, if it weren't for Super Mario 64, those games I listed wouldn't have existed in the first place.
.
Gex 3D would have though!
:D
Doonzmore
06-23-2010, 06:45 PM
I consider the N64 to be a success despite never getting a lead on the PS1. It may have had a smaller library compared to that system, but from what I remember whenever there was a new first party 64 release it would garner tons of attention and be talked about for months in the magazines.
Super Mario 64
Mario Kart 64
Banjo Kazooie
Diddy Kong Racing
Star Wars Rogue Squadron
Goldeneye 007
Perfect Dark
Paper Mario
Turok 2
Super Smash Brothers
1080 Snowboarding
Wave Race 64
Zelda: Ocarina of Time
Zelda: Majora's Mask
Donkey Kong 64
Starfox 64
F-Zero X
I just don't remember many PS1 games getting as much attention as these. Maybe Final Fantasy 7 or Crash Bandicoot 2.
Again, the sales numbers may not have matched the PS1, but it hung on to the market for at least 5 years and the games are still widely known and cherished. I once heard someone compare it the Game Gear, which i think is way off the mark. The Game Gear never had a killer app like the N64.
@j_Factor - I never said N64 wasn't a success, not sure who you are directing your response to.
Arkhan
06-23-2010, 07:21 PM
I just don't remember many PS1 games getting as much attention as these. Maybe Final Fantasy 7 or Crash Bandicoot 2.
tons of stuff dude!
Street Fighter Alpha 2! Star Ocean 2, Einhander, Oddworld series, Tomb Raider
there were a buncha ooo-oooo pS1 games too.
Also you left Jet Force Gemini off the n64 list
pepharytheworm
06-23-2010, 07:53 PM
tons of stuff dude!
Street Fighter Alpha 2! Star Ocean 2, Einhander, Oddworld series, Tomb Raider
there were a buncha ooo-oooo pS1 games too.
Also you left Jet Force Gemini off the n64 list
Tomb Raider and SF Alpha were on Saturn too. I never heard a lot of hype on Star Ocean 2 and Einhander other than places like this. So, Crash, Metal Gear Solid, Gran Turismo, Spyro the Dragon and Final Fantasy had universal appeal. Some secondary iffy titles would be like, Driver, Twisted Metal, Tekken, and Syphon Filter.
j_factor
06-23-2010, 07:55 PM
You're right, there was in industry-wide shift...because of Super Mario 64.
Yeah, Mario 64 caused an industry-wide shift... in platform game design. You can't seriously believe that ONE GAME made games in general go 3D. What about Tomb Raider? What about Virtua Fighter? What about Quake? What about Descent, Magic Carpet, et al? What about the dozens of editorials/articles talking about how 3D was the future of gaming long before N64 was released? What about the very design of the Playstation and Saturn consoles, being made with 3D graphics in mind?
And how many 2D PlayStation platform games were released after Super Mario 64?
Why are you saying platform games? My original comment was not specific to platform games. You keep making red herring statements. (And actually, a significant number of Playstation games were 2D still -- Mega Man 8/X4/X5/X6, Skullmonkeys, Oddworld 1 and 2, Heart of Darkness, Tomba, Strider 2, Castlevania SOTN/Chronicles, the list goes on)
And games take a while to develop. If it were all because of Mario 64, its influence would've taken a while to kick in, and Playstation and Saturn would have been dominated by 2D games until early 97. But that was certainly not the case.
To deny the success, importance, and overwhelming influence of Super Mario 64 on the video game industry is silly.
I do not deny that Mario 64 was hugely successful, important, and influential. I do, however, deny the ludicrous notion that any one game could be responsible for polygonal graphics becoming standard. It was happening either way, and was obvious at the time.
I consider the N64 to be a success despite never getting a lead on the PS1. It may have had a smaller library compared to that system, but from what I remember whenever there was a new first party 64 release it would garner tons of attention and be talked about for months in the magazines.
When there are much fewer games to talk about, individual games get more attention.
However, to say the N64 wasn't a success is just silly. You don't have to be #1 to be successful.
Again, the sales numbers may not have matched the PS1, but it hung on to the market for at least 5 years and the games are still widely known and cherished. I once heard someone compare it the Game Gear, which i think is way off the mark. The Game Gear never had a killer app like the N64.
Well, Game Gear was also a #2 system that lasted more than 5 years, and its library is almost the same size IIRC. It may not have had anything as significant as Mario or Zelda in terms of success or influence, but it did have its own killer apps, otherwise it wouldn't have kept going. Its most popular games were Sonic, Columns, Shinobi, Streets of Rage, Mortal Kombat, X-Men, Spider-Man, Jurassic Park, and several Disney games.