Remember nintendo's arrogance during nintendo 64's release?

[Enigmus]

First row, Seat 2A to the N64 vs. PSX match. Called it.

[Gameguy]

Someone once told me Alundra was the Playstation's answer to Ocarina of Time. I haven't played the first one (didn't get into the 2nd one very much) so I don't know if that claim is true.
I just looked up Alundra on youtube, it's another game to add to my want list. To me it looks better than Ocarina of Time as it's 2D like the older Zelda games, and it's by Working Design which is a good sign.


I would argue that someone who doesn't like SM64 probably shouldn't be buying a N64 period. That means you probably would also not appreciate the Banjo games, Conker, Donkey Kong 64, Kirby 64, Rayman 2, Rocket, and so many of the N64's best games. No system is perfect for everybody, even the PlayStation included. I mean, if someone was really looking for 3D platformers, then the PlayStation was pretty crappy. Crash and Spyro are about the most notable ones on the system, and they don't compare to the offerings of Nintendo and Rare (plus they came along after Super Mario 64). I think most people would also agree that a fan of console FPS games was better off with a N64 as well. And if someone likes 2D fighters, I think they're screwed with both the N64 and PlayStation because most of the ones on PlayStation are butchered.
I agree with you on this, I don't really like 3D platformers that much or console FPS games so that's probably why I don't like the N64 that much. 2D platformers are alright but not 3D.

[The 1 2 P]

Well, saying that those magazines and sites lied does imply that you believe that there was no possible way for those people in the press to genuinely feel that Super Mario 64 was an amazing game, enough to perhaps even consider it the best they've ever played.

Not that I don't think there was a lot of hyperbole going on, but I also don't think the press was secretly tenting their fingertips a la Mr. Burns saying "Hee hee, we're telling them that this is the greatest game ever, but we really think it stinks!"

Um...my saying "they lied" was a direct response to this:


I wouldn't say it sucked, considering one of those two games was hailed as the greatest video game of all time by every magazine and web site. :)

Surely I wasn't the only one to notice that Rob2600 took it upon himself to check every single magazine and website to assure that they ALL uniformly agreed that super mario 64 was the greatest game of all time. He didn't, he made that up and was exaggerating.....just like I was exaggerating when I said all those magazines lied. But I think that nostalgia and the fact that it was one of the only two launch games actually lead to it's early praise and high scores but thats just my opinion. I have played the game but didn't enjoy it.

[Aussie2B]

I would say Alundra is more the PlayStation's answer to A Link to the Past, haha. A 2D overhead game can't capture the same feel as a 360 degree 3D adventure (not that one is inherently better than the other). Great game, though, and definitely taking after Zelda. It's a nice alternative for anyone that wasn't sold on the 3D transition for Zelda (as small as their numbers may be).

I'm not sure if PlayStation has anything quite like Ocarina of Time. People compared it to stuff like the Tomb Raider games and Soul Reaver, but I think those are different in significant ways. I wouldn't blame a PlayStation developer for trying to avoid taking Zelda head on, though. It would inevitably be doomed to be labeled as a cheap rip-off and ran through the coals, even if it was actually a good game when looked at on its own.

[tomaitheous]

I would say Alundra is more the PlayStation's answer to A Link to the Past, haha. A 2D overhead game can't capture the same feel as a 360 degree 3D adventure (not that one is inherently better than the other). Great game, though, and definitely taking after Zelda. It's a nice alternative for anyone that wasn't sold on the 3D transition for Zelda (as small as their numbers may be).

I'd say it's not. It's more like Illusion of Gaia on SNES, if anything. And waaaaaaaaaay too many puzzles for my taste, too. I didn't like it.


I'm not sure if PlayStation has anything quite like Ocarina of Time. People compared it to stuff like the Tomb Raider games and Soul Reaver, but I think those are different in significant ways. I wouldn't blame a PlayStation developer for trying to avoid taking Zelda head on, though. It would inevitably be doomed to be labeled as a cheap rip-off and ran through the coals, even if it was actually a good game when looked at on its own.

Yeah, I certainly don't remember any OoT clones on the PS1 or equivalents. OoT was pretty damn great, so I'm not so sure many companies could bring out a game on that level. MJ on the hand, feels like a poor-mans homebrew hack of OoT. It's definitely a love it or hate it game. And I think it stinks. I loved me some Zelda, but I wasn't that hard up of a Zelda freak to enjoy that game (funny, cause I've enjoyed pretty much every other Zelda game that came before and came out since).

Also... SM64 cuts the roof of your mouth!

[Zing]

I owned an N64 throughout its lifespan and all I can remember was buying a new PS1 game practically every month while the N64 collected dust until the next Nintendo/Rare release.

This is the truth.

Although, Super Mario 64 was almost worth paying the price of the system alone!

[j_factor]

That's just ridiculous to me. Tech demo? Novel? If you want to talk about Pilotwings 64 like that, I could understand, but SM64 is all about its gameplay before graphics or anything else. It's loaded with action, puzzles, secrets, etc. When people praise SM64, it's because they like PLAYING it, not just looking at it. If someone doesn't like the gameplay, more power to them, but implying that it doesn't have gameplay at all is going to get scoffs from most people.

I'm not saying it doesn't have gameplay at all. But the vast majority of what I hear about Mario 64 and why it's so great is everything but the gameplay.

Take, as a quick example, Gamespot's original review (http://www.gamespot.com/n64/action/supermario64/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;read-review). It's a decent length. At no time does he even mention level design. He spends most of the review talking about its "worlds" and how "immersive" it is. This is, in my experience, typical. Super Mario 64: it's not a game, it's an experience.


And stuff like Descent and Destruction Derby aren't dreck? If you think games like those are great (especially if you think they're better than SM64), then I just don't know what to say.

You really think Descent and Destruction Derby are dreck? You think they're roughly the same quality as Shadows of the Empire?

They may not be the best games ever, but they were both innovative, and they're both pretty fun. I've never heard anyone blast those games. What didn't you like about them?


I would argue that someone who doesn't like SM64 probably shouldn't be buying a N64 period. That means you probably would also not appreciate the Banjo games, Conker, Donkey Kong 64, Kirby 64, Rayman 2, Rocket, and so many of the N64's best games.

This is exactly what makes the N64 weak in my eyes. If you don't like this one game and its clones, then its offerings are pretty limited. Even its fans apparently agree.

And true enough, I don't appreciate most of those games. I do like Rayman 2, but I'd rather play it on Dreamcast.


No system is perfect for everybody, even the PlayStation included. I mean, if someone was really looking for 3D platformers, then the PlayStation was pretty crappy. Crash and Spyro are about the most notable ones on the system, and they don't compare to the offerings of Nintendo and Rare (plus they came along after Super Mario 64).

My preferred 3D platformer on PSX was Ape Escape actually. But I can't argue that it wasn't a great system for the genre. Then again, I think most 3D platformers of that era, including on N64, were pretty sloppy.

But that's really the inverse of what I was saying about N64. "You must like X" is a bigger problem than "if you do like X, you won't get it", because most people like more than one or two genres.


I think most people would also agree that a fan of console FPS games was better off with a N64 as well.

That's a close call IMO. For multiplayer, N64 definitely wins, but for someone focused just on single player, the Playstation is probably just as good. I thought the N64 releases of Quake, Doom, and Duke Nukem were all let-downs.


And if someone likes 2D fighters, I think they're screwed with both the N64 and PlayStation because most of the ones on PlayStation are butchered.

Playstation did well with a few, but yeah, anyone who really cared about home versions of 2D fighters would have to go with a Saturn. Which shows you how many people really cared that much about home versions of 2D fighters. :p

I'm not really sure what the point is of going down this road. If we kept playing the "if you like genre X" game, N64 would come out looking much worse.


But limited options aside, the pre-Christmas releases for N64 did cover platformers, flight sims, racing, fighting, sports, and action/adventure, so it's not like there wasn't a fair amount of genre representation. That's not to say every game was a shining example of its genre, but that was certainly the case with PlayStation as well. I think much of those early popular PlayStation games were only popular because there wasn't anything better. As a result, they've justly been forgotten, as is the case with the N64's Cruis'n USA for example, but games like Super Mario 64 and Wave Race 64 are still loved and played because they're genuinely good games (in most people's eyes, at least). Hype isn't eternal. It can only hide a sub-par game for so long.

I think it's true that, say, Battle Arena Toshinden has been justly forgotten (and I loathed that game from the very beginning). Ridge Racer and Tekken were both pure hype too. But I think Jumping Flash!, WipEout, Rayman, Discworld, Warhawk, NBA Jam T.E. (though not specifically the PSX version), and yes, even Destruction Derby and Descent, are still fondly remembered. When Warhawk was announced for PS3, a lot of people were excited about it. So the original wasn't forgotten. (And then when it was released, it was a big disappointment, but that's beside the point.)


I don't think that's a fair argument at this point in time. Those PlayStation games were popular sellers, many were available for cheap as Greatest Hits later on, they're extremely cheap now and easily accessible by collectors. Most PlayStation collectors have at least a couple of those in their collections, and they'll get tried out for 30 minutes and then get shelved. They'd rather be playing genuinely good PlayStation games that are still enjoyable and highly regarded to this day like Metal Gear Solid and Final Fantasy VII. Super Mario 64 is in their company, not junk like the first Twisted Metal.

That's not what I was talking about. I used the past tense and you're talking about today. "PlayStation collectors" is a pretty small number of people.

Also I think most people who got into PSX later in its lifespan (but while it was still around) never bothered to delve into the early games for the system. Probably because there were so many newer games for it. Whereas if you got an N64 in 1999, you'd probably still come around to Super Mario 64, because there were fewer (notable) games in the intervening period.


Anyway, this is getting dangerously close to a system argument, which I don't think any of us want or need. I personally love the 32/64-bit generation in general. I can even appreciate the PC-FX, with its paltry 60-some games and its complete lack of many genres.

Now that's just crazy. :p Although you'd probably think it's just as crazy that I can appreciate the CD32.

[tom]

CD32 has an excellent library of many UK classics.
OK, all playable on Amiga computer, but still it was nice to play them on CD with extra bits (eg Simon the Sorcerer), then on 120 floppy discs.

Trouble wit Mario 64 I had was that I played that kind of game (3D free roaming) years before on PC, Mac, Amiga and even Jaguar. So I thought...OK Mario 64 groundbreaking? Are those people living under a rock?

Truth is, USA'ers are obsessed with anything Mario and always will be. Nintendo can sell them the same game over and over and over, and USA people lap it up like Apple/Steve Jobs evangelists.

.

[fishsandwich]

The N64 might have been a disappointment in the marketplace and a risky platform for 3rd party developers but Nintendo certainly made a pile of PROFIT from the N64 hardware and its 1st and 2nd party games.


Top 10 best selling Nintendo 64 games

Super Mario 64 (11 million)
Mario Kart 64 (8.47 million approximately: 6.23 million in US and PAL region, 2.24 million in Japan)
GoldenEye 007 (8 million)
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (7.6 million)
Super Smash Bros. (4.9 million approximately: 2.93 million in US, 1.97 million in Japan)
Diddy Kong Racing (4.434 million approximately: 3.78 million in US and PAL,653,928 in Japan
Pokémon Stadium (3.871 million approximately: 3.16 million in US, 710,765 in Japan)
Donkey Kong 64 (3.77 million approximately: 2.67 million in US, 1.1 million in Japan)
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask (3.36 million)
Star Fox 64 (3.325 million approximately: 2.76 million in US,565,222 in Japan)


OVERALL SALES OF PSX AND N64 GAMES... note that 4 of the top 10 are N64 titles as is the #1 game

Super Mario 64 (N64 - 11 million)
Gran Turismo (PSX - 10.85 million shipped)
Final Fantasy VII (PSX - 9.8 million, includes Final Fantasy VII International)
Gran Turismo 2 (PSX - 9.37 million shipped)
Mario Kart 64 (N64 - 8.47 million approximately: 6.23 million in US and PAL region,2.24 million in Japan)
GoldenEye 007 (N64 - 8 million)
Tomb Raider II (PSX - 8 million)
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (N64 - 7.6 million)
Metal Gear Solid (PSX - 7 million)
Tomb Raider (PSX - 7 million)





!

[Rob2600]

OVERALL SALES OF PSX AND N64 GAMES... note that 4 of the top 10 are N64 titles, as is the #1 game

Super Mario 64 (N64 - 11 million)
Gran Turismo (PSX - 10.85 million shipped)
Final Fantasy VII (PSX - 9.8 million, includes Final Fantasy VII International)
Gran Turismo 2 (PSX - 9.37 million shipped)
Mario Kart 64 (N64 - 8.47 million approximately: 6.23 million in US and PAL region,2.24 million in Japan)
GoldenEye 007 (N64 - 8 million)
Tomb Raider II (PSX - 8 million)
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (N64 - 7.6 million)
Metal Gear Solid (PSX - 7 million)
Tomb Raider (PSX - 7 million)

More than a decade later, those N64 games (Super Mario 64, Mario Kart 64, Goldeneye 007, and Ocarina of Time) have held up much better than their PlayStation counterparts (Tomb Raider II, Gran Turismo, Metal Gear Solid, and Final Fantasy VII). Those PlayStation games feel very dated now, especially in terms of graphics and load times, whereas those N64 games are still fun and playable and look nice.

Nobody ever has the urge to pop in the old Gran Turismo or Tomb Raider games, but Super Mario 64, Goldeneye, and Ocarina of Time are still played today.

[tom]

I'm the other way, I still play Tomb Raider, it's a classic, but Goldeneye...ugh sucks eggs.

best N64 game, still awesomely playable toady (maybe I just like playing with women instead of ugly short fat plumbers) ;-)
http://roomofdoom.powweb.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=201532&g2_serialNumber=1


As for Zelda, please, that is some unplayable running around shit lots worse than Tomb Raider (looks far worse than Tomb Raider too)

[Enigmus]

Personally, the only PSX urge I ever have is for compilation discs, especially Arcade's Greatest Hits. To me, PlayStation was a great system for 2D games, but the 3D was sub-par (so many seam lines, urggh). But to me, N64 was perfect for 3D gaming. It could pull off platformers and FPS games without a problem, and it could do a really great arcade style racing game (can never get enough Cruis'n World), and could even do some sports games really well (most noticeably baseball and football.) The PSX games have all lost some charm over time due to the aforementioned problems- loading, scratched discs, obvious 3D seams, and (sometimes) clunkish controls. Some people enjoy PSX, some enjoy N64. I side with the latter.

[Bojay1997]

More than a decade later, those N64 games (Super Mario 64, Mario Kart 64, Goldeneye 007, and Ocarina of Time) have held up much better than their PlayStation counterparts (Tomb Raider II, Gran Turismo, Metal Gear Solid, and Final Fantasy VII). Those PlayStation games feel very dated now, especially in terms of graphics and load times, whereas those N64 games are still fun and playable and look nice.

Nobody ever has the urge to pop in the old Gran Turismo or Tomb Raider games, but Super Mario 64, Goldeneye, and Ocarina of Time are still played today.

I don't know, I still play older PSX games just as often as I play the N64 and frankly, a lot of N64 games look just as bad as older PSX games. I'll admit that the N64 games get a lot more play by the general gaming public simply because they have been re-released in DS versions (with the exception of Goldeneye of course, unless you count the remake/reimagining). I think they were both excellent consoles and both will remain very collectible for years to come.

[tomaitheous]

I could easily log some hours on MotoRacer (the first one) on the PSX nowadays. Same with SOTN. If I want to play a 3D Mario platformer, I'll just play SunShine (100x better game IMO).

[SpaceHarrier]

N64... the only system I have ever sold along with all the games I owned for it.



Of course, I recently bought Mario 64, StarFox 64, and F-Zero X on Virtual Console so...

[Swamperon]

I think some 3D games have held up well on the PSX. I still enjoy playing Spyro and find the 3D to be perfectly enjoyable. Crash Bandicoot hasn't aged too badly either.

Abe's Odyssey still impresses me for some reason. The first Rayman remains spectacular.

But then they do more or less suffer in comparison to the N64. One thing I never get is when people complain of the blurriness of the N64's graphics, as if someone has wiped Vaseline over the screen. What sort of TV's are they playing on?

[j_factor]

But then they do more or less suffer in comparison to the N64. One thing I never get is when people complain of the blurriness of the N64's graphics, as if someone has wiped Vaseline over the screen. What sort of TV's are they playing on?

I have played my N64 (which I only got last year) on a 27" CRT SDTV and a 42" plasma HDTV. Not to mention playing/observing many friends' N64s at various times. There's always been a definite blurriness. Although, it varies by game as to how bad it is.

Compare Ocarina of Time on N64 to the Gamecube version. The GC version is a lot sharper (and it's not otherwise enhanced). And OoT isn't one of the worst offenders. N64 emulators have various settings to take out the blur, too.

[Malon_Forever]

I have played my N64 (which I only got last year) on a 27" CRT SDTV and a 42" plasma HDTV. Not to mention playing/observing many friends' N64s at various times. There's always been a definite blurriness. Although, it varies by game as to how bad it is.

Compare Ocarina of Time on N64 to the Gamecube version. The GC version is a lot sharper (and it's not otherwise enhanced). And OoT isn't one of the worst offenders. N64 emulators have various settings to take out the blur, too.

Banjo Tooie is bad. Most games aren't that noticable though IMO.

[Icarus Moonsight]

The texture resolution was severely limited because of the cart format correct? That's the reason that comes up often enough anyway. With the high cost of RAM in the late 90's, which no one could have foreseen (earthquake), texture size was reduced and textures were reused to save space and reduce the RAM requirement for production. Not a problem for the CD systems, had plenty of room for detailed and varied textures, even if the hardware was less capable, it seemed more because of the N64 had the handicap of the cost bottleneck. Either that, or I am confusing this with something else entirely...

[sheath]

When I had an N64 I was disappointed that the image was fudged even with S-Video. It has always been said that the N64's form of anti-aliasing was just a form of interpolation. Trying to anti-alias 320x240 3D probably just wasn't an easy task. I wouldn't be surprised if the Gamecube versions are rendering at 640x480.

[tom]

But then they do more or less suffer in comparison to the N64. One thing I never get is when people complain of the blurriness of the N64's graphics, as if someone has wiped Vaseline over the screen. What sort of TV's are they playing on?

No no you understand that wrong, it has nothing to do with the TV set or any other watching device. It is a well known fault with the N64, here's a little Wiki text to explain this to you:

The Nintendo 64 had weaknesses that were caused by a combination of oversight on the part of the hardware designers, limitations on 3D technology of the time, and manufacturing capabilities. One major flaw was the limited texture cache of 4 KB. This made it difficult to load anything but small, low color depth textures into the rendering engine. This small texture limitation caused blurring due to developers stretching small textures to cover a surface, and then the console's bilinear filtering would blur them further.


.

[mr_nihilism]

Well, it did have Starfox. And that was good.

[Malon_Forever]

Well, it did have Starfox. And that was great.

Fixed :D

[Gavica]

lets see N64 had between 10-20 great games, ps1 had over 50

[kupomogli]

More than a decade later, those N64 games (Super Mario 64, Mario Kart 64, Goldeneye 007, and Ocarina of Time) have held up much better than their PlayStation counterparts (Tomb Raider II, Gran Turismo, Metal Gear Solid, and Final Fantasy VII)

While I'm sure you're correct about Gran Turismo, Tomb Raider 2, Metal Gear Solid, and Final Fantasy 7 have all held up very well. I also believe Mario 64 is the only other game in that list that hasn't held up well, but one thing Gran Turismo has over Mario 64 is it's actually playable. The only good thing about Mario 64 is the mini games and those are available on the DS only.

Final Fantasy 7 has held up unless you're not a fan of RPGs. I'm not a fan of the Metal Gear series regardless which game it is, but how can you say the original game has not held up when the series still has the exact same gameplay after all these years? The graphics are good and if you check out Youtube there are a few different walkthroughs, long plays, and let's play videos that have been put up in the past year to the last few years. Tomb Raider 2 is still enjoyable to play, though if you mentioned the first game instead then I'd agree it's not so much fun.

If you're going to list games that haven't held up to make your favored console look better atleast be realistic.


lets see N64 had between 10-20 great games, ps1 had over 100

Fixed.

[Gavica]

Fixed.

true .

[Malon_Forever]

I could name well over 20 great games IMO for the N64. The N64 and PS1 were very different consoles though and great in their own way.

[Famidrive-16]

lets see N64 had between 10-20 great games, ps1 had over 100

Fixed.

List them.

[Enigmus]

List them.

Seconded.

[Swamperon]

Hmmm, would this list have to consist purely of Playstation exclusives? (Within the 5th generation of course)

[sheath]

These are still in progress because I recently had over 50 PS1 games submitted without any reasons, but here it is a list of PS1 games (http://www.gamepilgrimage.com/view/browse/notablegames?field_year_value_op=between&field_year_value[value]=1985-2005&field_year_value[min]=1985&field_year_value[max]=2005&field_system_value_op=word&field_system_value=Playstation&title_op=contains&title=&field_notable_value_many_to_one[]=1) that were compiled by Rec.Games.Video.Sony fans prior to 2003. The criteria is bent to gameplay comments only, not popularity or sales.

I applied the same criteria to the N64 library a few years ago and came up with this list (http://www.gamepilgrimage.com/view/browse/notablegames?field_year_value_op=between&field_year_value[value]=1985-2005&field_year_value[min]=1985&field_year_value[max]=2005&field_system_value_op=%3D&field_system_value=Nintendo+64&title_op=contains&title=&field_notable_value_many_to_one[]=1).

The individual game pages for the N64 library only has the top three reasons why the game was added. I have not gone back and done this for older game libraries, mainly because I haven't cared to.

[tom]

Those lists are always stupid, one of my favorite games on PS is Air (Ace) Combat, it's a classic flight sim from a Namco coin-up, totally awesome game.
Ask any non-flight sim fan and he'll tell you that game sucks.

Amidar on VCS, to me a classic title, IF you know how to play it properly on the VCS. Most people can't get the hang of the joystick/slow speed relevance and give up after a few seconds.

Lists prove nothing, people here listing the oh so excellent N64/PSX titles, means nothing too. It's all personal.

Tomb Raider is a great game, full of action, Zelda on N64 you walk around for days, doing naught except for walking into fog.

[sheath]

That's why these lists completely ignore subjective terms and stick to factual gameplay comments. Eventually they should reflect any games multiple people found worth noting for specific gameplay related reasons (multiplayer, missions, shooting on Mars, et al.)

Lists that try to pit top sellers, presented as "AAA titles" against the rest of the library actually are stupid. As is measuring the size of one console's list against against another. Isn't that a touch adolescent folks?

[kupomogli]

List them.


Seconded.

Here's 50. http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1491

I'm at work so plenty of free time so here's 51 more that aren't listed(I did quote it as "over 100.") Being that the PSX is the king of RPGs it seems a little unfair placing mostly RPGs without anything so I'll list as many good titles from other genres before I start filling it up with RPGs. If I haven't played it, it's not going to be in the list.

Alundra
Arc the Lad 2
Armored Core Master of Arena
Blood Omen Legacy of Kain
Brave Fencer Musashi
Breath of Fire 3
Brigandine Legend of Forsena(not counting extra, but Grand Edition also.)
Bushido Blade
Castlevania Chronicles
Chocobo Racing
Chocobo Dungeon 2
Crash Bandicoot
Crash Bandicoot 2
Die Hard Trilogy
Dino Crisis
Dragon Warrior 7
Grandia
Gundam Battle Assault 2
Kagero Deception 2
King's Field
King's Field 2
MediEvil
Mega Man 8
Mega Man Legends
Mega Man Legends 2
Mega Man X4
Mega Man X6
Need for Speed 3 Hot Pursuit
Nightmare Creatures
Ogre Battle
Omega Boost
Parasite Eve 2
Resident Evil
Resident Evil 3
Rival Schools
Romance of the Three Kingdoms 6
SaGa Frontier 2
Soul Reaver Legacy of Kain
Spyro the Dragon
Star Ocean the Second Story
Suikoden
Syndicate Wars
Tactics Ogre Let Us Cling Together
Tail Concerto
Tales of Eternia
Tecmo's Deception
Tomb Raider 2
Vandal Hearts
Warcraft 2
Warhammer
Wild ARMs

..... and done. There are many more games that I could list, mostly RPGs. So well over 100. It really depends on your favored genres but I'm sure there's also some good sports games on the system as well. I can say that I like Gameday 98 so that's one I'd list.


Those lists are always stupid, one of my favorite games on PS is Air (Ace) Combat, it's a classic flight sim from a Namco coin-up, totally awesome game.
Ask any non-flight sim fan and he'll tell you that game sucks.

I'm not a flight sim fan and I liked this.


Lists prove nothing, people here listing the oh so excellent N64/PSX titles, means nothing too. It's all personal.

That's true. If it was my personal list of good games(which those 51 I listed were,) while there are a lot of games that are in the top 50 DP thread that I linked that'd be in my list, but some games would be replaced with RPGs since that's my favorite genre. Metal Gear Solid for example.

[kedawa]

I'm a big fan of fighting games, so the N64 doesn't compare to the PSX or Saturn in my eyes. Mortal Kombat Trilogy, Killer Instinct Gold and Super Smash Brothers are okay games, but other than that, the N64 has dick all for fighters.

[Malon_Forever]

and Super Smash Brothers are okay games


!!! I can't believe my eyes.

[Famidrive-16]

Great Job Kupo

[Enigmus]

I wouldn't count games like Mega Man 8 (also on Sega Saturn), MMX4 (also Saturn), or the Resident Evil games (many multisystem releases, including Saturn (RE1) and N64 (RE2) in the same generation), though, due to multiplatform release, though. Still, those are well prepared lists, even though there's a lot there I've never heard of. Might have to find those games and give them a try.

[pseudonym]

Here's 50. http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1491

I'm at work so plenty of free time so here's 51 more that aren't listed(I did quote it as "over 100.") Being that the PSX is the king of RPGs it seems a little unfair placing mostly RPGs without anything so I'll list as many good titles from other genres before I start filling it up with RPGs. If I haven't played it, it's not going to be in the list.

Alundra
Arc the Lad 2
Armored Core Master of Arena
Blood Omen Legacy of Kain
Brave Fencer Musashi
Breath of Fire 3
Brigandine Legend of Forsena(not counting extra, but Grand Edition also.)
Bushido Blade
Castlevania Chronicles
Chocobo Racing
Chocobo Dungeon 2
Crash Bandicoot
Crash Bandicoot 2
Die Hard Trilogy
Dino Crisis
Dragon Warrior 7
Grandia
Gundam Battle Assault 2
Kagero Deception 2
King's Field
King's Field 2
MediEvil
Mega Man 8
Mega Man Legends
Mega Man Legends 2
Mega Man X4
Mega Man X6
Need for Speed 3 Hot Pursuit
Nightmare Creatures
Ogre Battle
Omega Boost
Parasite Eve 2
Resident Evil
Resident Evil 3
Rival Schools
Romance of the Three Kingdoms 6
SaGa Frontier 2
Soul Reaver Legacy of Kain
Spyro the Dragon
Star Ocean the Second Story
Suikoden
Syndicate Wars
Tactics Ogre Let Us Cling Together
Tail Concerto
Tales of Eternia
Tecmo's Deception
Tomb Raider 2
Vandal Hearts
Warcraft 2
Warhammer
Wild ARMs


List disqualified. :) Can't believe we're making lists to prove points now.

Both consoles are great in their own way, but the PS1 had a far greater selection of games to choose.

[kupomogli]

I wasn't going to list X6 as most people generally think it's a bad game, but I like the game and other than X4 and X, I think it's better than every other game in the series. You could replace Mega Man X6 with one of 20-30 good RPGs that haven't been listed on DPs top 50 and my additional 50(good not top) games I listed.

[The 1 2 P]

Here's 50. http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1491


It's nice to see Syphon Filter on Joe's list. That game is one of my favorites and also Sony's unofficial answer to Goldeneye on the N64. Everyone wanted a similiar 007 for the PS1 and Tomorrow Never Dies sucked. But Syphon Filter was a spy game from a different perspective that was even more enjoyable than Goldeneye was. However, I think I would have liked Goldeneye alot more if it came out on a system with a better controller.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Omega Boost is worth 20 N64 carts by itself. :ass:

[Rob2600]

Top 50 and Bottom 25 Nintendo 64 games list (http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?t=114086)

[Swamperon]

I'm seeing a distinct lack of Azure Dreams and Harvest Moon: Back to Nature on those lists! :D

[Aussie2B]

I'm not saying it doesn't have gameplay at all. But the vast majority of what I hear about Mario 64 and why it's so great is everything but the gameplay.

Take, as a quick example, Gamespot's original review (http://www.gamespot.com/n64/action/supermario64/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;read-review). It's a decent length. At no time does he even mention level design. He spends most of the review talking about its "worlds" and how "immersive" it is. This is, in my experience, typical. Super Mario 64: it's not a game, it's an experience.

You're really splitting hairs here. Every game is an "experience". Some are good experiences, some are bad experiences. "World" can be used in the exact same way as "stage/level/board/etc." and used to talk about level design without flat-out using the term "level design". "Immersive" encapsulates a lot of things. It can be referring to the graphics, the music, the atmosphere, or even addictive gameplay sucking the player into the game.


You really think Descent and Destruction Derby are dreck? You think they're roughly the same quality as Shadows of the Empire?

They may not be the best games ever, but they were both innovative, and they're both pretty fun. I've never heard anyone blast those games. What didn't you like about them?

Yes, I do. When have you heard anyone say ANYTHING about those games in the last 15 years? They've both been forgotten because they deserve to be forgotten. Descent is instant nausea and Destruction Derby is a generic car combat game that was only successful in its time because 1) driving cars and smashing them up is a 13-year-old boy's dream come true, and 2) like with Shadows of the Empire, there were slim pickings.


My preferred 3D platformer on PSX was Ape Escape actually. But I can't argue that it wasn't a great system for the genre. Then again, I think most 3D platformers of that era, including on N64, were pretty sloppy.

But that's really the inverse of what I was saying about N64. "You must like X" is a bigger problem than "if you do like X, you won't get it", because most people like more than one or two genres.

No, it's the same thing. One system is good with one genre while the other is not so good. Pick your genre and the systems. It's not a necessity to like 3D platformers to like the N64, but, in my own opinion, it is kind of missing the point. It would be like owning an NES without liking 2D platformers. Sure, there's plenty of other awesome stuff, but not playing Mario, Mega Man, Castlevania, Ninja Gaiden, Adventure Island, etc.? It would be like ordering a banana split and only eat the banana.


That's a close call IMO. For multiplayer, N64 definitely wins, but for someone focused just on single player, the Playstation is probably just as good. I thought the N64 releases of Quake, Doom, and Duke Nukem were all let-downs.

Those are all popular releases, though. And the Turok games were as well. And most of those, as well as Goldeneye and Perfect Dark, have well-love single player modes.


I'm not really sure what the point is of going down this road. If we kept playing the "if you like genre X" game, N64 would come out looking much worse.

You're making the assumption that I have any interest in making one system look better or worse than another. This all started by looking at the N64's launch and looking at other launches from that time period. If you're jonesing for a system war, that's your prerogative, but I don't have much interest in that. My simple stance is that, historically, the PlayStation launch has largely been forgotten and that I would, by far, rather play Super Mario 64 than those very early PlayStation games, which I feel is a sentiment that most gamers would agree with.


I think it's true that, say, Battle Arena Toshinden has been justly forgotten (and I loathed that game from the very beginning). Ridge Racer and Tekken were both pure hype too. But I think Jumping Flash!, WipEout, Rayman, Discworld, Warhawk, NBA Jam T.E. (though not specifically the PSX version), and yes, even Destruction Derby and Descent, are still fondly remembered. When Warhawk was announced for PS3, a lot of people were excited about it. So the original wasn't forgotten. (And then when it was released, it was a big disappointment, but that's beside the point.)

Your tastes seem quite opposite from the typical gamer. I would imagine that of all of those games, most people would pick Toshinden, Ridge Racer, and Tekken as the best of that bunch. The last two have the most long-lasting legacy at least. Not that I'm saying I agree with most gamers, but I'm not about to confuse my own personal opinions with how the general consensus feels (like how I brought up Final Fantasy VII previously as a highly respected and frequently played PlayStation game, despite that I don't care for it at all). If you honestly think gamers are still frequently talking about and playing stuff like Discworld, Destruction Derby, and Descent, then you're just delusional. Those games wish they could get the attention that Super Mario 64 gets for its pinky finger.


That's not what I was talking about. I used the past tense and you're talking about today. "PlayStation collectors" is a pretty small number of people.

Seriously? How many members does Digital Press have? How many of those have PlayStation collections? How many other collectors exist on other sites? I use "collectors" because most people that would still be playing PS1 would be game collectors. Although that doesn't mean they need to have large collections.

And you keep trying to switch the conversation to whatever you think suits your argument, just like how you pulled it off the launch day. The argument was how those launches and those games are viewed now. If you want to look at when they were new, it's still not going to work for you because Super Mario 64 was WAY more popular and loved back then too.

[kupomogli]

I'm seeing a distinct lack of Azure Dreams and Harvest Moon: Back to Nature on those lists! :D

And Bloody Roar, Bloody Roar 2, Wild ARMs 2, Suikoden 2, etc. I was only picking 51 good games to show that there are more than 100. The fact that there are still a lot of great games not up there even after the list of 100 really shows how many good titles the PSX has for it.

[JSoup]

Omega Boost is worth 20 N64 carts by itself. :ass:

I never actually got to play the full version of that game. The demo I have kicking around somewhere is crazy amounts of fun.

[Kyle15]

Zelda on N64 you walk around for days, doing naught except for walking into fog.

Sounds like you played something entirely different then the Ocarina of Time I know. ;)

[Gameguy]

If you honestly think gamers are still frequently talking about and playing stuff like Discworld, Destruction Derby, and Descent, then you're just delusional. Those games wish they could get the attention that Super Mario 64 gets for its pinky finger.
What's wrong with Discworld? If nobody still cares about it then why do copies still sell for $20-$40? I would have mentioned it for the Playstation earlier but I have it for the PC instead, both versions still sell for a decent amount of money. I'd rather play Discworld than Super Mario 64. I agree with Descent though, and Destruction Derby is also on the N64 so it shouldn't really count for this system comparison.

[Rob2600]

I'd rather play Discworld than Super Mario 64. I agree with Descent though, and Destruction Derby is also on the N64 so it shouldn't really count for this system comparison.

According to psx.ign.com: and gamespot.com

Descent - 7.0
Destruction Derby - 7.0
Discworld - 7.0

Super Mario 64 - 9.5

So, yeah.

[Icarus Moonsight]

No decree of opinion can invalidate anyone's judgement on it's own. One can give arguments, appeal to this or that and persuade, but assigning a number to something is none of the above. Critics wet themselves over stuff that leaves me wondering why, and they pan some stuff that makes me wonder if I played the same build, or even the same game. Critic ratings have their uses. An objective standard is not one of them.

[Enigmus]

Sounds like you played something entirely different then the Ocarina of Time I know. ;)

I agree with this. Statements such as "run around in fog" sound like they were made to sound like the person actually played it instead of leaving it in a hall closet. IMO, OoT is only fog running for a five year old. Hell, saying OoT is fog running while Tomb Raider, the game that is practically a 30 ft. draw distance in plenty of places, isn't is asinine. This and the "vaseline blur" claim are just redundant to me. It's been proven that a lot of PSX games use interpolation filtering anyway, so the Vaseline claim is pointless when both systems are using it. As for the "fog", I think he may have gotten lost in the Lost Woods. LOL

[sheath]

What PS1 games are interpolated (blurred)? I have only seen a majority of the popular titles use full screen dithering, which just so happens to blur the image on some sets.

[Rob2600]

a lot of PSX games use interpolation filtering


What PS1 games are interpolated (blurred)? I have only seen a majority of the popular titles use full screen dithering

Before the N64, game consoles (including SNES, 3DO, Jaguar, PS, Saturn, etc.) used nearest-neighbor interpolation. This method requires less CPU, but results in aliasing/pixelation when textures are scaled.

The N64 was the first home game console to feature bilinear interpolation in the hardware to antialias (or smooth out) textures. This removes pixelation when textures are scaled. The textures are smoothed out, no matter how much they're enlarged.

Bilinear filtering requires much more CPU power, which is why the N64's CPU is so beefy compared to the one in the PS.

The problem is the N64's limited texture cache (4 KB, or 2 KB when using trilinear mip-mapping). Textures were small and stretched over large areas, or were kept small and repeated. The PlayStation used a different technique that allowed for larger textures...but of course, those textures were severely pixelated and the PS had other problems, like the lack of perspective correction.

After a few years, developers like Rare and Factor 5 were granted access to the N64's microcode and were able to get around the limited 4 KB texture cache. That's why later games like Rogue Squadron, Conker's Bad Fur Day, Perfect Dark, Ocarina of Time, etc. look so detailed (and feature much more advanced lighting) compared to early games like Mystical Ninja, Bomberman, etc.

[Aussie2B]

What's wrong with Discworld? If nobody still cares about it then why do copies still sell for $20-$40? I would have mentioned it for the Playstation earlier but I have it for the PC instead, both versions still sell for a decent amount of money. I'd rather play Discworld than Super Mario 64. I agree with Descent though, and Destruction Derby is also on the N64 so it shouldn't really count for this system comparison.

Nothing is wrong with Discworld. Anybody is entitled to like anything they want. Super Mario 64 and Discworld are vastly different games, so if someone doesn't like Japanese 3D platformers so much but does love Western 2D point-and-click adventure games, then it's obvious which is going to be preferred. But it's also obvious that its appeal is niche and it's largely forgotten. I have no problem with the idea that some mega-popular games don't appeal to me while some of my favorite games are unknown, but some people have a problem with that.

[kupomogli]

According to psx.ign.com: and gamespot.com

Descent - 7.0
Destruction Derby - 7.0
Discworld - 7.0

Super Mario 64 - 9.5

So, yeah.

That's like saying that God of War 3 is better than Dante's Inferno because the ratings are better on IGN and Gamespot, or anywhere for that matter.

Dante's Inferno 7.5 IGN/6.5 Gamespot
God of War 3 9.3 IGN/9.0 Gamespot

However. God of War 3 is an absolute piece of shit compared to Dante's Inferno. Dante's Inferno was a ripoff but was better in asbolutely every way except for graphical textures.

It's well known that Final Fantasy 13 is hated by most fans of the series. How many well known websistes gave it below an 8.5? IGN gave it an 8.9, but then what appears at #1 of most disappointed games of 2010? Final Fantasy 13. http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/113/1136938p1.html


Being merely 'okay' isn't good enough for the Final Fantasy series. These games have a heritage and pedigree to maintain, and thirteen games in, this instalment indeed proved unlucky. The characters are routinely awful and uninteresting, the storytelling is a jumbled mess that meanders through bland subplot – and then there's the gameplay, which consists of essentially moving in a straight line for the first twenty hours, repeatedly hitting X.

So they sing praises about the game and then basically saying that "it's a piece of shit game with great graphics." Atleast that's what I see.

Basically we know full well not to trust review sites any longer because most reviews that are highly rated are more than likely payoffs. There isn't any "this game is legitimately good or bad" it's "whoever pays us the most advertising or highest payoff you'll get a better scoring."

So saying IGN and Gamespot ranked 9.5 on Mario 64 makes no difference. Going by user reactions, 50% of the people hate Mario 64, the other 50% love it, yet ALL review sites give it a 90%+. Isn't it kind of odd that all these AAA titles never receive a bad rating from literally every single journalistic gaming site?

[Rob2600]

saying IGN and Gamespot ranked 9.5 on Mario 64 makes no difference. Going by user reactions, 50% of the people hate Mario 64, the other 50% love it, yet ALL review sites give it a 90%+.

Fine. Going by user ratings only (not professional review scores):

Super Mario 64:
Amazon = 9.4
Gamefaqs = 9.0
Metacritic = 9.1
Gamestats = 9.4
Mobygames = 8.0
overall user score = 9.0

Super Mario 64 DS:
Amazon = 9.0
Gamefaqs = 8.5
Metacritic = 7.9
Gamestats = 8.8
Mobygames = 8.0
Gamespot = 8.8
overall user score = 8.5

Discworld:
Amazon = 7.4
Gamefaqs = 7.8
Gamestats = 7.5
Gamespot = 8.1
overall user score = 7.7

Descent:
Amazon = 9.0
Gamefaqs = 7.0
Gamestats = 6.7
Gamespot = 7.7
overall user score = 7.6

Destruction Derby:
Amazon = 6.0
Gamefaqs = 6.4
Gamestats = 7.4
Gamespot = 7.6
overall user score = 6.9


Based on user reviews only, Super Mario 64 still comes out on top (not 50% of people hating it like you claim). And in this case, it would appear the professional video game reviewers got it right, too.

[j_factor]

You're making the assumption that I have any interest in making one system look better or worse than another. This all started by looking at the N64's launch and looking at other launches from that time period. If you're jonesing for a system war, that's your prerogative, but I don't have much interest in that.

I was talking only talking about N64 when you brought up Playstation out of nowhere. So yeah, it sure seemed like you were out to making one system look better or worse than another.


My simple stance is that, historically, the PlayStation launch has largely been forgotten and that I would, by far, rather play Super Mario 64 than those very early PlayStation games, which I feel is a sentiment that most gamers would agree with.

I never said that the Playstation had a great, or even good, launch. I'm not sure why you're so intent on arguing about the Playstation launch.


Your tastes seem quite opposite from the typical gamer. I would imagine that of all of those games, most people would pick Toshinden, Ridge Racer, and Tekken as the best of that bunch.

I really don't think that's true. Toshinden is widely reviled, regularly featured on "most overrated of all time" lists, with the sentiment being that it was only ever popular because of its graphics. Further evidence of this is the fact that two Toshinden games were released on Saturn, with additions to gameplay but worse graphics, and were complete flops. Tekken and Ridge Racer both have a lot of somewhat samey sequels and I can't imagine that many people would care to go back to the originals, which are pretty limited. Especially Ridge Racer, which only has one track.


If you honestly think gamers are still frequently talking about and playing stuff like Discworld, Destruction Derby, and Descent, then you're just delusional. Those games wish they could get the attention that Super Mario 64 gets for its pinky finger.

I don't know where I ever implied that those games get a comparable level of attention to Super Mario 64...?


Seriously? How many members does Digital Press have? How many of those have PlayStation collections? How many other collectors exist on other sites? I use "collectors" because most people that would still be playing PS1 would be game collectors. Although that doesn't mean they need to have large collections.

And you keep trying to switch the conversation to whatever you think suits your argument, just like how you pulled it off the launch day. The argument was how those launches and those games are viewed now. If you want to look at when they were new, it's still not going to work for you because Super Mario 64 was WAY more popular and loved back then too.

You're really straw-manning here.


What's wrong with Discworld? If nobody still cares about it then why do copies still sell for $20-$40? I would have mentioned it for the Playstation earlier but I have it for the PC instead, both versions still sell for a decent amount of money. I'd rather play Discworld than Super Mario 64. I agree with Descent though, and Destruction Derby is also on the N64 so it shouldn't really count for this system comparison.

I haven't played Destruction Derby 64, but I thought it was a different game. It was released much later.

[Gameguy]

I can go by some random reviews too.

Discworld;
Electronic Gaming Monthly -85

Super Mario 64;
Gamer's Pulse -75

Or even better I can claim that Discworld is better because it's worth more money than Super Mario 64, it seems more people are willing to pay more for it.
http://www.videogamepricecharts.com/game/playstation/discworld
http://www.videogamepricecharts.com/game/nintendo-64/super-mario-64

I really don't care if Discworld is still remembered or not, it's still a good game. Super Mario 64 is still remembered more because it's a Mario game, people still play the newer and older games so of course they're going to know about the N64 game too. Swap the characters out and I doubt people will remember it as well. Even if most people prefer Super Mario 64, I don't and that's all that matters to me.

And I still don't get why people are bringing up Destruction Derby, good or bad it's on both systems so either it's a crappy game for both the N64 and Playstation or it's a good game for both the N64 and Playstation. It doesn't give one system an edge over the other one.

[kupomogli]

Based on user reviews only, Super Mario 64 still comes out on top (not 50% of people hating it like you claim). And in this case, it would appear the professional video game reviewers got it right, too.

Most people don't write reviews about a game that they hate. If you play a game that you really enjoy, you'll more than likely want to make a review about it to tell people why it's such a great game.

There are plenty of people in this forum alone that have said they don't like Mario 64. Their reviews are most likely not in that data. Most bad reviews about a game is not going to be in the data because most people don't care about wasting their time reviewing a game they dislike.

Not only that, but Discworld has a whole five reviews. Of course there will be some lower reviews to bring down the score. Mario is extremely well known and there are a ton of Nintendo fanboys. Bring in the fact that most people don't review bad games and all the good ratings will pretty much cancel out the bad ratings.

Example. Tactics Ogre had a rating of 1/10, 4/10, 4/10, and 5/10, but because all the other ratings still came out with 8.1/10. Final Fantasy Tactics had similar, but again came out to 8.9/10. Why? These are two well known titles. Then there's Mobile Suit Gundam Encounters in Space(a US released Gundam title) which hasn't had a single bad rating and there's actually a lot of reviews with a 9/10 average, but then check out metacritic with a 6/10 which goes to show you that "legitimate sites" don't know what they're talking about.

Also a 1/10 score on Tactics Ogre at Gamefaqs? Even if you hated the gameplay the story and music were absolutely amazing so the game deserves much more credit than that. I'd say a 5/10 at the lowest if you absolutely hated the gameplay. The game is my favorite game of all time so if I was to write a review about it, it'd be a 10/10. I personally like five ratings better though, as there is no middle number in 10 and people always like to think 5/10 or 6/10 is a bad score when it's actually average.

[Rob2600]

Most people don't write reviews about a game that they hate.

I posted professional review scores, but you said they don't count because a lot of times pro reviewers are paid off by the publishers. Okay. So I posted user review scores, but now you're saying those don't count either because not enough people post bad reviews. According to you, professional reviews *and* user reviews don't count. So what does?

The bottom line is Super Mario 64 was and still is a masterpiece, hailed by critics and users overall for its use of technology *and* for its level design. Is it better to launch with one A+ game, or a handful of decent games?

[JSoup]

Most people don't write reviews about a game that they hate.

GameFAQs would like to have a word with you about that. >_>

[Icarus Moonsight]

No doubt. Reviews on GameFaqs, it's either taking the piss or raving fanaticism. And the few reviews that are worth reading get lost in the shitstorm. And one side seems to draw the other...

I think I've said too much.

[sheath]

No doubt. Reviews on GameFaqs, it's either taking the piss or raving fanaticism. And the few reviews that are worth reading get lost in the shitstorm. And one side seems to draw the other...

I think I've said too much.

I have found gamefaqs (Gamespot) user reviews as useful as forum comments. That is, eventually, they accidentally describe the gameplay in a specific way. That usually leads to me looking into the game and finding something worthwhile about it.

[Icarus Moonsight]

I have found gamefaqs (Gamespot) user reviews as useful as forum comments.

Yes, again, too much said.


That is, eventually, they accidentally describe the gameplay in a specific way. That usually leads to me looking into the game and finding something worthwhile about it.

Agreed. It happens, but it's rare (on GameFaqs, happens here often enough).

[sheath]

Forums have the downside of not being centrally located and easily searched. I suppose all those who seem convinced that wikipedia has worth could do me a favor and block quote the important bits with citations for each individual game. But, if you want a job done at all and all that.

[kupomogli]

GameFAQs would like to have a word with you about that. >_>

While people do review games they think are bad, very few people do. Most people don't play shitty games and then are like. OMG. I NEED TO GO WRITE A REVIEW ABOUT IT!!! They're more interested in writing about a game they like so people know what it's about, know the gameplay, etc, because it's a game they'd like someone to play.

Again though. How many people have said how they dislike or hate the game in this thread alone. You don't see that many bad reviews about it in Gamefaqs. I can tell you I haven't written any bad reviews about Mario 64 and I think it's a pretty crappy game. Only one review at Gamefaqs gives it a 4/10 and mine would be somewhat similar.

[bangtango]

I don't think Nintendo has ever changed much in this regard. Doesn't matter how well or poorly they are currently doing. If they ever ended up filing for bankruptcy or laying off the whole office (very unlikely), they are one of those companies who would continue to be arrogant right down to the bitter end.

Atari's profits were falling off a cliff in the mid-1990's. Didn't stop Sam Tramiel from threatening to sue Sony and saying the Atari Jaguar was far more powerful than the Sega Saturn to Next Generation magazine.

[tom]

I tell you the worst thing about PS, pop-up, I mean you play Ridge Racer and all the sudden a huge mountain range pops up out of nowhere. Almost worse than fuzzy N64 graphics

[dendawg]

N64 had horizon gnomes too...remember Cruisin' USA?

[megasdkirby]

I tell you the worst thing about PS, pop-up, I mean you play Ridge Racer and all the sudden a huge mountain range pops up out of nowhere. Almost worse than fuzzy N64 graphics

This happens on other consoles as well, like the PSOne, Saturn, and Jaguar. It's all how the game was programmed...and in part with console limitations.

I never did mind the blurry graphics. I hated jaggy ones way more, for some odd reason.

[j_factor]

I tell you the worst thing about PS, pop-up, I mean you play Ridge Racer and all the sudden a huge mountain range pops up out of nowhere. Almost worse than fuzzy N64 graphics

Aside from a handful of games that really excelled in this regard, N64 was usually just as bad with pop-up (and Saturn too).

I remember the first time I played Crazy Taxi (arcade). I thought at the time, "Wow, this game has amazing draw distance! You can see forever!" Heh.

[sheath]

Pop-up, low resolution and/or low color texture mapping, pop-in, texture warping, blurring, obvious dithering, gameplay and camera glitches, and failed gameplay experiments are all common in this generation. Some of these console's popular games can make it seem like one console was "better" than another in some areas.

None of these consoles were better at all of them

[Rob2600]

Aside from a handful of games that really excelled in this regard, N64 was usually just as bad with pop-up (and Saturn too).


Pop-up, low resolution and/or low color texture mapping, pop-in, texture warping, blurring, obvious dithering, gameplay and camera glitches, and failed gameplay experiments are all common in this generation.

It depended on the game engine. Star Fox 64 and Ocarina of Time had huge draw distances with minimal pop-up and fog, and ran smoothly. Conker's Bad Fur Day had huge draw distances too, but the frame rate was often a little lower.

[sheath]

It depended on the game engine. Star Fox 64 and Ocarina of Time had huge draw distances with minimal pop-up and fog, and ran smoothly. Conker's Bad Fur Day had huge draw distances too, but the frame rate was often a little lower.

Conker had framerate issues, camera issues and low-end texture mapping problems. Ocarina was a steady but relatively low framerate for an action/adventure game, featured mostly non-descript textures of what seems like two colors, and also just could not keep the camera centered on the action. Star Fox 64 mainly just had fuzzy textures and some kind of overall screen blur that I don't see on 16-bit consoles over Composite.

I like all three of these games for different reasons, but I don't really enjoy playing any of them for completely different reasons than I just pointed out. Since we made them examples, they fit the model I just pointed out nicely. As do all of the "innovative" games from this generation.