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

[Rob2600]

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

I disagree. For the time (1997, 1998, and 2001), I think those three games featured excellent texturing, real time lighting, real time shadows/reflections, and huge draw distances...especially considering they're running on a 1996 machine (and without the Expansion Pak). They were certainly more impressive looking than anything on the PlayStation or Saturn at that time.

I used to work at Electronics Boutique and when Conker's Bad Fur Day came out, I put it on the TV and customers thought it was a Dreamcast game. Considering how hard Rare was pushing the N64, I'm surprised the frame rate is as high as it is! I wish it had been tweaked a bit more, but it's perfectly playable as it is.

Star Fox 64 was using full screen dithering which I hadn't seen in any other N64 game. I guess EAD was trying a different technique at the time. Remember, real-time 3D graphics was still in its infancy, so developers were continually experimenting with various methods and improving their tools. I definitely noticed Star Fox 64's dithering, but it didn't bother me. That game looked, ran, and played fantastic.

[sheath]

I disagree. For the time (1997, 1998, and 2001), I think those three games featured excellent texturing, real time lighting, real time shadows/reflections, and huge draw distances...especially considering they're running on a 1996 machine (and without the Expansion Pak). They were certainly more impressive looking than anything on the PlayStation or Saturn at that time.

I am not trying to be snide or anything other than honest here. But you just said you disagreed with my statement and then offered entirely different criteria. I am not saying these were bad games, non-impactful games, boring games, ugly games, or anything otherwise.

Whether or not they were "certainly more impressive looking" was utterly dependent on the player's experience with other hardware and games though.

[tom]

I love playing Conkers Bad Fur Day, but it's very fuzzy.

[buzz_n64]

Remember DP members arrogance during the nintendo 64 arrogance thread release? :D

Man, I'm surprised by the amount of hate I see towards Super Mario 64 and the Nintendo 64. SM64 just happens to be my favorite game of all time, until I recently played Super Mario Galaxy, now that game is my favorite. I have an idea, everyone state their favorite games and systems, and we'll all take turns bashing them as well. :)

[j_factor]

I don't think Star Fox 64 has a significantly better draw distance than other games of the time. I just went and played it to refresh my memory and check it against other games. The draw distance is only slightly longer than Panzer Dragoon II Zwei (which is also older). It's a little worse than Nanotek Warrior, although that game has a bit less going on. MDK is also a bit better.

The fog may make the transition easier on the eyes, though.

[The 1 2 P]

Man, I'm surprised by the amount of hate I see towards Super Mario 64 and the Nintendo 64.

I think it's just a simple matter of opinion. I played SM64 and didn't like it. I have nothing against it but it did not provide a compelling gaming experience for me. As for the N64, it's also one of my least favorite systems but mainly because of the controller. I would never say that it was a worthless system or has no good games because thats not my opinion of it. It has a nice, although small, collection of exclusives that I still collect for to this day.

Ultimately I think that most people(myself included) automatically compare the N64 to the other current systems at the time(PS1 and Saturn) and realize that they enjoyed playing those two systems much more than the N64. I have all three and I rarely ever go back to playing my N64. Not because I hate it but because I have more fun playing my Saturn and PS1.

[tom]

Remember DP members arrogance during the nintendo 64 arrogance thread release? :D

Man, I'm surprised by the amount of hate I see towards Super Mario 64 and the Nintendo 64. SM64 just happens to be my favorite game of all time, until I recently played Super Mario Galaxy, now that game is my favorite. I have an idea, everyone state their favorite games and systems, and we'll all take turns bashing them as well. :)

Nah, that just shows you're a Mario fan, maybe you should broaden your horizon. Mario 64, fave game of all time leaves a lot to be desired.

[Icarus Moonsight]

So, are you suggesting adaptation to "Hate the player, not the game"? I don't care if you sleep with the game nestled gently betwixt your bosoms. No sir, I don't like it. At least I like much less than most, apparently. Go dissenters! Tear down the Mushroom Castle, and eat the Princess. Umm, err.. Well, Bowser ate the heroes once already right? :D

[sheath]

When I think of Nintendo and arrogance at the same time I think about the N64's pre-launch hype, not the actual console or its games.

It took me a while to find this document on Project Reality (http://www.ibiblio.org/GameBytes/issue21/flooks/preality.html). Here are some juicy quotes:

"The power of 64-bit technology is about to revolutionise the video and arcade games markets thanks to a joint development venture being undertaken by Silicon Graphics and leading video games manufacturer, Nintendo.

The venture known as Project Reality, will create Nintendo's next generation gaming system and combine three-dimensional graphics of the quality seen in films such as Jurassic Park and Terminator 2, with high- fidelity sound and an interaction speed around 10-15 times faster than the current 16-bit games. "

...

"Storage will be based on a revolutionary mega-memory silicon-based cartridge format which will allow the system to access a minimum of 100 megabits of data for each game, which is five to six times the memory of the current 16-bit games. The silicon-based cartridge format will have an access time two million times faster than that of current CD-ROM technology, providing a speed video users have so far only been able to dream about.

Project Reality, the first application of Nintendo's Reality Immersion Technology, will allow video game players to interact with virtual, infinitely evolving worlds which react instantaneously to their commands and whims. "

[Icarus Moonsight]

You can swap hype phrases and keywords and have a PS3 pre-launch advert. Death comes in three's they say.

[sheath]

You can swap hype phrases and keywords and have a PS3 pre-launch advert. Death comes in three's they say.

The PS2 was more like it, damn that thing's pre-launch hype. "It doesn't need texture memory, the Emotion Engine is powerful enough to render individual grains of wood in a door!"

-edit-

The thing that just eats at me about this kind of crap (and bloated specs) is that it I actually had to have conversations with people who thought all of it was true.

[Peonpiate]

I had both systems at release and my N64 collected dust compared to my Psx. The sheer number of games available on the Playstation just meant that there was always something to play on it.

Theres no bias from me for either system but thats how it was for most folks at the time.


But still...Mario Kart 64 was solid and so was Goldeneye, Zelda, Smash Bros, Perfect Dark and Paper Mario. Even though my N64 collected dust between first party releases, the game quality from Rare [and Nintendo themselves] was almost always worth owning a N64 for. So while the system wasnt played as much as say, the SNES was, I never regretted buying one.

So more than anything, the fact that the N64 lasted the entire generation with little third party support and still sold reasonably well rests entirely on Nintendo's and Rare's shoulders. If anyone should be arrogant its them [well, the developers of those games atleast-Miyamoto and CO].



On the other hand there are systems that were in a similar situation as the N64 [little third party support]...Atari with its Jaguar had 0 hope of being a success, absolutely none. Like the N64 the Jaguar had virtually no third party support, yet unlike Nintendo, Atari themselves cranked out gaming turds left and right to prop their system up...And the sales/reviews reflected it.

Nintendo's first party games were/are awesome, so the N64 sold based on that. If Nintendo's game division is arrogant then they should be.



As far as how the games hold up today, N64 games tend to hold up better graghics wise since of course they were using more advanced hardware. But you know what there are ways to mitigate that - run a Psx game through a emulator such Epsxe with the internal resolution cranked up and most of the flaws of Psx games go away. Some even look comparable to Dreamcast games. Xenogears running under Epsxe looks "great".

[buzz_n64]

Nah, that just shows you're a Mario fan, maybe you should broaden your horizon. Mario 64, fave game of all time leaves a lot to be desired.

Broaden my horizon? You're talking to a video game collector here who has over 1,400 game, and I've been gaming since the mid-late eighties. Also, like I've said at the very same time, I've broadened to include Super Mario Galaxy as my new favorite game.

I can't see where the Playstation has somebody's favorite game. Final Fantasy VII? I guess, if you can stomach turn-based RPGs. Castlelvania Symphony of the Night? To me, over-rated, sure it looks nice, but I have way more fun playing Super Castlevania IV.

[JSoup]

Broaden my horizon? You're talking to a video game collector here who has over 1,400 game, and I've been gaming since the mid-late eighties. Also, like I've said at the very same time, I've broadened to include Super Mario Galaxy as my new favorite game.

Trading a Mario game for a Mario game as your favorite further backs the 'that just shows you're a Mario fan' part.

[buzz_n64]

Trading a Mario game for a Mario game as your favorite further backs the 'that just shows you're a Mario fan' part.

Says the guy with a Mario avatar. :)

Yes, I am a Mario fan, but I'm not blinded by it. I dislike many Mario titles: Paper Mario, Super Mario Sunshine, Mario Kart Double Dash, most Mario Party games, Mario Pinball GBA, most educational titles... They could replace Super Mario 64 with Hello fucking Kitty and it would still be a good game. I respect the people who say it's not their cup of tea, but to call it a piece 'o shit is laughable, if not insulting.

[JSoup]

Says the guy with a Mario avatar. :)

Felt that coming. XD


Yes, I am a Mario fan, but I'm not blinded by it. I dislike many Mario titles: Paper Mario, Super Mario Sunshine, Mario Kart Double Dash, most Mario Party games, Mario Pinball GBA, most educational titles... They could replace Super Mario 64 with Hello fucking Kitty and it would still be a good game. I respect the people who say it's not their cup of tea, but to call it a piece 'o shit is laughable, if not insulting.

I know what you mean. The Mario sports games aren't the best ever, by far, they are fun and I tend to get a bit heated when people write them off as terrible without even playing them first. Mario Sluggers will kick your ass and rape your mother with it's difficulty, but damn if it isn't a fun game.

[Malon_Forever]

Yes, I am a Mario fan, but I'm not blinded by it. I dislike many Mario titles: Paper Mario, Super Mario Sunshine, Mario Kart Double Dash, most Mario Party games, Mario Pinball GBA, most educational titles... They could replace Super Mario 64 with Hello fucking Kitty and it would still be a good game. I respect the people who say it's not their cup of tea, but to call it a piece 'o shit is laughable, if not insulting.

I never understood the hate for Sunshine. One of my favorite platformers.

[Richter Belmount]

I never understood the hate for Sunshine. One of my favorite platformers.
Just alot of accusation from people saying it was to hard.

[kupomogli]

Just alot of accusation from people saying it was to hard.

That's it, Richter. You're banned from having sex. Just kidding. I just happened to think of that one thread after reading your post.

[Richter Belmount]

That's it, Richter. You're banned from having sex. Just kidding. I just happened to think of that one thread after reading your post.

No i think everyone here should be ashamed of themselves after taking this topic seriously including you. Really 10 pages? .

[Zing]

Just alot of accusation from people saying it was to hard.

Actually, my complaints for the game (http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?t=131424) involve overly sensitive controls, the randomly placed blue coin collect-a-thon, and the total lack of direction in the design. Like I said in the above thread, it feels like the game was worked on by a bunch of interns, each working on a different part of the game.

Mario 64? Yes, it was the best game until Mario Galaxy. It has nothing to do with being a "Mario fan", unless you mean that in the most general terms instead of saying "a platformer fan".

[Aussie2B]

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.

Given the topic title, the discussion was on the launch of the N64. You said the launch sucked because it only had 2 games. My argument was that the launch of the N64 was comparable to others of its generation because the Saturn only launched with 3 and the PlayStation had 10 games that aren't remotely as highly regarded as Super Mario 64, both back then and now, and aren't continued to be frequently played in this day and age like Super Mario 64, which can make the N64 launch considered very good for those who feel quality is greater than quantity. End of story.

This is ignoring that the other, feebler, side of your argument was that, because you personally don't like Super Mario 64, you (and others in this topic) have attempted to invalidate its place in history and the opinions of those who enjoy it by suggesting that all the fans and press are/were Nintendo fanboys, Mario fanboys, blinded by hype, and/or skewed by limited options. I'd like to think that most DP members frown upon this kind of disrespect shown for others, but so many people get away with it because it's such a subtle form of trolling.

I also think that the average DP member is old enough, with enough access to a wide variety of games, and open enough to games of all eras to be able to simply assess a game for what it is and come to a pure, honest opinion of if they like it or not, with no need to skew their feelings for any reason. Maybe the haters will never accept it, but there ARE people who just plain like Super Mario 64 because they find it a highly enjoyable game to play, outside world and its impact be damned. I mean, I previously brought up Final Fantasy VII as a PlayStation game that is highly respected and frequently played, yet I actually dislike the game myself. I'll never understand its immense popularity, but I would also never deny its status or the right for others to love it. I could theoretically come up with a similar slew of reasons as to why people have been misled into loving it (and I'm sure there are some, just as with Super Mario 64), but I accept that there are plenty of people that have simply played the game and enjoyed it for what it is.

[Baloo]

Given the topic title, the discussion was on the launch of the N64. You said the launch sucked because it only had 2 games. My argument was that the launch of the N64 was comparable to others of its generation because the Saturn only launched with 3 and the PlayStation had 10 games that aren't remotely as highly regarded as Super Mario 64, both back then and now, and aren't continued to be frequently played in this day and age like Super Mario 64, which can make the N64 launch considered very good for those who feel quality is greater than quantity. End of story.

This is ignoring that the other, feebler, side of your argument was that, because you personally don't like Super Mario 64, you (and others in this topic) have attempted to invalidate its place in history and the opinions of those who enjoy it by suggesting that all the fans and press are/were Nintendo fanboys, Mario fanboys, blinded by hype, and/or skewed by limited options. I'd like to think that most DP members frown upon this kind of disrespect shown for others, but so many people get away with it because it's such a subtle form of trolling.

I also think that the average DP member is old enough, with enough access to a wide variety of games, and open enough to games of all eras to be able to simply assess a game for what it is and come to a pure, honest opinion of if they like it or not, with no need to skew their feelings for any reason. Maybe the haters will never accept it, but there ARE people who just plain like Super Mario 64 because they find it a highly enjoyable game to play, outside world and its impact be damned. I mean, I previously brought up Final Fantasy VII as a PlayStation game that is highly respected and frequently played, yet I actually dislike the game myself. I'll never understand its immense popularity, but I would also never deny its status or the right for others to love it. I could theoretically come up with a similar slew of reasons as to why people have been misled into loving it (and I'm sure there are some, just as with Super Mario 64), but I accept that there are plenty of people that have simply played the game and enjoyed it for what it is.

Here's what it really boils down to. We can all argue who had the best launch titles for whatever system, but what's the point of arguing if these titles aren't played anymore? Let's take a look:

Saturn: Virtua Fighter, Panzer Dragoon, Daytona USA

Playstation: Battle Area Toshiniden, ESPN Extreme Games, Kileak, NBA Jam T.E, Rayman, Raiden Project, Ridge Racer, Street Fighter: The Movie, Total Eclipse Turbo

N64: Pilotwings 64, Super Mario 64

By today's standards, which has the best launch titles? Arguably N64. The Playstation may have the most titles, but I can see only about 3 games on there even worth playing (Raiden Project, Rayman, NBA Jam T.E), and like Aussie2B said, they don't hold a candle to Super Mario 64. Even the Saturn's launch is fairly respectable and better than the Playstation's :/. Virtua Fighter may have sucked, but Daytona USA and Panzer Dragoon are still hella fun 15 years later. What's the point of arguing who had the best launch titles back then when the games have aged horribly now?

[todesengel]

No i think everyone here should be ashamed of themselves after taking this topic seriously including you. Really 10 pages? Your shitting me
And the majority of those 10 pages are people bitching about Mario 64. Christ it seems like if you say anything negative about that damn game people get there tits in a twist. I am loving every minute of this though, it's been highly amusing.

[frogofdeath]

The Playstation may have the most titles, but I can see only about 3 games on there even worth playing (Raiden Project, Rayman, NBA Jam T.E)
Ummmm, you're forgetting Street Fighter: The Movie. Best movie game ever! And vise versa.

[tom]

Ummmm, you're forgetting Street Fighter: The Movie. Best movie game ever! And vise versa.


yeah, but that's still three more worth playing than on N64

[todesengel]

Ummmm, you're forgetting Street Fighter: The Movie. Best movie game ever! And vise versa.
I always thought that I was the only person who liked that game.

[tom]

I always thought that I was the only person who liked that game.

Hey you're right, love that game, KYLIE MINOGUE ROCKS !!!!

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c173/thomasholzer/kyliestreetfighter.jpg

[j_factor]

Given the topic title, the discussion was on the launch of the N64. You said the launch sucked because it only had 2 games. My argument was that the launch of the N64 was comparable to others of its generation because the Saturn only launched with 3 and the PlayStation had 10 games that aren't remotely as highly regarded as Super Mario 64, both back then and now, and aren't continued to be frequently played in this day and age like Super Mario 64, which can make the N64 launch considered very good for those who feel quality is greater than quantity. End of story.

That's a bit of a red herring, though. If someone complains about the quality of 2D fighters on Playstation, I would never respond with "but N64 was worse!" and then list all the 2D fighters available for N64 and talk about how much they suck. (Unless of course the conversation was already about Playstation versus N64.) Likewise, my opinion of the N64 launch is not dependent on the Playstation launch. But hey, since we're talking about it now...

Playstation was the first system to have a real "launch" in the way that we think of launches today (at least in North America). By most standards it was neither great nor particularly successful. But it was the first time that a "launch" was a real thing, and it was the first time that particular thought was put into having a real "launch lineup". It is the template that most systems since have followed. Sony wanted a launch lineup that covered a variety of genres. They enlisted third parties to help them do it, in the process building solid relationships with them.

Nintendo apparently didn't feel the need to copy Sony's launch concept. They released the system when it was ready to go, along with the couple of games that were done. They didn't care so much about a launch lineup, and they didn't allow third parties in at all. (Nintendo imposed some harsh conditions on the developers of Shadows of the Empire.) However, the N64 was much more successful, mostly because Super Mario 64 was so well received (also partly because it came a year later). But the N64 launch was not a good thing for the system in the long run. Street Fighter: The Movie may be a lame game, but Playstation had Capcom on board and Nintendo 64 didn't.*

I still feel that variety is important, and buying a new system based on just one game is not something I would ever do or recommend. In fact I have always acquired at least four games to start with, with any new system I bought. I also still think that if you look at the period from launch to Christmas, Playstation looks much better than N64, and in fact has more good/notable games in that period than N64 has total releases.

I had a friend who got an N64 at launch. He loved Super Mario 64, but after he completed it (and Pilotwings), he was twiddling his thumbs. I remember he would spend his time "playing" Super Mario 64 by wandering aimlessly around the castle and climbing trees. I asked him "how are you not bored?" and he responded, "who says I'm not bored?"


This is ignoring that the other, feebler, side of your argument was that, because you personally don't like Super Mario 64, you (and others in this topic) have attempted to invalidate its place in history and the opinions of those who enjoy it by suggesting that all the fans and press are/were Nintendo fanboys, Mario fanboys, blinded by hype, and/or skewed by limited options. I'd like to think that most DP members frown upon this kind of disrespect shown for others, but so many people get away with it because it's such a subtle form of trolling.

Please show me where I used the word "fanboy" or said anything along those lines.

I did say that the circumstances of Super Mario 64's release had a lot to do with the level of praise it got. I stand by that comment, which presupposes, rather than invalidates, its place in history. I also think this is true about quite a few games, not just Mario 64, but Mario 64 was the topic at hand.


I also think that the average DP member is old enough, with enough access to a wide variety of games, and open enough to games of all eras to be able to simply assess a game for what it is and come to a pure, honest opinion of if they like it or not, with no need to skew their feelings for any reason. Maybe the haters will never accept it, but there ARE people who just plain like Super Mario 64 because they find it a highly enjoyable game to play, outside world and its impact be damned.

Of course.


I mean, I previously brought up Final Fantasy VII as a PlayStation game that is highly respected and frequently played, yet I actually dislike the game myself. I'll never understand its immense popularity, but I would also never deny its status or the right for others to love it. I could theoretically come up with a similar slew of reasons as to why people have been misled into loving it (and I'm sure there are some, just as with Super Mario 64), but I accept that there are plenty of people that have simply played the game and enjoyed it for what it is.

I like Final Fantasy VII, but it is also a frequent target of bashing. I accept that not everyone likes it, and not everyone has to like it. I further accept that people who dislike it may have legitimate complaints about the game, beyond it simply being 'not their cup of tea'. I do not begrudge anyone expressing their disdain for it.

---
* - Some people tend to think of Capcom as having a love affair with the Saturn, but it's not really true. Saturn simply did better on a technical level with many arcade ports; almost all of them were on PSX too, and they did they best they could, Saturn was just better suited for them. Capcom only ever had three games exclusive to the Saturn: Night Warriors, which was a split with PSX getting the original Darkstalkers exclusive, Dungeons & Dragons Collection, which was a bit of an afterthought, and Final Fight Revenge, which does not count. Every Capcom console game of the era, apart from these three, was on PSX; they released several PSX exclusives, and some others came out on PSX first.

[kupomogli]

Given the topic title, the discussion was on the launch of the N64. You said the launch sucked because it only had 2 games. My argument was that the launch of the N64 was comparable to others of its generation because the Saturn only launched with 3 and the PlayStation had 10 games that aren't remotely as highly regarded as Super Mario 64

You're defending Super Mario 64 by saying it's a good game because most of the launch titles on the PSX sucked. While the PSX had pretty much Raiden Project as the only good launch exclusive, it doesn't mean that Super Mario 64 was a good game.

The N64 came out a year and a half after the PSX. Arguing that Nintendo had two releases at launch because it's Mario 64 is pretty much showing their arrogance. It's basically saying "Mario 64 is better than whatever the PSX had from launch until now and Mario fans will eat it up."

Air Combat and King's Field(2 in Japan) came out in 1995. Good near launch titles. I no longer own Air Combat because at the time I had no job and would trade games for others. I do still own King's Field and do still play it, though instead of owning the long box version which I used to, I own the jewel case version which I prefer.

Die Hard Trilogy, and Crash Bandicoot are great games that came out in 1996 before the N64(Crash coming almost at the same time,) while Blood Omen Legacy of Kain, King's Field 2, Disruptor, Suikoden, and Twisted Metal 2 are great games that came out the same year, but shortly after the N64.

How about we just compare Crash Bandicoot and Mario 64. The better of the two games is Crash Bandicoot in my opinion. Instead of the collect-a-thon ridiculous small stages of Super Mario 64, Crash Bandicoot is actually a platformer. You progress through stages rather than staying in the same stage until you collect all the stars.

So there's that. You can have Crash Bandicoot and have a large choice of different games for the PSX, or at the very same time, you can choose between..... Super Mario 64 and Pilot Wings. Coming out the same year in 1996 had Mario Kart 64, Mortal Kombat Trilogy(although also on PSX with a better controller,) and Star Wars Shadow of the Empire. Compared to the PSX at the time there were just much better games and more variety.

Though the Nintendo 64 does have some very good games. Castlevania, Castlevania Legacy of Darkness, Forsaken 64(this was better than the PSX version,) Ogre Battle 64, Duke Nukem 64, Goldeneye 007, Smash Bros, Mischief Makers, WCW vs NWO, WCW Revenge, WWF Wrestlemania 2000, WWF No Mercy, Star Fox 64, Zelda OoT, and Jet Force Gemini. Other games that came out for the system that were good, Resident Evil 2, Mega Man 64, and Nightmare Creatures, I've already owned on the PSX for awhile so they really too late.

While the games I listed are good, most of them are only good for the real reason to put a lot of time into the N64. By far the best multiplayer system available at the time. Probably the most played games with friends during that time for the N64 was either Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, or the wrestling games. What else is there really for single player though? Zelda, Castlevania, LoD, Mischief Makers, Ogre Battle, Star Wars, and Star Fox 64.

If you were to use mathematics to solve whether Mario 64 was the best N64 game you'd come up with (100/11) = x, where x is the percentage that Mario 64 could possibly be the best N64 games, if by chance you think it's one of the best(we'd add in other factors but let's make it basic.) Seven good single player games for the system, not counting ports. We'll add Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, and WWF No Mercy(best wrestling game,) as party titles/single player bringing it up to 10. If you happen to think Super Mario 64 is better than average, then you really have, in my opinion only of course, 11 games to compare as "the best." If you were to only own an N64, then obviously you are going to love one of the small amount of good games you owned, and obviously one of them would probably be Mario that you owned because hey, who doesn't like Mario? You really have to think of how many people would purchase a Nintendo system and not purchase a Mario game(very few.) In the end, due to N64 games being overpriced and not everyone having bottomless funding, we'll say out of good games, most people would own two, and using the theory that Mario 64 is "good" we'll say that there's a 50% chance most Nintendo fanboys who owned only an N64 thought Mario 64 was the best. All based on assumption, but how far from the truth are we? The world may never know.

(Hopefully everyone is aware this last paragraph was a joke.)

[Leo_A]

Pilotwings 64 and Super Mario 64 are two excellent games. So arrogant or not, it was a pretty nice launch from my standpoint.

[kedawa]

Pilotwings 64 was a bit of a let down.
Mario 64 was revolutionary at the time. I can see how it could sell systems.

[Icarus Moonsight]

The thing that just eats at me about this kind of crap (and bloated specs) is that it I actually had to have conversations with people who thought all of it was true.

Yeah, know what you mean.


No i think everyone here should be ashamed of themselves after taking this topic seriously including you. Really 10 pages? .

http://i56.tinypic.com/10ykths.jpg

Sorry, couldn't find a picture of a burning pyramid of N64s...

[Aussie2B]

5 paragraphs

Again I say: End of story. Everything I said in that paragraph was logical and factual, regardless of if someone loves or hates Super Mario 64, so there was no logical argument or reason to produce five paragraphs over it.

The only additional thing that I forgot to include was that, given that the N64 launch is, at the very least, comparable to others of the time, it's perfectly fair for someone to say that they ALL suck if they so desire, so maybe that point will placate your misgivings here. If someone does feel that way, though, there's little sense in bringing up only one in particular as sucking because that's misleading. It suggests that the one being mentioned is lesser than others. Any time in life when we say something is great or bad it implies a comparison, otherwise those assessments are meaningless. I mean, if someone dislikes video games in general, they're not going to say "I hate Sega". If they did, anyone would assume that there are other video games that they DO like, while having something against Sega in particular.


Please show me where I used the word "fanboy" or said anything along those lines.

You didn't. Hence why I said "others". You pulled the latter two, suggesting that those who like Super Mario 64 feel that way because they were blinded by the hype or came to their opinion based on the limited options. You can try to backpedal now and say you agree with my points about respecting other people's opinions, but at the time, you were not presenting an argument with any exceptions.

[tomaitheous]

j_factor 1 ; Aussie2B 0

[JSoup]

I never understood the hate for Sunshine. One of my favorite platformers.

I liked it, but I felt that it had issues. Twitchy controls and camera, little direction on where to go at certain parts, slight difficult issues. Mostly, I the brightness of the game made my head hurt, mostly due to my photosensitive eyes.

[tom]

Same here, and Luigi's Mansion is totally excellent, a true classic.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Again I say: End of story. Everything I said in that paragraph was logical and factual, regardless of if someone loves or hates Super Mario 64, so there was no logical argument or reason to produce five paragraphs over it.

There is no rational reason to love it or hate it. Period. It's inanimate, and cares nothing for you. A rollercoaster can be admired for the effort and knowledge it took to design and build, but still make you sick if you ride it. That's a perfect analog for my experience with Mario 64.

[JSoup]

Same here, and Luigi's Mansion is totally excellent, a true classic.

Agreed. Luigi's Mansion is too often passed over, it's great fun.


There is no rational reason to love it or hate it. Period. It's inanimate, and cares nothing for you. A rollercoaster can be admired for the effort and knowledge it took to design and build, but still make you sick if you ride it. That's a perfect analog for my experience with Mario 64.

This rings of a jaded lover. Don't worry, Mario 64 cares more about you than you know.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Yeah, well that Lakitu with the camera doesn't love you. That's for damn sure.

[Enigmus]

I've had an easier time playing SM64 than Tomb Raider due to the camera. The camera it used was vastly superior to methods used at the time, but as time marches on, we seem to forget that that was some of the best available for 1996, not 2011. It's a common thing also seen amongst kids who try to compare the Xbox 360 to an NES. Time blurs the lines quite well. Either way, the Latiku sure smiles upon me compared to other games from 1996-97.

[Icarus Moonsight]

I didn't put any significant time into Mario 64 until after I've played plenty of GC and PS2 games. Might account for my position on it. Then again, I didn't enjoy 3D Mario at all really until Galaxy.

[j_factor]

Tomb Raider did have a bad camera, but I had less of a problem with it because of the "robot" controls. Up was always "forward" for whatever direction Lara was facing, so it didn't really matter where the camera moved to.

[kupomogli]

I've had an easier time playing SM64 than Tomb Raider due to the camera. The camera it used was vastly superior to methods used at the time, but as time marches on, we seem to forget that that was some of the best available for 1996, not 2011. It's a common thing also seen amongst kids who try to compare the Xbox 360 to an NES. Time blurs the lines quite well. Either way, the Latiku sure smiles upon me compared to other games from 1996-97.

I don't know what version of Tomb Raider you've played, but I've never had a problem with the camera. If you look at the list of games I posted that came out in 1995/1996, Air Combat, King's Field, King's Field 2, Die Hard Trilogy(any game,) Crash Bandicoot, and Twisted Metal 2. All PSX games. Do they have bad cameras? Play them all. Blood Omen and Suikoden obviously don't have bad cameras, but you'll find none of the other games do either.

Crash Bandicoot is the only one that could use a little work though. I think Crash could have its camera slightly pulled back during throughout the entire game to give more visibility. The developers do pull it back when you're running back through the stage but it's closer in when going forward.

Two really good games on the N64, CV and CV Legacy of Darkness are usually said to have bad cameras and while that's their opinion, they probably changed the camera to action view which sucks compared to normal view. The camera has nothing to do with the games being good though. Unlike Mario 64, these games are genuinely fun and really good 3d CV titles.

This also isn't just the N64, but I have played some games with pretty bad cameras for action games. Is it really that hard to have a static camera that follows behind the back or that you can turn the direction to get a better view of what's happening? Take Devil May Cry 3 for example. I love the game, but it's probably got the worst camera on a PS2 game and it's just something you have to get used to.

[sheath]

Yeah, Tomb Raider on PS1 and Saturn do a fairly decent job at pointing at the action, pulling away while running, etc. I don't recall ever having to adjust the camera during action gameplay in Tomb Raider. Usually just flipping and jumping and locking on kept the camera pointed just fine.

But then, I don't have a problem with the Sonic Adventure games' camera, and they are supposedly "horrible" game ruining glitch fests.

[sheath]

We could take a poll on our average size of libraries back then but I'm sure that would be skewed. Lots of hardcore gamers here. I do remember friends that had NES and/or SMS having lots of games, but not as much with Genesis and SNES. Maybe the rising game prices caused people to buy fewer games. Surprisingly I had a lot of friends with Saturns (and only one with a Playstation) but only one of them had a large library of Saturn games like I did. My one buddy that had PS1 did have a shit-ton of games though. I also knew a lot of people with N64 but none with large libraries. My best friends who I hung out with virtually every day after school had N64. We played 007 and Kart until the controllers fell apart but could never find any other games that compared to those two. A lot of people I knew had Dreamcasts but like them I only had a small amount of DC games. I suppose anecdotes are all we have to go on as no one kept records like they do today.

Sony's latest press release (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2011-02-14-playstation-2-hits-150-million-milestone) reveals an average of 10.13 games per console sold. We just need similar press releases for the PS1 and N64 to find their total average attach rate. Even better would be press releases from each year with software sold figures attached to consoles sold (not shipped!).

[Rob2600]

We just need similar press releases for the PS1 and N64 to find their total average attach rate.

New N64 games were released between June 1996 and October 2001 (64 months or 5.3 years).
Total N64 games sold (as of December 31, 2009): 224.97 million
Total N64 consoles sold: 32.9 million
Lifetime average attach rate: 6.8 games for each console sold
Yearly average attach rate: 1.3 games for each console sold (6.8 lifetime attach rate divided by 5.3 year lifespan)


New Sony PlayStation games were released between December 3, 1994 and October 8, 2004 (118 months or 9.8 years).
Total PS games sold (as of March 31, 2007): 962 million
Total PS consoles sold: 102 million
Lifetime average attach rate: 9.4 games for each console sold
Yearly average attach rate: 0.96 games for each console sold (9.4 lifetime attach rate divided by 9.8 year lifespan)


Based on this data, the N64 had a 35% higher annual attach rate during its 5.3 year lifespan than the PS did during its 9.8 year lifespan.

[sheath]

The numbers don't work that way unfortunately, unless I am missing something. I do not think we can take a total lifetime attach rate per console sold and divide that by year. I am mucking around with the PS2's numbers to come up with an average monthly attach rate right now.

-edit-

PS2 figures:
1520000000 game sales / 150000000 console sales = 10.13 games per console sold
150000000 console sales / 131 months = 1145038.1679389312977099236641221 consoles per month
1520000000 game sales / 131 months = 11603053.435114503816793893129771 games per month
11603053.44 games per month / 1145038.17 consoles per month = 10.13 games per console sold
10.13 games per console sold * 1145038.17 = 11603053.44 games per month

- edit - edit-

So, unless I have made a mistake or don't know the equation (happens a plenty), there is no way to derive useful yearly numbers from lifetime sales.

[Ryaan1234]

The numbers don't work that way unfortunately, unless I am missing something. I do not think we can take a total lifetime attach rate per console sold and divide that by year. I am mucking around with the PS2's numbers to come up with an average monthly attach rate right now.

-edit-

PS2 figures:
1520000000 game sales / 150000000 console sales = 10.13 games per console sold
150000000 console sales / 131 months = 1145038.1679389312977099236641221 consoles per month
1520000000 game sales / 131 months = 11603053.435114503816793893129771 games per month
11603053.44 games per month / 1145038.17 consoles per month = 10.13 games per console sold
10.13 games per console sold * 1145038.17 = 11603053.44 games per month

How can you have .435114503816793893129771 games? Next time just round it down to the nearest whole number.

*I can't believe this thread is STILL alive*

[sheath]

Goofy math needs precision! ;)

[kupomogli]

New N64 games were released between June 1996 and October 2001 (64 months or 5.3 years).
Total N64 games sold (as of December 31, 2009): 224.97 million
Total N64 consoles sold: 32.9 million
Lifetime average attach rate: 6.8 games for each console sold
Yearly average attach rate: 1.3 games for each console sold (6.8 lifetime attach rate divided by 5.3 year lifespan)

New Sony PlayStation games were released between December 3, 1994 and October 8, 2004 (118 months or 9.8 years).
Total PS games sold (as of March 31, 2007): 962 million
Total PS consoles sold: 102 million
Lifetime average attach rate: 9.4 games for each console sold
Yearly average attach rate: 0.96 games for each console sold (9.4 lifetime attach rate divided by 9.8 year lifespan)

That's an obviously skewed statement in favor of the Nintendo 64, but seeing who's making the post then of course. Everyone here is well aware the next gen consoles came out 1999, 2000, and 2001 and Nintendo completely dropped support of the N64 by 2002.

[Bojay1997]

Ugh...how is the attach rate of software in any way related to whether or not Nintendo was arrogant during the Nintendo 64 release? Rentals, used game sales and piracy make both of those numbers completely unreliable and pretty worthless for anyone but the respective accounting departments of each company. I'm not really too sure why this topic is still going. It seems like for the last week, it has been one barrage of worthless stats after another to try to convince Playstation and Nintendo fanboys to admit the other's system and games were better. You will never convince each other, so maybe it's time to just end the whole thing or concede that people just like different things and that's cool because all of us like video games.

[sheath]

Total game sales should include copies sold to retailers, used game sales are obviously included. How it has to do with the topic is, at this point, all about qualifying the N64 library versus the PS1 library (for some). For me it's about finding some facts about the library outside of wikipedia.

[Bojay1997]

Total game sales should include copies sold to retailers, used game sales are obviously included. How it has to do with the topic is, at this point, all about qualifying the N64 library versus the PS1 library (for some). For me it's about finding some facts about the library outside of wikipedia.


Without getting too technical, the attach rate over the life of a console is completely useless. Attach rates are only useful for analyzing profitability when a manufacturer sells hardware at a loss or subsidy and at the tail end of the console lifecycle, unit sales on many titles are far less valuable than early on when they tend to be full price while hardware may actually be profitable. You also haven't accounted at all for the massive rental market for both systems. Even assuming you could determine with accuracy how many games the average Playstation and N64 owner bought and kept in their library and bought used and then kept, what would be the value of that number? It doesn't do anything to prove that one system was superior to the other or that Nintendo was or wasn't arrogant. People keep games for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that they are damaged and can't be sold or the used buyback value is minimal. People also sell games they love for a variety of reasons. These figures to nothing to clarify the positions of either side.

[j_factor]

New N64 games were released between June 1996 and October 2001 (64 months or 5.3 years).
Total N64 games sold (as of December 31, 2009): 224.97 million
Total N64 consoles sold: 32.9 million
Lifetime average attach rate: 6.8 games for each console sold
Yearly average attach rate: 1.3 games for each console sold (6.8 lifetime attach rate divided by 5.3 year lifespan)


New Sony PlayStation games were released between December 3, 1994 and October 8, 2004 (118 months or 9.8 years).
Total PS games sold (as of March 31, 2007): 962 million
Total PS consoles sold: 102 million
Lifetime average attach rate: 9.4 games for each console sold
Yearly average attach rate: 0.96 games for each console sold (9.4 lifetime attach rate divided by 9.8 year lifespan)


Based on this data, the N64 had a 35% higher annual attach rate during its 5.3 year lifespan than the PS did during its 9.8 year lifespan.

This doesn't work on two levels. For one, Tony Hawk 3 was released for N64 in August 2002. More importantly, when two platforms have dissimilar sales and you're covering a different period of time, it's an apples and oranges comparison. A better comparison would perhaps be attach rate for the first two years or something.

Although really, I'm not sure what your point was in the first place.

[Rob2600]

I'm not sure what your point was in the first place.

No point, just fulfilling Sheath's request for attach rates.

[CelticJobber]

I loved N64, and never bothered to get a PS1 until 2000 or so. The controller was great, and I loved alot of the games (especially the Zeldas, 1080, the Aki-produced wrestling games, and the Rush titles).

The Gamecube on the other hand, is where I kinda gave up on Nintendo. Just a total disappointment...

[kedawa]

The GC has at least as many great games as the N64, although maybe not as many great exclusives.

[bcks007]

I was a pretty die hard n64 fan back in the day, had over 100 games for it. I got very frustrated with Nintendo when it seemed like the stopped caring about the n64 people to work on there next system. Basically a big FU to us, in terms of games and support. I switched sides around 2000, I think perfect dart might have been my last new purchase.

[sheath]

No point, just fulfilling Sheath's request for attach rates.

I meant to ask you what sources you used for those numbers. Also, to get annual attach rates we need sales figures specific to those years.

To the point that attach rate is pointless except for investors. Attach rate also informs us how many games on average consumers bought. If you know somebody with 1000 PS2 games, and the attach rate is 10, we also know that there are *way* more people who never bought as much as 10 games.

I mentioned earlier in this thread that in my experience consumers don't purchase more than a handful of games and they tend to buy consoles for *one* game. These attach rates are evidence of that. In that sense it is a sort of blind poll where the users don't even have a chance of skewing the data.

Now, if they rented other games but never bought them did they like the game or just get their fill over a weekend? I only rented Shinobi III and Streets of Rage 2 back in the day and these are two of my favorite games of all time. But let's say that BlockBuster had them stocked in multiple copies across the country, that's still a ton of software units sold.

[tomaitheous]

I imagine the sales for the PS1 past 2001 must have dramatically dropped. Any way to get a real breakdown per year? Nice to see the numbers for both though, even if you can't really make much of it without a real breakdown per year (instead of just some average across the life span. That number really doesn't represent much).

[Ryaan1234]

Why is this thread still alive?!

[JSoup]

Why is this thread still alive?!

Because the discussion is mildly interesting?

[Enigmus]

Why is this thread still alive?!

It's still alive because people want to fling statistics and X rates around instead of a conversation related to Nintendo's arrogancy.

[sheath]

It's still alive because people want to fling statistics and X rates around instead of a conversation related to Nintendo's arrogancy.

That, and I don't find many of the other discussions very interesting at all. I might need to go back to notating old game magazines if this keeps up.

[tom]

Why is this thread still alive?!

fuzzy graphics

[Icarus Moonsight]

Why is this thread still alive?!

Achmed didn't get the memo?
http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj27/Diamony/silence_i_kill_you_.png

[j_factor]

It's still alive because people want to fling statistics and X rates around instead of a conversation related to Nintendo's arrogancy.

Arrogancy? Is that a word? :p

[Icarus Moonsight]

I am arrogancy, and so can you! *may or may not be precisely or loosely translated
-Shigeru Miyamoto June 23rd 1996

[todesengel]

Why is this thread still alive?!
http://i826.photobucket.com/albums/zz183/Joshy-Habboau/n64-kid.jpg
I believe this is why it's still alive.

[tom]

Now that kid clearly had too much sugar in his diet.

[megasdkirby]

Now that kid clearly had too much sugar in his diet.

Didn't he sell that N64 a short time ago on Ebay?