close

[7th lutz]

Nevermind.

[T2KFreeker]

Would be really interesting to see what they grade the Dreamcast at as the magazine has been way more than needed on the critical level.

[Kitsune Sniper]

The NES gets an A.

How unsurprising.

[TonyTheTiger]

I'm confused by their criteria. The N64, with two whole games (one being pretty lame), gets top honors because Mario 64 is just that awesome? I'd call that a great game, not a great launch.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

I'm confused by their criteria. The N64, with two whole games (one being pretty lame), gets top honors because Mario 64 is just that awesome? I'd call that a great game, not a great launch.

I'm similarly confused by this.

I realized that all ratings of this nature are subjective ... but their explanation/justification for the N64's top honors is a bit weak in my opinion.

In fact, I'd say that "quality over quantity" is a detriment when viewing the N64's launch lineup and the lack of quality (not to mention affordable) software beyond the flagship Mario64 game at launch should be a reason to dock points.

At the end of the day it's their award/grading system and they can do whatever they want, but I've witnessed all of those system launches first hand (and participated in the buying and even selling at retail of many) and I'd never even consider giving the N64 an A rank for its launch.

[Dangerboy]

First let's get this out of the way:

I totally get the A for the N64. Yes it was two games, but when one of the 2 said games is *STILL* being played, perfected, glitched, sped run, hacked, explored, to this day, that's a testament to a game. Pilotwings, while not great, was a fun break from Mario 64. M64 was one of the few games you could truly live off of, and truth be told, was one of last true, great system sellers.

That said...

A FREAKING "C" for the PlayStation's launch line up!? Are you freaking kidding me?! Rayman, Ridge Racer, NBA Jam, and Raiden Project were enough to live off of...

[TonyTheTiger]

As much as I love Mario 64, there are other systems that had a single killer app at launch that is, to this day, considered one of the greats. Many people will say that Soul Calibur peaked on the Dreamcast, for example. And the Game Boy had Tetris yet it got a B+. I don't get how the N64 gets an A- for Mario 64 when other lower scored systems at least matched that game (for their time) and also had more titles to offer.

I think we all know that launches generally suck. There isn't a single entry on this list that I look at and get bowled over at how awesome it was. Pretty much every successful console needs some time to hit its stride and find its "personality." It's for that reason that I don't put much stock into day 1 launches. I generally like to give a console at least 6-8 weeks (a launch window) to establish itself and judge that entire window as its "launch." Rating the literal day 1 is too restrictive and I have a hard time saying any of them are A material.

Honestly, I'm with you on the PlayStation. It actually struck me at the time (and still does today) as one of the best launches. I think a genuinely good launch should hit a number of corners. Yeah, you want at least one or two killer apps (preferably ones that are considered system staples long past its lifetime) but you also want to hit a bunch of genres. You want an action game, you want a sports game, you want a racing game, etc. The PS1 did it as good as any.

[Gameguy]

I totally get the A for the N64. Yes it was two games, but when one of the 2 said games is *STILL* being played, perfected, glitched, sped run, hacked, explored, to this day, that's a testament to a game. Pilotwings, while not great, was a fun break from Mario 64. M64 was one of the few games you could truly live off of, and truth be told, was one of last true, great system sellers.
It was an A- for the N64, I don't get how they could give it a grade so high yet give the Nintendo DS a D when Super Mario 64 DS was a launch game for that system.

Personally I never got into the N64 and I'm amazed at how popular it is but what bugs me about this article is the discrepancy between the N64 and DS for having the same game at launch. It's really a big difference. The original Gameboy has a high grade for including Tetris, but Tetris already came out earlier for home systems. Of course the Gameboy version of Tetris was great and it's launch should be rated high but it wasn't a new exclusive game for that system, it was a portable port like Super Mario 64 DS. I don't get why the DS would be listed so low, unless the N64 would get a similar low grade too.

[Tupin]

I know this is in the classic forum, but I want to say something about the modern launches.

I remember reading about the launch titles for the PS3 and Wii right before they came out. I was not impressed with the Wii, mainly due to the licensed games. Between the fact that they wanted to just add Wii controls to their PS2 software in order to make release day and the fact that there were so many of them was disappointing. I mean, the Gamecube had that Tarzan game, but the Wii had tons of crappy games right out of the gate. I remember when I got it on launch day I played Twilight Princess and nothing else until the following February until WarioWare and SSX Blur came out. Seriously, it launched with Barnyard.

The PS3 launch lineup wasn't much better. Between Genji and Mobile Suit Gundam, there was not much to play other than Resistance. The lack of rumble and the uselessness of the Sixaxis didn't help.

[Tupin]

It was an A- for the N64, I don't get how they could give it a grade so high yet give the Nintendo DS a D when Super Mario 64 DS was a launch game for that system.

Personally I never got into the N64 and I'm amazed at how popular it is but what bugs me about this article is the discrepancy between the N64 and DS for having the same game at launch. It's really a big difference. The original Gameboy has a high grade for including Tetris, but Tetris already came out earlier for home systems. Of course the Gameboy version of Tetris was great and it's launch should be rated high but it wasn't a new exclusive game for that system, it was a portable port like Super Mario 64 DS. I don't get why the DS would be listed so low, unless the N64 would get a similar low grade too.
Super Mario 64 DS was more of a proof of concept that games with N64-level graphics could be done on the DS than anything else. It was hard to play since the DS not only had no analog controls, but had you use the touch screen to control parts of it.

The DS really didn't take off until Nintendogs came out for it, if I recall...

[retroman]

i got this issue also..i didnt disagree with them on to much about that article...remember all but VCS, so i can say i understand..

[Cloud121]

Okay, based solely on the "criteria" they're basing this on, the Dreamcast should be A++, or AAA, or if there's anything higher than A+.

I understand Super Mario 64's significance in the industry, but look at the Dreamcast launch: Soul Calibur got 10's everywhere. I think the lowest I ever saw NFL 2K was around 8.5, but it easily averaged in the 9's. Ready 2 Rumble got around 8.5 Sonic Adventure got as high as 9 in some places. Power Stone and Marvel vs Capcom were huge as well. HOTD2 anyone?

You want killer apps at launch? The Dreamcast had three absolute must haves (NFL 2K, Soul Calibur, and Sonic Adventure), along with several other heavy hitters that I just mentioned. Hell, NFL 2K is what turned me into the sports fanatic I am nowadays, and I hated sports games prior to playing it.

[SparTonberry]

Super Mario 64 DS was more of a proof of concept that games with N64-level graphics could be done on the DS than anything else. It was hard to play since the DS not only had no analog controls, but had you use the touch screen to control parts of it.

The DS really didn't take off until Nintendogs came out for it, if I recall...
That and it's not a good sign when the best you have to show off for your new system is a port of a game that was already eight years old. :P

[NerdXCrewWill]

For good-to-bad-game ratio, I think the 3DO just might be the most impressive. Star Control 2? Amazing! Alone in the Dark? Really freaking good! Myst? Not my cup of tea, but a total work of art!

Of course, the Playstation has all the variety and is probably the best launch practically speaking.

[Gameguy]

That and it's not a good sign when the best you have to show off for your new system is a port of a game that was already eight years old. :P
True but for the Gameboy Advance old ports of SNES games sold very well and were very popular overall. Zelda LTTP even made it to Player's Choice, plus there were all those Super Mario Bros re-releases and ports of DOOM or Wolfenstein 3D. Just making some games available portable is a big deal. I've never played many 3D games on the DS so I never played or compared the versions of Super Mario 64, I never could get into that game.

I also noticed there's no mention of the Virtual Boy launch on that list. Boo.

[The Jack Of Hearts]

What I don't agree with is G.I.'s rating for the launch of the 3DS. Plenty will agree there were some terrible games such as Madden, Dinosaurs 3D, and Asphalt 3D, but in my opinion there were more then enough quality games to at least get a C.

Like others have mentioned I don't understand why the N64's launch is rated so high when there were barely enough decent games during the first year of the N64's launch.

[Ryudo]

IMO Dreamcast had the best launch ever

[7th lutz]

They didn't grade Neo Geo Pocket Color, Neo Geo, CD-I,Vectrex, or the Odyssey 2 launch lineups besides the Virtual Boy. They didn't grade the N-Gage either, but it is tough for calling it a game system since it was also was a mobile phone.

I understand them not looking at the Sega CD, 32X, the Turbo CD Since they are add-ons, but there is no excuse for the systems I mentioned.

The scary thing about the systems they didn't grade is Gameinformer claimed they used Wikipedia, Leonard Herman (Rolenta)'s Phoenix: The Fall & Rise of Video games, and internet sources they didn't mention. Wikipedia actually has the info on System launches for Cd-I, Virtual Boy, and Neo Geo Pocket Color.

[c2000]

IMO Dreamcast had the best launch ever

That. B+? Pah!

[Kiddo]

I would say the list is also missing the Sega Pico, but...

Yeah, is it just me or are those letter grades just haphazardly distributed? I mean, based on what I could make of it, here's Game Informer's Apparent "Criteria";

1) If it's not in the Nintendo DS line, it automatically goes above a D to get a passing grade.

2) If it's a Nintendo console or handheld that is not in the Nintendo DS line, it automatically gets a B-. If it has a new Super Mario game at launch, it automatically gets an A or above.

3) Only easy-to-trash systems like the Atari 7200 and the Jaguar are allowed to get grades lower than the Nintendo DS line.

4) A Sega system is not allowed to get an A, even if it's the friggin' Dreamcast. On the other end of it, it's not allowed to get a failing grade even if it's the US Saturn launch.

5) "Sony Playstation #" automatically gets a C, even though the PS1, PS2 and PS3 had vastly different quality launches. These guys also apparently completely forgot that the PS1's launch vs. the US Saturn's launch was part of why the Playstation has a legacy.

These, and other factors, including:

A ) A lack of decent editorial writing to affirm their reasoning for these selections.

B ) A lack of internal consistency.

C ) A lack of taking in other factors besides launch titles, such as price, hardware issues, promotions, or other methods of immersing players.

More or less render this article to be a waste of paper. :/

[LiquidPolicenaut]

This is such a moronic article. Those grades are indeed ridiculous...a C to the Playstation lineup?? really?? That's one of the best launch lineups ever. The stupidest one to me is the N64. I'm sorry but even having SM64 in there (which, imo, is overrated and always has been), the N64 lineup was appalling...as was the system :P Why does it seem every time some sort of list like this comes out it's always so extremely atrocious? lol

[Rob2600]

I'm confused by their criteria. The N64, with two whole games (one being pretty lame), gets top honors because Mario 64 is just that awesome? I'd call that a great game, not a great launch.

Is it better to launch with one revolutionary amazing game and one good game...or 12 pretty good games? That is the eternal question.


As much as I love Mario 64, there are other systems that had a single killer app at launch that is, to this day, considered one of the greats. Many people will say that Soul Calibur peaked on the Dreamcast, for example.


I understand Super Mario 64's significance in the industry, but look at the Dreamcast launch: Soul Calibur got 10's everywhere.

Super Mario 64, like Tetris, is a game that could be played by many. Soul Calibur, while excellent, is much more niche. Same goes for NFL 2K. So, is it better to launch with an amazing game people of all ages and skill levels could pick up, play, and enjoy, or two amazing games that far fewer people could pick up and play?

And Sonic Adventure was good, but nowhere near as polished, brilliant, or ground-breaking as Super Mario 64. Ready 2 Rumble was over-rated. Plus, many Dreamcast discs at launch were defective, and Sega never released an official light gun in the U.S., so people were stuck playing House of the Dead 2 with junky third-party guns.

Yes, the Dreamcast launch was very good, but not perfect. The Nintendo 64 launch was sparse, but what was there was incredible.

[swlovinist]

When mainstream magazines try to review videogame history...they usually miss the mark or showcase a lack of research and heaping of bias.

While I have enjoyed SOME of the retro articles Game Informer has done in the past...this one was terrible and fairly inaccurate.

[TonyTheTiger]

Is it better to launch with one revolutionary amazing game and one good game...or 12 pretty good games? That is the eternal question.

In the case of the N64 vs. PlayStation? I'd say 12 pretty good games (although I'd dispute the qualifier of "pretty" in that context). Mostly because, at the time, games like Battle Arena Toshinden, Rayman, and NBA Jam were genuinely badass and also because the spread served many different interests. And I think those three games are at least better and more memorable than Pilotwings 64, which I think we all can probably assume people played for lack of options.

My reasoning is that while having one revolutionary amazing game is incredibly powerful at launch (even if it's not revolutionary but just really fucking amazing like Super Mario World) you really want to expand your appeal. Not only for consumers but also for publishers. You want to let the world know what your new machine can do. And having just one great game (even if it is Mario 64) is only going to pigeonhole you in everyone's mind. Which, in the case of the N64, is kinda what happened to some extent.

Plus I agree that there are lots of other things that should be factored in beyond just the lineup.

[Gentlegamer]

I got the issue yesterday, and I scanned all 4 pages. *reported for SOPA violation*

[Rob2600]

In the case of the N64 vs. PlayStation? I'd say 12 pretty good games (although I'd dispute the qualifier of "pretty" in that context). Mostly because, at the time, games like Battle Arena Toshinden, Rayman, and NBA Jam were genuinely badass

To me, the problem is "badass" is good in the short term, but doesn't stand the test of time...whereas a "non-badass" game like Super Mario 64 does. How many people still play Battle Arena Toshinden or NBA Jam vs. Tetris or Super Mario 64?

Plus, a "badass" game usually only serves a niche, which is fine...but is it better in the long run if a handful of people enjoy a particular game or if the masses enjoy a particular game?

In other words, if the N64 only launched with Tetris (and pretend it was never released on any other console) and the Dreamcast only launched with Soul Calibur (also a system exclusive), looking back, which launch would receive the better grade?

I guess it boils down to: are we we judging launch games back at the time of launch, or are we judging the games by how well they stand up today and how much mass appeal they still have?

[Kiddo]

And Sonic Adventure was good, but nowhere near as polished, brilliant, or ground-breaking as Super Mario 64. Ready 2 Rumble was over-rated. Plus, many Dreamcast discs at launch were defective, and Sega never released an official light gun in the U.S., so people were stuck playing House of the Dead 2 with junky third-party guns.

Yes, the Dreamcast launch was very good, but not perfect. The Nintendo 64 launch was sparse, but what was there was incredible.

I will just say as a personal anecdote that while I -heard- about the defective disks issue at the launch, I never actually experienced it in spite of getting my first Dreamcast around that time.

Also, the lightgun-issue thing is not necessarily about the launch itself, but how stupid censorship issues affected videogames.

(I will give you that I never saw the appeal in Ready 2 Rumble.)

I also pretty much experienced the N64 launch. Since I was pretty young, it took me long enough to beat Mario 64 that Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire was out by the time. It was kinda a bunmer, though - the launches of the Saturn, Playstation and N64 in particular seemed to mirror their overall performances, and as such the N64 was filled with 3D platformer clones (and then when Goldeneye came along, shoddily-done FPSes.). The occasional break from those were fascinating.

[BetaWolf47]

I'm similarly confused by this.

I realized that all ratings of this nature are subjective ... but their explanation/justification for the N64's top honors is a bit weak in my opinion.

In fact, I'd say that "quality over quantity" is a detriment when viewing the N64's launch lineup and the lack of quality (not to mention affordable) software beyond the flagship Mario64 game at launch should be a reason to dock points.

At the end of the day it's their award/grading system and they can do whatever they want, but I've witnessed all of those system launches first hand (and participated in the buying and even selling at retail of many) and I'd never even consider giving the N64 an A rank for its launch.

I'm confused by this as well. Atari 7800 gets an F with Joust, Asteroids, and Ms. Pac-Man; Master System gets a C- for Safari Hunt, Hang-On, and Snail Maze. Um... yeah, that 7800 score is ludicrously low.

[TonyTheTiger]

To me, the problem is "badass" is good in the short term, but doesn't stand the test of time...whereas a "non-badass" game like Super Mario 64 does. How many people still play Battle Arena Toshinden or NBA Jam vs. Tetris or Super Mario 64?

Plus, a "badass" game usually only serves a niche, which is fine...but is it better in the long run if a handful of people enjoy a particular game or if the masses enjoy a particular game?

In other words, if the N64 only launched with Tetris (and pretend it was never released on any other console) and the Dreamcast only launched with Soul Calibur (also a system exclusive), looking back, which launch would receive the better grade?

I guess it boils down to: are we we judging launch games back at the time of launch, or are we judging the games by how well they stand up today and how much mass appeal they still have?


Launches are short term anyway so I think we definitely have to judge them for their time. A launch is a very specific time period. A game that withstands the test of time will do so regardless of when it comes out. Using a popular non-launch title like Final Fantasy VII, does the difference between it being a launch title or not have any effect at all on how it's remembered? Same with Mario 64.

People don't buy into launches because a launch title will hold up 15 years down the road. They buy into launches because the available games (or upcoming ones, a reason why I don't like the Day 1 limit) are just that good within the context of their frame of reference, which during the launch period is the surrounding games on other systems. It doesn't matter if people don't play Battle Arena Toshinden or NBA Jam anymore. What matters is that they wanted to play them in 1995. People live in the moment. It doesn't matter if people are still playing Mario 64 today. What happens today has no bearing on 1996 when Mario 64 wasn't a timeless classic but just a badass game people wanted to play.


Plus, a "badass" game usually only serves a niche, which is fine...but is it better in the long run if a handful of people enjoy a particular game or if the masses enjoy a particular game?

If you have a strong spread of good games hitting different genres you don't have to worry about that. If different handfuls of people are enjoying different games that can easily make up for the lack of one giant game (which would hopefully be in the pipeline).

[Rob2600]

the lightgun-issue thing is not necessarily about the launch itself, but how stupid censorship issues affected videogames.

When a launch title is House of the Dead 2 and there are only junky, inaccurate third-party light guns available, that lowers the quality of the game, therefore lowering the quality of the launch. I'm not saying the Dreamcast launch was bad...but it wasn't perfect, either.


I'm confused by this as well. Atari 7800 gets an F with Joust, Asteroids, and Ms. Pac-Man; Master System gets a C- for Safari Hunt, Hang-On, and Snail Maze. Um... yeah, that 7800 score is ludicrously low.

I don't agree with Game Informer, but Asteroids, Joust, and Ms. Pac-Man were already several years old by 1986 and were already available on many other consoles. I wouldn't give the 7800 launch an F, but it wasn't very compelling either.

It's like if the PlayStation 3 launched with only Bejeweled, Tetris, and Dance Dance Revolution. Those are fun popular games, but what would've been the point??


What happens today has no bearing on 1996 when Mario 64 wasn't a timeless classic but just a badass game people wanted to play.

Sorry, I misinterpreted what you meant by "badass". :) I thought you meant "badass" as in "mature, but in a gimmicky way".

[SPAZ-12]

While I don't really disagree with too many of the grades, at least in that most of them are off by more than one grade, there really isn't any internal consistency. However, they should have called this "We are going to dump on the Nintendo DS lineup." The handhelds (with the exception of the original Gameboy) don't have any justification written, while that would be nice to see. I want to know why the 3DS was given the same grade as the DS while have twice as many release titles of similar quality. You can tell that the writer was focused on bad-mouthing the DS-es in the "Best and Worst" box. Their justification for including it was that the 3DS has "[the worst letter grade according to our grading system]," which is just outright false. It got a D, which is shared with the DS and Jaguar, and places it high than the 5200 and 7800.

As is usual for these lists, it's obvious that minimal research was done, there is no internal consistency, grades are poorly justified, and in this case, it seems that they have the ulterior motive of wanting to bash the 3DS. And as usual, we will be there to debate the ranking, revealing the futility of these lists: being subjective lists about a topic that people have strong personal opinions about, you're just going to piss people off.

[Lady Jaye]

Scans removed and thread closed to the OP's request.