N64 vs Neo-Geo

[Jack_Burton_BYOAC]

Odd comparison, I know. However, there are more similarities than you think. For instance:

-Both were more powerful than their competitors.

-Both had a high price compared to the competition

-The majority of AAA titles for both were 1st party

-Both had a severe lack of certain genres (rpg's for Neo and fighters for N64)

But from a historical perspective, the Neo Geo has a sterling reputation, while the N64 is heavily criticized by the modern gaming media. Why?

It seems to me, that if somehow Star Fox 64 was a Neo-geo game, it would be selling for at least a thousand dollars per cartridge right now.

So was the Neo Geo really that great compared to the more mainstream consoles, and is the N64 an underappreciated gem by the modern gaming community?

[LimitedEditionMuseum]

I really don't think you can compare them in any way.

[j_factor]

N64 was the same price as its competitors. It's the games that cost more. Neo Geo games did as well, but to a much greater degree.

I don't think Neo Geo has a totally sterling reputation, but anyway, the main difference is that N64 was a mass market console, while Neo Geo was not. If you try to pretend otherwise and treat Neo Geo in the same class as other consoles, the library doesn't really cut it. Most Neo Geo fans will tell you that it's a system that does certain things very well.

[Edmond Dantes]

I can't really answer the Neo-Geo half of the question, but to me the thing with the N64 is... it just didn't have enough good games. I mean time and again I've scoured shelves of N64 games and I just don't see anything of interest.

I know Rare has their fans, but personally I'm not interested in Banjo-Kazooie or Donkey Kong or Perfect Dark or whatever else. It really feels like the five N64 games I've already got are the only ones that'll ever matter to me.

[IHatedSega]

Interesting comparison. I think the N64 doesnt have as good a library as the NES or SNES, but it was a better one than the Gamecube had. Another comparison is they were followed by a cd based system that didnt do well.

The AES wasnt a typical console, it was an arcade machine for the home, and the library is 90% fighting games and the rest was a hodgepodge of other typical Japanese arcade games. So it cant really be compared to the SNES through the PS2 since it was just designed for people who wanted to play their favorite arcade games on the actual hardware at home.

I dont get why people hate the N64 controller, it was wacky and horrible for fighting games, but it was really good for special items to be used in platforming games. The game library has some of the best games of all time on it though. Its best titles were better than any of the best games on a Sega console till the Dreamcast came out.

The AES I think did need more shooters though.

[bust3dstr8]

The two can't be compared as home consoles. Neo Geo games where developed to be bought and run
by operators to make a profit. I don't think SNK developed a direct release for home systems until
the Neo CD was out.....all AES games are the same as their arcade counterparts just running
on a slightly diffent bios.

The N64 had some arcade ports but the bulk of the games where designed
for long playtimes in a home setting.

[kedawa]

They're the two most advanced cartridge-based consoles, so it is an interesting comparison, but I think the difference in purpose and user base makes any kind of historical perspective a bit murky.
The NeoGeo has a good reputation because any one that bought one was likely to know what they were getting right from the start (MVS arcade games at home without compromise) and they were not disappointed.
The N64 was a mass market console that failed to attract many of the best developers and games of its generation. It was a disappointment in many ways and did not live up to early expectations.

[Jack_Burton_BYOAC]

I think the N64 doesnt have as good a library as the NES or SNES, but it was a better one than the Gamecube had.

I dont get why people hate the N64 controller, it was wacky and horrible for fighting games, but it was really good for special items to be used in platforming games.

I'm kind of letting this topic go for a day or so before I make a bigger response, but this bit reminded me again of the N64's dearth of good fighting games, especially compared to the PS1 and Saturn. And yet, wouldn't it have been good at them? Look at the controller, six buttons on the face, and it seems like the system would have had enough memory to play CPS2 ports without a problem.

X-men vs Street Fighter for N64?

[IHatedSega]

Many game developers hated Nintendo, so the PS1 was easy to get a ton of amazing games from that. Also cd's were cheaper than chips, so that storage format was better for profit. Nintendo stabbing Sony in the back over the SNES CD add on was the biggest mistake they ever made.

Ive played Mortal Combat for N64, i didnt like the C buttons being used since they were smaller than A&B, but it wasnt horrible.

[kedawa]

I'm kind of letting this topic go for a day or so before I make a bigger response, but this bit reminded me again of the N64's dearth of good fighting games, especially compared to the PS1 and Saturn. And yet, wouldn't it have been good at them? Look at the controller, six buttons on the face, and it seems like the system would have had enough memory to play CPS2 ports without a problem.

X-men vs Street Fighter for N64?

It could have handled far better 3D fighters than it got, but from what I understand, the system and development tools make it very difficult to render 2D games efficiently.

[Aussie2B]

The debut price point of the N64 was actually lower than that of its competitors, and, on a specs level, while the N64 was more powerful than its competitors in certain ways, it was not significantly more powerful like the Neo Geo was and the N64 was also weaker than its competitors in some ways. Also, the Neo Geo offered home versions of arcade games, so it's kind of silly to fault it for not having RPGs. And the N64 has a fair number of fighters, it's just that it has few 2D fighters, and most fighters it does have aren't that great. I've never really seen fighters as a huge boon to the N64's competitors, though, not if we're looking at just US releases as least. You have to import to get most of the Saturn's good fighters, and most fighters on the PlayStation are pretty terrible ports, even if it has quite a few.

Anyway, I really don't think they're very comparable. The Neo Geo was a "premium" system, while the N64 was mainstream. The Neo Geo lasted through multiple generations, while the N64 was limited to one as is typical of mainstream systems. The Neo Geo offered arcade-style experiences, while the N64 offered home console gaming experiences. The Neo Geo is 16-bit, while the Nintendo 64 is 64-bit. And, of course, the Neo Geo is a 2D machine, while the N64 is almost exclusively 3D.

The Neo Geo has a more favorable response because most gamers understand its very specific aims, and if you're into that, you go for it, and if not, you know to not bother with it. With it being a premium system, it's unlikely for it to just fall into someone's hands. If you've got a Neo Geo, it's likely because you bought it yourself or somebody knew that you really, really wanted it. With the N64 being mainstream, somebody might give it to someone else on a whim, or a gamer may pick it up just because it's cheap. If you don't know much about what it has to offer, you may end up being disappointed to learn that it's not really your cup of tea after you already own it. And, as much as gamers may not want to hear it, if you drop a ton of cash on something, you're more likely to play mental games with yourself in order to justify your purchase and convince yourself that you like it, so the Neo Geo, being an expensive system, has that in its favor. If you picked up a N64 and a game for 10 bucks, it's probably not a big deal for you to go "man, this sucks".

[IHatedSega]

Oh yeah, I just thought of something. The lack of major fighting games like Street Fighter was bad, but the N64 did have WWF No Mercy, and the WCW games as well. Thats classic wrestling games it has at least.

[wiggyx]

MSRP of the N64 was 199.99. Nintendo made a really big deal about it. I've still got my launch day box somewhere with a Kay Bee price sticker on it.

I think that the Neo Geo is looked upon so fondly because a) it's relatively rare, b) it has some of the most solid fighting games outside the offices of Capcom, c) there's a lot of nostalgia for a system that was WAY more powerful than anything else of its time that almost nobody could afford. I know that was the number 1 reason that I always wanted one.

I feel that the nostalgia factor really hasn't started to kick in for the N64 yet. It's too young. The N64 was one system that sticks out in my mind as having amazing games, and total shite games, with not much in between. There also seems to be a real love/hate thing going on with its controllers. That can be a real buzzkill on its own, regardless of how great the games may be. It was also a bummer that 2D games were thrown right out the window.

I do think that the N64 will pick up steam with the collector community at some point. The only big difference, when compared to something like the SNES, is that there really aren't many super rare games that are worth owning and almost everything that is AAA material is 1st party and are not at all rare.

[otaku]

the n64 is looked upon fondly to some extent isn't it? I recall it fondly it was/is reliable an advanced cart based system with some awesome games (just not enough) I can think of about 20 games I own(ed) and loved. The neo geo is about the same as far as # of games maybe a few more. For me it was all about metal slug shmups and beat em ups (fighting games to an extent to) its a different animal and I think people are more likely to be nostalgic about an awesome 2D console than an early 3D console neo geo was the best 2D out there

[zachhargis]

Definitely hard to compare the two, but I feel the N64 gets a bad rap because of how the graphics have aged. The foggy look puts off people trying to go back to it. But I do not understand the criticism of not many good games. There are some absolutely fantastic games on this system that get completely overlooked. It just didn't cater to people with specific interests, such as fighting and shoot-em ups. This system is one of the most fun (for me) to collect for due to ease of availability and so many hidden gems. Plus I will never forget seeing Mario 64 and Waverace for the first time. They blew my mind at the time.

[wiggyx]

^^^ I think you're correct and that relative lack of games and diversity really put people off at the time. In fact, having worked game retail at that time, I KNOW it did. For every single N64 release it seemed like there were at least 5 PS titles. But, I do think it has one of the strongest great-to-crappy games ratios out there. Of the approximately 300 US releases, I can easily think of 75+ worth owning, and I'm pretty sure I can even find 100 solid, worth owning titles. I know that I can't say the same for 1/4-1/3 of the NES or SNES releases. It's good for what it does best, which was action/adventure/platformers, 1st person, and racers.

[zachhargis]

Yes, now i remember back then having to wait a while between releases, but that was a complaint of the time. Now having the full library, I really don't see how someone can complain of not a lot of games, and I agree that the ratio of good to bad is great on the 64.

[jammajup]

This is indeed a strange comparison but interesting-the Neo i associate with arcade power,Metal Slugs and a healthy mix of classic shooters and beat`em ups.I had some fun for a while with first person shooters on the N64 but overall i associate it with an uninspiring graphics engine and a device sold separately witch adds a little more detail,i can just about count 10 above average to good games on it.
Neo is an easy winner for me.

[Greg2600]

Neo Geo is difficult to compare to ANY system. Firstly, seemed like 80% of the games were fighting games. The rest were shooters of some variety, beat ups, and a few puzzlers. Little to no RPG, strategy, sports, FPS, racing, kiddy, licensed, and most glaringly platform games!!! Not to mention people who paid the price of owning one back then needed their head examined, or were just rich.

N64 was a complete system that actually sold in large qtys and had a long life. It had games of all varieties. Sure the development was too cumbersome for most developers outside Nintendo, and it scared off the massive # of CD-developed games that could have been ported. I would concur with whoever said that it's library is weak. Well, at the time, it wasn't so much, but I think just the polygonal nature of that era really negatively dates a lot of games.

[Rickstilwell1]

Yes, now i remember back then having to wait a while between releases, but that was a complaint of the time. Now having the full library, I really don't see how someone can complain of not a lot of games, and I agree that the ratio of good to bad is great on the 64.

Waiting a while was never that big of a deal though. The first party games were usually long enough or had enough optional stuff for you to do that you'd still be working on it by the time the next one came out. Unless you played video games all day every day. When I wasn't playing N64 I was usually going back and playing Super Nintendo & Game Boy as those were still seeing releases the first year of the N64's life when there really wasn't much on it yet. The Player's Choice re-releases prolonged this until 1999.

[Gameguy]

It just didn't cater to people with specific interests, such as fighting and shoot-em ups.
Or RPGs, survival horror, puzzle, beat 'em ups, 2D platformers, or anything else 2D. There were several exclusive fighting games on the system, they just weren't that good.

If you compared it at the time to either the SNES, Genesis, or the then current PS1 it's easy to see why people thought there weren't any games for it.

[BlastProcessing402]

I dont get why people hate the N64 controller, it was wacky and horrible for fighting games, but it was really good for special items to be used in platforming games.

I totally get why people hate that controller. The vast majority of games used the analog stick, meaning you had to hold the controller using the middle and right prongs, which was terribly uncomfortable and awkward. For the few games that used the D-pad as the primary input (mainly the wrestling games developed by AKI) that controller was awesomely comfortable, though.

[Ryudo]

N64 was cheaper to buy than a PSone or Saturn. Was 250$ when it came out ps1 WAS 300$ and saturn was 400$

[Kiddo]

Or RPGs, survival horror, puzzle, beat 'em ups, 2D platformers, or anything else 2D.

Survival Horror was a fairly "fresh" genre when the N64 was rolling around (didn't exactly want to say "new" considering previous games, but it wasn't until Resident Evil that the genre had a grounding and wasn't mostly Japan-only experimental RPGs, point-n-click adventures, or visual novels.) and has always been a genre with a low amount of entries, so you can't really fault Nintendo for that (The RE2 port is solid anyway). And the 32-bit era was when beat 'em ups were starting to be considered butt-monkey trash material by the mainstream gamers, so there were hardly any around in general unless you imported Saturn games (From there you'd mostly have aged CPS2 arcade ports.). As for "puzzle" games, what do you mean by that? The N64 had your typical slew of Tetris clones/variants, Puzzle Bobble 64/Bust-a-Move 99, Dr. Mario, and Pokemon Puzzle League, and in Japan you could also get Puyo Puyo Sun. That sounds more or less like standard fare to me.

[Gameguy]

Survival Horror was a fairly "fresh" genre when the N64 was rolling around (didn't exactly want to say "new" considering previous games, but it wasn't until Resident Evil that the genre had a grounding and wasn't mostly Japan-only experimental RPGs, point-n-click adventures, or visual novels.) and has always been a genre with a low amount of entries, so you can't really fault Nintendo for that (The RE2 port is solid anyway). And the 32-bit era was when beat 'em ups were starting to be considered butt-monkey trash material by the mainstream gamers, so there were hardly any around in general unless you imported Saturn games (From there you'd mostly have aged CPS2 arcade ports.). As for "puzzle" games, what do you mean by that? The N64 had your typical slew of Tetris clones/variants, Puzzle Bobble 64/Bust-a-Move 99, Dr. Mario, and Pokemon Puzzle League, and in Japan you could also get Puyo Puyo Sun. That sounds more or less like standard fare to me.
Well for survival horror there were several on the PS1. Resident Evil 1-3, Clock Tower 1-2, Silent Hill, and D all come to mind. There's even a few more lesser known titles from what I could look up online, I just don't know if they're as good as any of these so I didn't list them. I'm also not sure if Parasite Eve counts as a survival horror title or an RPG so I didn't list that either. I forgot about mentioning point-n-click adventures so thanks for that, there's a few of those on the PS1 too that aren't on the N64.

There was Resident Evil 2 for the N64 as you mentioned, besides that I couldn't think of any more titles and that's all I could find listed online with a quick search. I know beat 'em ups were out of style by then, but if you still liked the genre you'd be disappointed that there aren't any titles like that. There's Streets of Rage or Golden Axe on the Genesis or Final Fight on the SNES, nothing I can think of on the N64. There were plenty of 3D platformers coming out, I really didn't like those at the time.

There weren't really too many puzzle games back then, at least with the NES there was the original Tetris which is pretty much the only puzzle game you needed on the console, along with Dr Mario and a few others. The Genesis had Dr Robotnik's Mean Bean Machine. It depends on what counts as a puzzle game too, Lemmings and The Lost Vikings were released on several of the older systems back then along with a few other similar games. As you've said with the N64 there's really just a few updates to older more memorable games along with a few new games that are forgettable. Nothing on the N64 was as good as the original Tetris was, it lacked great puzzle games. Even on the Turbografx I can think of some good puzzle games, Chew-Man-Fu comes to mind. The N64 is blank to me with these games besides minor updates to earlier games that didn't offer much of a new experience. I've played Wetrix on the N64 and it wasn't anything special.

[Tron 2.0]

The AES I think did need more shooters though.
NGDev team has with last hope,fast striker and the up and coming XYX.

[Gamevet]

Interesting comparison. I think the N64 doesnt have as good a library as the NES or SNES, but it was a better one than the Gamecube had. Another comparison is they were followed by a cd based system that didnt do well.



The Gamecube gets a lot of flak, because it wasn't Nintendo's shining moment with 1st party titles, but it did have Metroid Prime, Zelda: The Wind Waker, F-Zero GX, Pikman 1&2, Luigi's Mansion, SSBM, Starfox Assault and Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door.

I feel that the 2nd and 3rd party support was better on the Gamecube, then it was with the N64. The Gamecube had games like Rogue Squadron 2: Rogue Leader, Resident Evil (Remake), RE: Zero, Resident Evil 4 (best in the series), Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes, Burnout 1&2, Ikaruga, Phantasy Star Online: Episode 1&2 (4 player split-screen), Knockout Kings 2003, Tales of Symphonia, Billy Hatcher, P.N. 03, Time Splitters, Chaos Field, Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles, Need for Speed series, Killer 7, Viewtiful Joe and much more.

The N64 had too many holes in its library, in comparison to the Gamecube.

[j_factor]

N64 was cheaper to buy than a PSone or Saturn. Was 250$ when it came out ps1 WAS 300$ and saturn was 400$

N64 was never cheaper than its competition. Playstation and Saturn both announced a price drop to $200 at E3 1996, before the N64 launched. In response Nintendo lowered the launch price of N64 to $200. All three dropped to $150 around the same time in March 1997. After the Saturn was discontinued in early '98, both PSX and N64 dropped to $130 in late summer. A year later, right before the Dreamcast launched, they both dropped again to $100.


Survival Horror was a fairly "fresh" genre when the N64 was rolling around (didn't exactly want to say "new" considering previous games, but it wasn't until Resident Evil that the genre had a grounding and wasn't mostly Japan-only experimental RPGs, point-n-click adventures, or visual novels.) and has always been a genre with a low amount of entries, so you can't really fault Nintendo for that (The RE2 port is solid anyway).

Not going to get into everything else, but Playstation had a pretty significant number of survival horror games. RE 1-3, Dino Crisis, Silent Hill, Clock Tower, Overblood, etc. plus some borderline titles like Koudelka and Fear Effect. Even Saturn had Enemy Zero and Deep Fear in addition to its ports of RE1 and AitD2. And Resident Evil came out before the N64 launched, so I'm not sure what your point is with that.


The Gamecube gets a lot of flak, because it wasn't Nintendo's shining moment with 1st party titles, but it did have Metroid Prime, Zelda: The Wind Waker, F-Zero GX, Pikman 1&2, Luigi's Mansion, SSBM, Starfox Assault and Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door.

I feel that the 2nd and 3rd party support was better on the Gamecube, then it was with the N64. The Gamecube had games like Rogue Squadron 2: Rogue Leader, Resident Evil (Remake), RE: Zero, Resident Evil 4 (best in the series), Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes, Burnout 1&2, Ikaruga, Phantasy Star Online: Episode 1&2 (4 player split-screen), Knockout Kings 2003, Tales of Symphonia, Billy Hatcher, P.N. 03, Time Splitters, Chaos Field, Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles, Need for Speed series, Killer 7, Viewtiful Joe and much more.

The N64 had too many holes in its library, in comparison to the Gamecube.

I have noticed that people who are big Nintendo fans tend to think N64 was better, and people who are not tend to prefer Gamecube. Personally, I felt like on N64, every other game was yet another similar racing game or yet another similar 3D platformer. Whereas Gamecube had more quirky/unique titles like P.N. 03, Chibi-Robo, Alien Hominid, Viewtiful Joe, Cubivore, Go Go Hypergrind, Billy Hatcher, Geist, Killer 7, DK Jungle Beat, etc. Nintendo even published Odama, which is one of the weirdest games I've ever played. They never would've put their name on something like that in the N64 days.

[Gamevet]

I have noticed that people who are big Nintendo fans tend to think N64 was better, and people who are not tend to prefer Gamecube. Personally, I felt like on N64, every other game was yet another similar racing game or yet another similar 3D platformer. Whereas Gamecube had more quirky/unique titles like P.N. 03, Chibi-Robo, Alien Hominid, Viewtiful Joe, Cubivore, Go Go Hypergrind, Billy Hatcher, Geist, Killer 7, DK Jungle Beat, etc. Nintendo even published Odama, which is one of the weirdest games I've ever played. They never would've put their name on something like that in the N64 days.

I think it's more of an age thing. If you were between the ages of 10-15 when you played the N64, you would have thought it was the greatest thing ever. You always hear about the Mario Kart and Goldeney sessions after school, which is quite the opposite for someone that was 16-25 when the console arrived.

I was big fan of the SNES and liked the NES quite a bit as well. The N64 was pretty disappointing to me.

[Rob2600]

N64 was cheaper to buy than a PSone or Saturn. ... ps1 WAS 300$ and saturn was 400$

N64 was never cheaper than its competition.

Ryudo was referring to the launch price of each console.


I know beat 'em ups were out of style by then, but if you still liked the genre you'd be disappointed that there aren't any titles like that. There's Streets of Rage or Golden Axe on the Genesis or Final Fight on the SNES, nothing I can think of on the N64.

Fighting Force 64 and Mortal Kombat Mythologies: Sub-Zero.

[wiggyx]

Both of which are forgettable at absolute best.

[Rob2600]

Both of which are forgettable at absolute best.

No one ever said they were good :)

[j_factor]

Ryudo was referring to the launch price of each console.

Perhaps, but that's pretty irrelevant. At no point was the N64 "cheaper to buy" than Playstation or Saturn. When the N64 came out, what mattered was the competitions' price points at the time, not the year before.

[Gameguy]

Fighting Force 64 and Mortal Kombat Mythologies: Sub-Zero.
I forgot about those games as they don't stand out as good games, but both are also available on the PS1 anyway. Not only that but Mortal Kombat Mythologies was apparently better on the PS1 than the N64 with live-action cutscenes, and the sequel to Fighting Force was on the PS1 but not the N64.

It's interesting to note that Fighting Force was supposed to be released as Streets of Rage 4 but the license was pulled, in a way I'm glad as it's not as good as the series on the Genesis. 3D beat 'em ups aren't usually that good.

[Kiddo]

Not going to get into everything else, but Playstation had a pretty significant number of survival horror games. RE 1-3, Dino Crisis, Silent Hill, Clock Tower, Overblood, etc. plus some borderline titles like Koudelka and Fear Effect. Even Saturn had Enemy Zero and Deep Fear in addition to its ports of RE1 and AitD2. And Resident Evil came out before the N64 launched, so I'm not sure what your point is with that.

I'll start by saying that my point was "It was unrealistic to expect a slew of Resident Evil clones on Resident Evil just freshly defined the Survival Horror genre at the time." Resident Evil was released only a few months before N64s started to come out in Japan and was a new IP by Capcom. Any game on the N64 that would've played like RE but wasn't RE would've probably been derided for "Nintendo trying to copy a popular Playstation game" for much of the reasons many 3D Platformers on the Playstation weren't well-received before Crash Bandicoot and Ape Escape. The lack of that type of game isn't nearly as glaring as, say, the lack of a Mega Man or Street Fighter-style game, which are obvious because they were staples in the 8-and-16-bit eras.

I'll also note that many of the other titles you mentioned either weren't that well-received, are more like the experimental stuff I was referring to, or, well, were sequels or spinoffs from RE.

[Gameguy]

I'll start by saying that my point was "It was unrealistic to expect a slew of Resident Evil clones on Resident Evil just freshly defined the Survival Horror genre at the time." Resident Evil was released only a few months before N64s started to come out in Japan and was a new IP by Capcom. Any game on the N64 that would've played like RE but wasn't RE would've probably been derided for "Nintendo trying to copy a popular Playstation game" for much of the reasons many 3D Platformers on the Playstation weren't well-received before Crash Bandicoot and Ape Escape. The lack of that type of game isn't nearly as glaring as, say, the lack of a Mega Man or Street Fighter-style game, which are obvious because they were staples in the 8-and-16-bit eras.

I'll also note that many of the other titles you mentioned either weren't that well-received, are more like the experimental stuff I was referring to, or, well, were sequels or spinoffs from RE.
Just wanted to point out that Resident Evil was originally supposed to be a remake of Sweet Home which came out years earlier on the Nintendo Famicom. Also the PS1 Clock Tower games were direct sequels to Clock Tower on the Super Famicom, a Nintendo system. It's like how Final Fantasy and other RPGs were on previous Nintendo systems but the developers all switched over to Sony after the SNES was replaced, all these previous games were on Nintendo systems yet none of the later games came out on the N64(besides Resident Evil 2). If the second game could be released on the N64 why weren't the other games ported? It's clear they were popular back then so this doesn't really make much sense, if it was a disagreement with Nintendo I don't get why Resident Evil 2 would have been ported.

[Kiddo]

Just wanted to point out that Resident Evil was originally supposed to be a remake of Sweet Home which came out years earlier on the Nintendo Famicom. Also the PS1 Clock Tower games were direct sequels to Clock Tower on the Super Famicom, a Nintendo system. It's like how Final Fantasy and other RPGs were on previous Nintendo systems but the developers all switched over to Sony after the SNES was replaced, all these previous games were on Nintendo systems yet none of the later games came out on the N64(besides Resident Evil 2). If the second game could be released on the N64 why weren't the other games ported? It's clear they were popular back then so this doesn't really make much sense, if it was a disagreement with Nintendo I don't get why Resident Evil 2 would have been ported.

I'd say Clock Tower is a bit of a different scenario because it was a late-gen, Japan-only sleeper hit, not a "staple" in nearly the same vein as Final Fantasy was. It's possible Human just thought Nintendo consoles weren't the place for it's franchise after one try and moved it to Playstation.

The odd part is I haven't read anything on if Capcom had any major disagreements with Nintendo over anything in particular about the N64l it just seems they didn't jump in early on (Perhaps they were waiting out it's performance?) and when they saw the results decided it'd be best to give a few token Playstation ports to show some faux support. At least Resident Evil 2 was a very techncially impressive one.

[kupomogli]

I think the N64 is better no contest. N64 has far more variety. Neo Geo is mostly stage based, arcade style games, most of which are fighters. I can only remember two progression style games on the Neo Geo. Crossed Swords is an on rails RPG version of Punchout. There's another game that plays the same but I can't remember the name(I think you play as cops or swat or something.)

[Ryudo]

Perhaps, but that's pretty irrelevant. At no point was the N64 "cheaper to buy" than Playstation or Saturn. When the N64 came out, what mattered was the competitions' price points at the time, not the year before.

I got my N64 for 150$ in 99 and PSone was still 200$...Saturn well they were no longer sold. And now the Saturn games are shit expensive and N64 games are cheap to pick up mostly and easy to find. Psone is also very cheap now.

[kedawa]

Blue's Journey is better than any 2D platformer on N64.

[swlovinist]

While both systems do have some comparisons, they were both made for two entirely different markets. The Neo Geo was and will always be a niche console that was catered to a specific style of gaming and gamers. I am a fan of the system, but the console is very limited on what games it can offer/offered. The specific games that it did offer were often very solid.

The N64 from my perspective has generated a very solid following of gamers and collectors. While the system was not the 2D powerhouse its predecessor was, it brought in and revolutionized early 3D console gaming. While the library of titles has a large amount of stinkers, the top 15% of the games will stay true classics for years to come.

I have extensively collected both systems, and like them for totally different reasons. At the end of the day I really can compare them.

[Gamevet]

I got my N64 for 150$ in 99 and PSone was still 200$...Saturn well they were no longer sold. And now the Saturn games are shit expensive and N64 games are cheap to pick up mostly and easy to find. Psone is also very cheap now.

The Playstation was not priced at $200 in 1999. It was more than likely $149.99 and was soon dropped to $99 after the Dreamcast came out.

[A.C. Sativa]

N64 was cheaper to buy than a PSone or Saturn. Was 250$ when it came out ps1 WAS 300$ and saturn was 400$

Yeah, but PS1 games (and Saturn too, I think) were $50, N64 games were $70 or more. So there's no savings at all in the long run.

[kedawa]

By the time I bought a Saturn in 1997, they were $129 with 3 games.

[Aussie2B]

Yeah, but PS1 games (and Saturn too, I think) were $50, N64 games were $70 or more. So there's no savings at all in the long run.

Once the jewel case games came along, most PlayStation games were $40, sometimes $45 (like for Squaresoft's big-name releases. Chrono Cross was $45, for example). N64 game were rarely $70, and I never once saw a N64 game that cost more than that. The typical N64 game was $50 or $60.

I bought my first PlayStation in 1999, and I know for a fact that it was $99.99. Don't remember what month it was, though.

[Gamevet]

N64 game were rarely $70, and I never once saw a N64 game that cost more than that. The typical N64 game was $50 or $60.



I picked up the N64 at launch. I remember paying $69.99 for pretty much every title for the first year and a half. The prices started coming down after that.

[Aussie2B]

I had a N64 since launch day too. The only game I ever paid $70 for was Killer Instinct Gold. I picked up many N64 games on their release dates (so full MSRP) within those first couple years, such as Super Mario 64, Pilotwings 64, Cruis'n USA, Mario Kart 64, Quest 64, etc., and they were never more than $60.

[Gamevet]

I had a N64 since launch day too. The only game I ever paid $70 for was Killer Instinct Gold. I picked up many N64 games on their release dates (so full MSRP) within those first couple years, such as Super Mario 64, Pilotwings 64, Cruis'n USA, Mario Kart 64, Quest 64, etc., and they were never more than $60.


I picked up Mario 64, Waverace 64, Pilotwings 64 and Shadows of the Empire for $69.99 each; They were not cheap. I still have the boxes with the price tags on them.

Quest 64 came out much later, if I'm remembering right.

[Aussie2B]

We're talking US prices here, right? Not Canadian? Where'd you pick up your games? I got almost all of mine at Toys R Us. In fact, I don't know if Killer Instinct Gold was genuinely more expensive than the other titles I listed as far as the MSRP goes or if it was because I picked that one up at Fred Meyer, which I believe had a habit of gouging a little. You may have also had the bad luck of going with a store that added a little padding to the MSRPs.

Here are a couple Toys R Us ad scans from 1996:

http://i.imgur.com/EXpvI.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/uhyFS.jpg

[Gamevet]

We're talking US prices here, right? Not Canadian? Where'd you pick up your games? I got almost all of mine at Toys R Us. In fact, I don't know if Killer Instinct Gold was genuinely more expensive than the other titles I listed as far as the MSRP goes or if it was because I picked that one up at Fred Meyer, which I believe had a habit of gouging a little. You may have also had the bad luck of going with a store that added a little padding to the MSRPs.

Here are a couple Toys R Us ad scans from 1996:


Most of the titles I had bought from EB games. I reserved Shadows of the Empire at Toys R' Us.

Yes, those were US prices.

We don't have Fred Meyer in Texas.

The MSRP for Pilotwings 64 and Mario 64 was $69.99.

http://www.pennoaks.net/archive64/Miscellaneous_Articles/N64_US_Launch.htm



Nintendo 64 was launched with two games: Super Mario 64 and Pilotwings 64. The retail price for both of these games are $69.95. However, because of the highly competitive nature of the North American market, the games could be found for $59.99 (or possibly even cheaper) at many of the larger stores across the country.

[Ryudo]

Only had one 70$ N64 game back when I was into Baseball I got All Star Baseball 99 I think.

[Rob2600]

At Toys R Us in northern NJ, Super Mario 64 and Pilotwings 64 were $59.99 at launch. EB and Funco Land had higher prices, ripping people off.

[Greg2600]

The odd part is I haven't read anything on if Capcom had any major disagreements with Nintendo over anything in particular about the N64l it just seems they didn't jump in early on (Perhaps they were waiting out it's performance?) and when they saw the results decided it'd be best to give a few token Playstation ports to show some faux support. At least Resident Evil 2 was a very techncially impressive one.


Blue's Journey is better than any 2D platformer on N64.

N64 had little to nothing 2D, and for several years neither did PS1, as Sony forbid it. They all thought 3D is what "everyone" wanted. Dummies. Saturn was a 2D beast, but was a disaster on 3D. Neo Geo would have been just as bad.

PS: Gamevet believe me, you could buy almost every N64 title at Toys R Us or Kay-Bee for $50 or less. I think you got ripped off down there for sure.

Here's a Christmas TRU catalog from 1996, where N64, Saturn and PS1 were 200.
http://www.kotaku.com.au/2012/12/toys-r-us-christmas-1996-catalogue-is-a-historic-wonderland/

[wiggyx]

Once the jewel case games came along, most PlayStation games were $40, sometimes $45 (like for Squaresoft's big-name releases. Chrono Cross was $45, for example). N64 game were rarely $70, and I never once saw a N64 game that cost more than that. The typical N64 game was $50 or $60.

I bought my first PlayStation in 1999, and I know for a fact that it was $99.99. Don't remember what month it was, though.

MANY PS1 games were $50. In fact, most big name releases were.

Typically 1st party N64 games had a 59.99 MSRP (with Starfox being an obvious exception), 3rd party titles were more often than not 70+. NOTHING was $50 at release until 1998 or later. Those carts cost third party manufacturers way too much to make any money at 50 bucks retail.

I worked in retail during the launch of the N64 and I recall the cost sheets and MSRPs. There was almost no wiggle room in those prices from a retailer perspective either. Those fuckers were expensive for everyone.


I had a N64 since launch day too. The only game I ever paid $70 for was Killer Instinct Gold. I picked up many N64 games on their release dates (so full MSRP) within those first couple years, such as Super Mario 64, Pilotwings 64, Cruis'n USA, Mario Kart 64, Quest 64, etc., and they were never more than $60.

Again, 1st party titles were typically 60 bucks.


I picked up Mario 64, Waverace 64, Pilotwings 64 and Shadows of the Empire for $69.99 each; They were not cheap. I still have the boxes with the price tags on them.

Quest 64 came out much later, if I'm remembering right.

You have price stickers on the boxes themselves? That doesn't make any sense unless you kept the shrink wrap on them.

You definitely paid too much for those 1st party titles :/


N64 had little to nothing 2D, and for several years neither did PS1, as Sony forbid it. They all thought 3D is what "everyone" wanted. Dummies. Saturn was a 2D beast, but was a disaster on 3D. Neo Geo would have been just as bad.

PS: Gamevet believe me, you could buy almost every N64 title at Toys R Us or Kay-Bee for $50 or less. I think you got ripped off down there for sure.

Here's a Christmas TRU catalog from 1996, where N64, Saturn and PS1 were 200.
http://www.kotaku.com.au/2012/12/toys-r-us-christmas-1996-catalogue-is-a-historic-wonderland/

LOL no truth in that whatsoever.

So the ads say 59.99 for 1st party titles, yet you STILL insist that they were 50 or less :|

http://i.imgur.com/EXpvI.jpg

[j_factor]

N64 had little to nothing 2D, and for several years neither did PS1, as Sony forbid it.

I don't know where this urban legend started, but it is 100% false. Sony certainly wanted to emphasize 3D, but 2D games were never forbidden. Rayman was a launch game and one of the most popular early games on the system. Sony actually paid Midway to make Mortal Kombat 3 a "next gen exclusive" (i.e. not on Saturn) and SCEA published the PSX port of Samurai Shodown III.


Saturn was a 2D beast, but was a disaster on 3D.

Hyperbole on both counts.


MANY PS1 games were $50. In fact, most big name releases were.

Only for the first couple years. I got my Playstation in 1998 and at that point, most games were $40.

Here (http://web.archive.org/web/19990429111034/http://www.ebworld.com/ebx/psx.asp) is an archived page from EB in early '99 showing Army Men 3D, Legend of Legaia, Syphon Filter, Gex 3, and MLB 2000 for $40 (and nothing else for more). Here (http://web.archive.org/web/19991127180900/http://www.gamestop.com/platform-PSX.jsp) is a similar page from Gamestop later that year showing 10 out of 12 games for $40. RE3 is $45 but I'm pretty sure you could get it for $40 elsewhere, and Carmageddon wasn't actually released, so that's likely a placeholder price.

[wiggyx]

My bad. ONLY during the first 3 years of the PS' lifetime were most games $50, and after that only the big titles from Konami, Capcom, Squaresoft, etc. were $50.

Of course the games got cheaper at the END of the PS lifetime. The DC launch was around the corner and the PS2 wasn't far from launch either.

[Ed Oscuro]

Excuse me if this was already brought up because I'm jumping right in, but:

-Both were more powerful than their competitors.
They were powerful than their competitors...well, sort of, in different ways.

I don't think the Neo Geo was more powerful than the Capcom CPS Changer hardware, although that is obscenely rare, and Capcom can't be said to have had real pretensions towards marketing it with as much success as the Neo Geo had. But if you view the Neo Geo as an arcade system, it clearly was outclassed by some competitors. This didn't matter, of course; the hardware for score overlays in the Neo Geo is really old-fashioned but didn't harm it, and it was flexible enough that it was even pressed into doing some FMV-like scenes in later games.

The real difference is in what ways they were powerful. The Neo Geo was slightly lower resolution than the CPS hardware, which actually doesn't hurt if you have to use the same CPU for years, and it wasn't trying to do anything that other systems had difficulty with.

The N64, on the other hand, was "expanded" some years into its run with RAM often used for a "high resolution" mode which made many slow games run more slowly. The N64 is better on paper in some ways - i.e. perspective-correct texturing - than the PlayStation, but ultimately it doesn't always deliver on this promise. The 100MHz clock of the N64 MIPS chip was well ahead of the curve at the time but it still manages to chug in some of the complex tasks demanded of it.

I personally love the N64 (spent more than a few posts defending it recently at Shmups (http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=43764)) and I think its style of chunky, lower-detail graphics works well visually with many kinds of games. But it was almost always right up at the limit of its capabilities, especially because of Nintendo's failure to deliver fast microcode and tools for developers to get the most out of the system. The PlayStation might not have been easy to work with, either, but it had a lot of advantages for many kinds of games.

[Doonzmore]

Fighting Force 64 and Mortal Kombat Mythologies: Sub-Zero.

You forgot Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker. Hehehe.

[Ed Oscuro]

N64 had little to nothing 2D, and for several years neither did PS1, as Sony forbid it.
Here in the states anyway - in Japan the PlayStation launched with at least one traditional 2D brawler (pretty too).

[Orion Pimpdaddy]

The N64 is heavily criticized by the modern gaming media.

I don't know where you hear this. I mostly hear praise about the system from just about everyone, even the "modern" gaming media.

[Greg2600]

LOL no truth in that whatsoever.

So the ads say 59.99 for 1st party titles, yet you STILL insist that they were 50 or less :|
True, the retailers marked the big name titles up to 59.99, but most were 49.99 or under. I know because I (for some reason) kept all my receipts in the N64 boxes. Most from TRU, KB, or EB. Granted N64 games cost more to make.


I don't know where this urban legend started, but it is 100% false. Sony certainly wanted to emphasize 3D, but 2D games were never forbidden. Rayman was a launch game and one of the most popular early games on the system. Sony actually paid Midway to make Mortal Kombat 3 a "next gen exclusive" (i.e. not on Saturn) and SCEA published the PSX port of Samurai Shodown III.

Hyperbole on both counts.

Sony's emphasis was on 3D, as was Nintendo's, everybody was moving to polygons. And it's not hyperbole, Saturn's 3D games looked way too ragged. They had a lot of detail on the textures, but there wasn't any smoothing, so everything was blocky and fake.


I don't know where you hear this. I mostly hear praise about the system from just about everyone, even the "modern" gaming media.
Goldeneye, Ocarina of Time and Mario 64 are consistently praised in the game press. It's not the media, it's the anti-Nintendo gamers who loathe the system. It's not a perfect system. The decision to remain in cartridge and not CD cost it a multitude of games. Games that I never used to have to buy on other systems when the NES and SNES were around. I would buy them for PC instead.

[wiggyx]

Pics of said receipts? I'm talking about actual MSRP at time of launch, not some price that I feel was reasonable. The wholesale cost on 1st party titles was more than $50 at launch (roughly $52 IIRC), and considering that there's almost ZERO markup on consoles, it's hard to believe that any new retailer was selling games UNDER cost at the time of launch.


AGAIN, AT LAUNCH. Just want to clarify in case you're talking about games that you purchased in 1998 or something.

[kedawa]

Most of the gamers I know owned the N64 within the first year of its lifecycle, and they all say it's their least favourite Nintendo console.
You don't have to be 'anti-Nintendo' to see its flaws. The controller is widely considered to be mediocre and the game library has serious holes.

[Greg2600]

Pics of said receipts? I'm talking about actual MSRP at time of launch, not some price that I feel was reasonable. The wholesale cost on 1st party titles was more than $50 at launch (roughly $52 IIRC), and considering that there's almost ZERO markup on consoles, it's hard to believe that any new retailer was selling games UNDER cost at the time of launch.


AGAIN, AT LAUNCH. Just want to clarify in case you're talking about games that you purchased in 1998 or something.

I didn't buy the system at launch. But Toys R Us was selling Mario for 59.99, not $70 as the one poor fellow was paying for his games. Since N64 games were always higher than PS1 or Saturn games, I'm not sure what the disagreement is? We paid $60 for new NES games 25 years ago.

[wiggyx]

Ugh, that's the whole point. Who cares what they cost 3 years later?

[Jack_Burton_BYOAC]

So...this thread turned into a discussion of the merits of the N64 from a mainstream point of view. Not exactly what I intended. The idea was to examine the N64 in the light of a "what if?" it were an obscure system, and how its library would value on the secondary market.

That said, many good points made in the first page or so, I particular like this one:



The Neo Geo has a more favorable response because most gamers understand its very specific aims, and if you're into that, you go for it, and if not, you know to not bother with it. With it being a premium system, it's unlikely for it to just fall into someone's hands. If you've got a Neo Geo, it's likely because you bought it yourself or somebody knew that you really, really wanted it. With the N64 being mainstream, somebody might give it to someone else on a whim, or a gamer may pick it up just because it's cheap. If you don't know much about what it has to offer, you may end up being disappointed to learn that it's not really your cup of tea after you already own it. And, as much as gamers may not want to hear it, if you drop a ton of cash on something, you're more likely to play mental games with yourself in order to justify your purchase and convince yourself that you like it, so the Neo Geo, being an expensive system, has that in its favor. If you picked up a N64 and a game for 10 bucks, it's probably not a big deal for you to go "man, this sucks".

Which gets back to my idea that as time passes, and the complaints about a large library, or price of cartridges become a negligible issue due to emulation, I think the N64 will be seen in an increasingly positive light. It's puts the Neo and the N64 (and all other systems) on equal footing. Most people only emulate or collect a dozen or so of the big titles anyway, so if you put the 10 best Neo games up against the 10 best N64 games, I think Nintendo is going to win. However, that is a sort of broadly defined "better" in the sense that probably Ocarina of Time is better than King of Fighters 98, a bold and unusual claim to make.

Additionally, I think nostalgia for early 3d graphics is going to kick in very hard in the next generation. PS1, Saturn, and N64 are at about the same spot the NES was 10-15 years ago in this hobby. That is, they get no respect. But it's bulding, and as soon as crude 3d design becomes ironically cool again, I think the N64 will see a lot more attention.

[Kiddo]

I honestly can't see "crude 3D" becoming hip and trendy in the same sense that 8/16-bit has, considering a few factors:

1) Half of the demand for "remakes" of classic 32/64-bit games is specifically from people who simply want to see the games with a graphical makeover because they feel the graphics haven't aged well.

2) People exposed to the games via emulation will not have the same hardware experience - they will be using graphics-enhancing filters and shaders that dramatically alter their perception of what the game "looks like".

3) The most nostalgic Playstation fans mostly remember games post-FFVII when the graphics weren't quite -as- crude as earlier-gen games.

[Greg2600]

I agree with Kiddo. The graphics are tough to take sometimes for me. I usually wind up playing them on an emulator so I can use texture smoothing. That said, the sought after 32/64 bit games are pricey on eBay, so believe me, people want them still.

[IHatedSega]

Some games were better looking in 32 bit than they would have been at 64, Ape Escape immediately comes to mind. Shadow Man which to me is the most underrated game of the N64 library needed the Expansion pak to look awesome, and looks better than the Dreamcast version to me.

Project64 allows you make games look way sharper, and people make remastered skins so the games have way more detail, its kind of tricky to set it up though. I like some early 3D graphics, but a ton looked horrible for the time. I wish the Saturn had been a 2D machine because of that. Id say without emulation that the NEO GEO had better graphics 8/10 of the time from an artistic stand point.

This game has some of the worst N64 graphics Ive ever seen and it came out in 2000. I love Rogue Squadron by the way.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aj-jUwd76f8

[Greg2600]

I personally detest all things SW Prequels, but that game actually had some of the BEST N64 graphics and sound! Factor 5 always did superior work. Bad graphics is something like Cruisin' USA. Also, don't forget the games were designed for CRT screens, so to criticize if they look bad on an LCD may not be fair.

[Gamevet]

Here's my receipt for Waverace 64.

I was mistaken about Shadows of the Empire. I had paid $59.99 for the title at Toys R' Us. Still, the MSRP for the launch N64 titles was $69.99. I'm pretty sure that if you were getting it cheaper somewhere else, the same could be applied to Saturn and Playstation titles. I ended up paying $59.99 for a lot of early Playstation and Saturn games at EB, because Walmart didn't carry them.

[j_factor]

Sony's emphasis was on 3D, as was Nintendo's, everybody was moving to polygons. And it's not hyperbole, Saturn's 3D games looked way too ragged. They had a lot of detail on the textures, but there wasn't any smoothing, so everything was blocky and fake.

N64 was the one with blocky graphics. Maybe you mean pixellated? But Playstation was no better in that regard.

Saturn had its advantages and disadvantages, but the differences weren't huge. The average at the time was about the same for both systems.


Goldeneye, Ocarina of Time and Mario 64 are consistently praised in the game press. It's not the media, it's the anti-Nintendo gamers who loathe the system. It's not a perfect system. The decision to remain in cartridge and not CD cost it a multitude of games. Games that I never used to have to buy on other systems when the NES and SNES were around. I would buy them for PC instead.

Those games are certainly praised, but I think the N64 overall is portrayed as a disappointment with not enough games. Although I have noticed a more positive tone towards the N64 in the last few years, perhaps the product of younger people getting involved in the media.

[IHatedSega]

I personally detest all things SW Prequels, but that game actually had some of the BEST N64 graphics and sound! Factor 5 always did superior work. Bad graphics is something like Cruisin' USA. Also, don't forget the games were designed for CRT screens, so to criticize if they look bad on an LCD may not be fair.

Id say Mario 64 had better graphics than that game and it was a launch title. :S Sorry if he used a tv he shouldnt have for review. Hmmm that brings up another point, it may depend on what tv you have now to play games wit hthat is a facotr in how you think they look. I wrote in the dailey game check thread on this topic, this tv i have makes things too bright or too dark, but I know the games dont really look like that, and this tv doesnt have a brightness setting. I think Goldeneye hasnt aged well at all, but Banjo Kazooie still looks great.

[wiggyx]

Man, 32-bit 3D games make my eyes hurt anymore :/

[ownerizer]

Fighting Force 64 and Mortal Kombat Mythologies: Sub-Zero.

What about Gauntlet Legacy? I remember that one pretty well.