Is N64 Classic Now?

[Xenozeri]

Ok, Gamestop stopped selling N64 games, it's pretty old, and the Seventh Generation has already started. My question is that now would the N64 be considered classic? Is a Fifth Generation 64-bit console worthy of the title classic? I can't decide, can anyone shed some light on how old does a system have to be to be considered classic?

[Sothy]

yes.


Unless yer a salty old Gaming dog like PDF, Sniderman or Altairboy.... then its just a consarnit new fangled 3d system.


GET OFF MY LAWN!

[NEOFREAK9189]

no like in 5 years from now 2010 or 2011

[Pantechnicon]

For purposes of posting about it in the Classic Gaming Forum vs the Modern Gaming forum, the answer is yes.

For purposes of establishing a genuine sense of antiquity, no. It's not classic. It's merely obsolete. You need, imho, a 20-year minimum for that. N64 is only halfway there.

Incidentally, despite my absence from young Sothy's list, I too am one of those salty old gaming dogs who never stopped, and never will stop, playing his Atari 2600. And I will keep reminding people about that until the day I die.

[SirDrexl]

I would say no. I would agree that 20 years would be the minimum.

[ProgrammingAce]

it doesn't have to be OLD to be CLASSIC.

I'm sure you've seen this quote around, i'd agree with this statement. It doesn't have to be old to be a classic.

[smokehouse]

I despise the N64…..

I think that following the SNES it just left me with an empty feeling. I know that has nothing to do with it’s being “classic” but I will never consider it a classic….just a pile of shit gaming console.

-End Rant-

[Ascending Wordsmith]

Yeah, whenever a console shows up in mass quantities in cardboard boxes at flea markets, it's pretty much classic. I say 'pretty much' since there's also a heap of Playstations collecting at the flea markets as well.

[swlovinist]

I consider it now a classic, and in my opinion I think that the system was really good for what it tried to do(3D games). Overall it will be rememberd as the system that took Nintendo from the top, but stands on its own with quality Nintnedo games. One thing about cart format is that you can be assured that they will be working if you find them at a flea, unlike many disc based software x_x. Any console that is "two generations out" would be a classic to me.

[Pico956]

IMO it's not classic. It's just what generations behind the Wii?

Give it about another 15 years and it will be.

[smork]

It's not old ebough to be a "classic" system, since games still came out this decade (I'd say that's an absolute base measurement for a system's age -- i'm not talking VCS homebrews, I mean commercial games). Is it ever going to be a classic in the "one of the greats" sense? Don't think so. I love both the SNES and GC far more than I ever will the N64. It's at the bottom of all the major released systems since 1990, IMO.

So, I'd say it's not a classic in either sense.

[aaronpetrosky]

Couldn't of said it better smoke house. N64= most overrated system ever.

[ROBOTNIK666]

'Tis obsolete, not classic. A system should be 20 years old to be considered classic, which means the newest entries in the Classic Gaming Hall of Fame are NES and Master System.

[le geek]

My 2 cents...

I dunno in terms of over simplifying different eras of gaming it seems like you have

1) Pre-Crash era (Odyssey-Colecovision)

2) Revival 2D era (NES-SNES)

3) 3D era (3DO-X360)

Has gaming changed much since the Playstation? So I dunno if the N64 is classic. It's not really old enough and as a system it doesn't have a large number of great games to make it fondly remembered by the masses.

It DOES however have some classic games. Super Mario 64 and The Legend of Zelda: the Ocarina of Time (among others). Plus the games are on carts.


But really, I'm still get used to NES being old skool O_O :P

Cheers,
Ben

[7th lutz]

No. I look it at the year the final commercial release was and when the maker of a game console stops making and shipping the game console? I give a 10 year period.
Here are the systems I have to say no to:

If it is on n64's first games then they could be considered since they were released in 1996.

N64-last game 2001
gbc-last game in 2002.
Neo Geo pocket color-got release at eb games in 2004.
Dreamcast-final U.S release early 2002 I think
original gb-last game released in 98 or 99.
ps1-last game release was in 2004
Saturn-last game in states 98.
Snes-Games were rereleased in 98.
Genesis-frogger was in 98
Game Gear-last new game was in 97
Game.com-last 98 Tiger r-zone-last game in 97
Jaguar-this is ify. Last systems were ship in 95, but telegames releasing games made this difficult to say.
Neo geo-last game came out in 2004.
Neon-don't think this will be classic ever.
Wonderswan-last game was in 2002 in Japan
vb-if this is a classic then tiger R-zone, and game.com is!

[Anthony1]

I despise the N64…..

I think that following the SNES it just left me with an empty feeling. I know that has nothing to do with it’s being “classic” but I will never consider it a classic….just a pile of shit gaming console.

-End Rant-



Wow, that's pretty harsh, but I must agree that the N64 just doesn't leave me with those warm feelings inside, like some of the other systems. For example, I would much rather play my Jaguar or 3DO or God forbid even the Sega 32X before I fire up the Blurry 64. Other than a few early releases, I'm just not a huge fan of the Blurry 64. It's not just the polygon/early 3D factor either, because I love the PS1 quite a bit, I'm not sure what it is. I just don't have that nostalgic feeling towards it. I was absolutely in love with the N64 for about a year. I bought it the day it came out, and for about a year I was very gung ho with the Nintendo 64, but then I left for 3Dfx PC gaming.


I try to go back and play Mario and WaveRace and the first Turok and Mario Kart, and I do enjoy some of those early releases somewhat, but of all the various systems of the 90's the N64 just doesn't do it for me.


Back on topic, I would say no, it's not classic yet. I'm not sure if I agree with the 20 year rule, because I think everything pre PS1 is certifiably classic. That means, Saturn, 3DO, Jaguar, Sega 32X, etc, etc. Only reason I don't consider PS1 to be classic, is because they were releasing new games for it well into this new decade, and they were still selling brand new systems at stores not too long ago. Otherwise I would say the PS1 is classic too.

I guess if I had to put a timeframe on it, I would say 15 years after the system was originally released in the U.S. Of course, according to that logic, the Saturn wouldn't officially be classic until , May 2010,

[MoreEbolaForYou]

i've said this before, and this isn't just an attempt to troll, but i'd have to say n64 has to be one of the worst 4 systems ever.

don't bring up goldeneye either because, holy crap, do i hate that game. i don't see what the big deal is, there were games that good, and better on the pc 10 years before that came out.

[Daria]

I bought my N64 solely to play Paper Mario, then I bought Harvest Moon 64. Between those two titles I don't really care if I never find another N64 game I'm happy with, although I'm sure that they're out there.

But then it helps that neither of those games are really in 3d, early 3d gaming hasn't really aged all that well and I find it hard pressed to play any non 2d or 2d hybrid on any system older than Dreamcast.

[Anthony1]

i've said this before, and this isn't just an attempt to troll, but i'd have to say n64 has to be one of the worst 4 systems ever.

don't bring up goldeneye either because, holy crap, do i hate that game. i don't see what the big deal is, there were games that good, and better on the pc 10 years before that came out.



As lackluster as the N64 might be, I'm not sure it's as bad as one of the 4 worst systems ever. That's pretty damn harsh. Especially when there are systems like the 32x and Virtual Boy and Jaguar taking up 3 of the 4 slots. he he

[smork]

That's pretty damn harsh. Especially when there are systems like the 32x and Virtual Boy and Jaguar taking up 3 of the 4 slots. he he


....I actually kinda like the Virtual Boy.... :(

[BocoDragon]

Yes, N64 is classic now. I'm older and I have perspective, and I'd still say it's old.... It's probably been 4 or 5 years since I've seen a 64 game in a Wal-Mart or whatever.... It's long gone.

And yeah, I don't think it was a very great console either. The thing is, it had 4-5 of the best games ever, which tends to cloud people's minds, but that was about all it had. Much of its content has aged badly (READ: RARE).

PlayStation 1 gave it a good ass-whoopin (aside from the Godlike Mario 64 and Zeldas), and I thought Gamecube was a Nintendo triumph compared to the 64.

[Damaramu]

That's pretty damn harsh. Especially when there are systems like the 32x and Virtual Boy and Jaguar taking up 3 of the 4 slots. he he


....I actually kinda like the Virtual Boy.... :(

Ditto.

While I don't consider the N64 to be any where near as bad as say the Jaguar or CD-i, it's blurry textures give me headaches. Loved Mario Kart 64, though.

[Cauterize]

Id consider it classic, once the system is replaced with a newer model... i.e. the Gamecube, your then dealign with a discontinued system, the N64

If you cant get the games brand new as easily and games arent being made for it anymore then surely its become classic

just my 2 cents

[ShinobiMan]

N64 is classic. No doubt about it.

Lets put it this way, when the N64 first came out, the NES was considered classic.

NES = 1985
N64 = 1996

Now we are at the dawn of the Nintendo Wii.

N64 = 1996
Wii = 2006

And now that video game retail chains such as Gamestop have discontinued the sale of used N64 games, it's safe to consider this platform a classic.

And that is my take on the topic at hand. :D

[Flack]

WTF? I wanna be lumped in with the old people, too!

The N64 and PSX seem too recent to be considered classics yet. Personally I classify them both as "older new stuff."

In my brain, classic = pixels while modern = polygons.

[Jisho]

Classic, imo, has less to do with age and more to do with how memorable it was system was. The N64 will therefore never attain the "classic" status (in my eyes) other systems like the Atari 2600 and NES have because it is not as fondly remembered.

On the other hand, the system may never be classic but some of the games can attain "classic" status.

[Pantechnicon]

Ok, Gamestop stopped selling N64 games...


...{N}ow that video game retail chains such as Gamestop have discontinued the sale of used N64 games, it's safe to consider this platform a classic.

O_O When did Gamestop become the standard bearer for defining classic-ness? I missed the memo, apparently.

Eh. I feel like we're all about to retread an old debate. So I'm just going to restate something I've expressed in other threads and bow out: It's not enough for you 18-22 year olds to have laid hands on an N64 back in 1st grade, and now as young adults to lay any sort of claim to nostalgia. Go out and live your lives. Fall in love and get your heart broken. Finish school. Fall in love again and get married. Get a job with stressful deadlines and an evil boss. Have kids. Buy a house. Develop a social life. Wait for young people to start calling you "sir". Worry about paying the bills. Get to a point where you've been plugging away at that job, your kids, your spouse, your bills and your life for so long that you almost forgot about that N64 sitting in the closet. Then, when you hook it up and play Goldeneye for the 1st time in who knows how long, you'll truly understand what gaming nostalgia truly is.

[smokehouse]

Wow, that's pretty harsh, but I must agree that the N64 just doesn't leave me with those warm feelings inside, like some of the other systems. For example, I would much rather play my Jaguar or 3DO or God forbid even the Sega 32X before I fire up the Blurry 64. Other than a few early releases, I'm just not a huge fan of the Blurry 64. It's not just the polygon/early 3D factor either, because I love the PS1 quite a bit, I'm not sure what it is. I just don't have that nostalgic feeling towards it. I was absolutely in love with the N64 for about a year. I bought it the day it came out, and for about a year I was very gung ho with the Nintendo 64, but then I left for 3Dfx PC gaming.

I guess I’ll explain my rant of nastiness a bit more. I love Nintendo and like most of their stuff, the problem is that when you try to think out of the box and it works, it will go down in history (Neo Geo, Turbo Duo or TG16 CD)….when you try to think out of the box and it fails, its 1000x worse than just going with the flow (Virtua Boy, 32x).

With that said the N64 was Nintendo trying to think out of the box and in my mind it failed.

First, the N64 controller sucks for one…I’m sorry but picking one up and just holding it….what a bad design and it immediately shows. The Playstation controller was next to perfect, add the dual shock and you’re there. The N64 was and is a pile of garbage controller and that’s your access to every N64 game made, automatic problem there and we haven't addressed the system or games yet.

Second is the lousy graphics. Although the Ps1 is showing it’s age, at least it’s not blurry as hell and with shitty music. Just look at how bad Mario 64 or Zelda OoT has aged…they are almost unplayable.

Most of the N64 games suck big…there are only a few that are even worth playing…the great franchises like Resident Evil, Final Fantasy (and all of the other great Square games), Metal Gear Solid, Castlevania and racing/sports games were available first on the PS1. The N64 was limited to a ton of shit games and a few exclusive Nintendo titles. Funny enough, most of the games that come up when “the best N64 titles” comes up are Nintendo first party titles.

I have distinct reasons for hating the N64….not just fanboy madness.

[smokehouse]

Eh. I feel like we're all about to retread an old debate. So I'm just going to restate something I've expressed in other threads and bow out: It's not enough for you 18-22 year olds to have laid hands on an N64 back in 1st grade, and now as young adults to lay any sort of claim to nostalgia. Go out and live your lives. Fall in love and get your heart broken. Finish school. Fall in love again and get married. Get a job with stressful deadlines and an evil boss. Have kids. Buy a house. Develop a social life. Wait for young people to start calling you "sir". Worry about paying the bills. Get to a point where you've been plugging away at that job, your kids, your spouse, your bills and your life for so long that you almost forgot about that N64 sitting in the closet. Then, when you hook it up and play Goldeneye for the 1st time in who knows how long, you'll truly understand what gaming nostalgia truly is.


WOW! Well put, I agree. Last month I picked up an Atari 7800 for the first time since 1988 and it was awesome. It has been 18 years since I last played one. Nintendo's NES on the other had I've played from time to time since I first bought mine in 1990, the same goes with my SNES.

[j_factor]

I wouldn't consider N64 "classic" for the simple reason that most of its games feel like current games (except with worse graphics/sound). What I mean by that is in terms of game design, games like Ocarina of Time and Banjo-Kazooie aren't far off from current game design trends. And I don't mean that as a compliment to N64. I think the 2d vs. 3d aspect is part of it for me too.

I would say "modern gaming" starts with 3DO or so, and every system before that is classic. A rule like 20 years would be more apt if the phrase was "games of antiquity" or something. I don't think "classic" means it has to be really old.

[Anthony1]

One thing I would like to comment on, which is related to people saying that something needs to be 20 years old, or 15 years old, or whatever, is the fact that I think video game time is much different then regular time. It's like Dog Years or something. I mean think about it. In November of 1994 we had the Sega 32x and then in 5 short years we get the Dreamcast. That is a huge difference in technology in only 5 years. The SNES came out in 1991 and the 3DO in 1993, only a 2 year difference, but look at the difference in technology (and price! lol).


I just think that so much happens in a 5 year span in video gaming, that it's more an equivalent to 10 years of time. What I'm trying to say is that something can be as young as only 10 years old, and in video game years, it's like it's been around for 20 years. Look at the Saturn. It came out only 10 years ago, but it seems much longer now. The video game world isn't unlike the PC world in which technology keeps doubling every few years. So I think we need to bear this in mind when thinking whether something is classic or not.

[dreamcaster]

Wow, I'm totally loving the N64 hatred here.

I guess Super Mario 64, GoldenEye 007, Mario Kart 64, StarFox 64, Blast Corps, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Perfect Dark, World Driver Championship, Mario Party, San Francisco Rush, Pilotwings 64, Star Wars: Rogue Squadron, F-Zero X and many others are truly just the shittest games ever made. :roll:

I mean, it's perfectly reasonable to lump this system with the Jaguar and Virtual Boy. I mean, sheesh - since was Mario Kart, Super Mario or Zelda EVER fun?

And damn, I mean - the PLAYSTATION. Can't get enough of those pixelated mal-formed polygons found in the majority of it's games.

[j_factor]

Wow, I'm totally loving the N64 hatred here.

I guess Super Mario 64, GoldenEye 007, Mario Kart 64, StarFox 64, Blast Corps, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Perfect Dark, World Driver Championship, Mario Party, San Francisco Rush, Pilotwings 64, Star Wars: Rogue Squadron, F-Zero X and many others are truly just the shittest games ever made. :roll:

I don't understand why people went nuts over GoldenEye of all games. That has got to be the most overhyped game of all time IMO. It's simply not that good. I don't see how anyone can look at GoldenEye and Quake and see GoldenEye more favorably. I'm not even a huge fan of Quake, I'm only using it because it was the big FPS of the day.

Mario Party is one of the shittiest games ever made, IMO. I mean really, that whole series just sucks.

Several of the other games you listed were big disappointments for me. It took 5 years for them to make a sequel to PilotWings and what we got was one of the lamest "sequels" ever. Mario Kart 64 is possibly the world's biggest offender in the "games that cheat" category. San Francisco Rush failed to accurately capture the arcade game. And so on and so forth.

Don't get me wrong, N64 did have some great games. I loved Robotron 64, Paper Mario, Goemon's Great Adventure, and some others. But it was also rife with disappointments, and a general dearth of quality software.

[Sothy]

I appologize tp Pantechnicon and Flack and any other salty old gaming codgers I forgot.

[dreamcaster]

Wow, I'm totally loving the N64 hatred here.

I guess Super Mario 64, GoldenEye 007, Mario Kart 64, StarFox 64, Blast Corps, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Perfect Dark, World Driver Championship, Mario Party, San Francisco Rush, Pilotwings 64, Star Wars: Rogue Squadron, F-Zero X and many others are truly just the shittest games ever made. :roll:

I don't understand why people went nuts over GoldenEye of all games. That has got to be the most overhyped game of all time IMO. It's simply not that good. I don't see how anyone can look at GoldenEye and Quake and see GoldenEye more favorably. I'm not even a huge fan of Quake, I'm only using it because it was the big FPS of the day.

Mario Party is one of the shittiest games ever made, IMO. I mean really, that whole series just sucks.

Several of the other games you listed were big disappointments for me. It took 5 years for them to make a sequel to PilotWings and what we got was one of the lamest "sequels" ever. Mario Kart 64 is possibly the world's biggest offender in the "games that cheat" category. San Francisco Rush failed to accurately capture the arcade game. And so on and so forth.

Don't get me wrong, N64 did have some great games. I loved Robotron 64, Paper Mario, Goemon's Great Adventure, and some others. But it was also rife with disappointments, and a general dearth of quality software.

You've pretty much described how I feel towards the GameCube. I was VERY disappointed with a lot of the GameCube sequels to all my favourite N64 titles.

Super Mario Sunshine, Wind Waker, Mario Kart Double Dash and StarFox Assault were all sequels to some of my favourite N64 titles. They were all big letdowns.

And whilst I'll agree that the Mario Party series has been flogged to death and I hate Nintendo for churning out endless sequels in this "should've died a long time ago" franchise, the first two were good. At the time they were unique and presented some of the best 4-player fun on the N64.

As for GE vs Quake, I personally feel that GE was significant improvement over Quake and wasn't bettered until the release of Half-Life, which GE supercedes by a matter of months.

I just find dismissing the N64 as whole odd as, if you weren't enjoying any it's games, what games WERE you enjoying? It's not like the PlayStation or the Saturn offered anything more in terms of the amount of decent games.

In fact, was even that special about the PlayStation? Beyond Gran Turismo and Final Fantasy, what was there?

I'd even say the Saturn had a stronger library of games than the PSX.

[kentuckyfried]

I don't think that the 64 will truly be accepted as a classic system for a while. It died a painful death, was and is a stigma on otherwise a great Nintendo track record.

It'll take years for the badness to truly seem distant and the people take to remembering only the good stuff.

Another thing to take into consideration is that the games worth playing are not truly "rare" , ie Mario Kart, SM64, Goldeneye, Zelda OoT and MM, etc.

Third party support was crap, no RPGs? What fun is it to collect for a system that doesn't have great rare games? It's target audience was 6 years old, I'm afraid. Milo's Astro Lanes was not a cool game, no matter how rare it is.

It will be classic and collectible, sooner than we'd think, but man, it's got a poor list of games to collect.

[Xenozeri]

O_O Man, what's with all the N64 dissing? Sure it isn't SNES but come on, it wasn't THAT bad. Yes, SM64 was fun, yes, MK64 was fun, and yes, OOT was fun. Oh yes, and Paper Mario was good too. I know I'll get bashed but oh well. I accept the fact that people will have different opinions than me, and hope that they could accept the fact that I can have different opinions too.

[smokehouse]

[The N64 was limited to a ton of shit games and a few exclusive Nintendo titles. Funny enough, most of the games that come up when “the best N64 titles” comes up are Nintendo first party titles.


Wow, I'm totally loving the N64 hatred here.

I guess Super Mario 64, GoldenEye 007, Mario Kart 64, StarFox 64, Blast Corps, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Perfect Dark, World Driver Championship, Mario Party, San Francisco Rush, Pilotwings 64, Star Wars: Rogue Squadron, F-Zero X and many others are truly just the shittest games ever made. :roll:

I mean, it's perfectly reasonable to lump this system with the Jaguar and Virtual Boy. I mean, sheesh - since was Mario Kart, Super Mario or Zelda EVER fun?

And damn, I mean - the PLAYSTATION. Can't get enough of those pixelated mal-formed polygons found in the majority of it's games.


Super Mario 64, Mario Kart 64, StarFox 64, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Mario Party, Pilotwings 64, F-Zero X- These are all Nintendo first party titles, read my above quote.


GoldenEye 007
Blast Corps
Perfect Dark
World Driver Championship
San Francisco Rush
Star Wars: Rogue Squadron

Games like these are not what make a system great. Sure, some were fun to play but most have aged so badly that they are now unplayable. Who in the hell is going to sit down now and play a cookie cutter title like San Francisco Rush on the N64? Face it, the N64 did not have the huge third party titles like the PS1 did, there’s no getting around it. Like I also said above…..nothing will change how shitty the N64 controller is and in my opinion, that REALLY hurt the system.


I have distinct reasons for hating the N64….not just fanboy madness.

I was serious when I said this, I have almost every Nintendo system made….I could even be considered a Nintendo “fanboy”. I love Nintendo systems but the N64 simply missed the mark.

[smokehouse]

I just find dismissing the N64 as whole odd as, if you weren't enjoying any it's games, what games WERE you enjoying? It's not like the PlayStation or the Saturn offered anything more in terms of the amount of decent games.

In fact, was even that special about the PlayStation? Beyond Gran Turismo and Final Fantasy, what was there?

I'd even say the Saturn had a stronger library of games than the PSX.

?

Most of these comments simply confuse me.

I bought a N64 the day it came out. After a month it was returned and I bought a Playstation. Like stated above, few N64 games have any meat to them. Racing games, FPS, sim games, where’s the meat? What was I playing?

Final Fantasy titles (VII, VIII, IX, Tactics, Anthology, Origins, Chronicles)
Metal Gear Solid
Castlevania SotN
Mega Man 8
Parasite Eve
Resident Evil Titles
Silent Hill
Einhander
Gran Turismo/2
Wipeout/2/XL
Xenogears
Street Fighter III Alpha
Suikoden/2
Alundra
Grand Theft Auto 1&2
Twisted Metal
Persona


I know some of the above are cookie cutter titles but some aren’t. Face it, the N64 wasn’t capable of amazing titles like Metal Gear solid, Castlevania SotN (the soundtrack was pat of what made the game so great) and the Final Fantasy titles (VII, VIII, IX). The fact that Nintendo went with a cart instead of a CD really hurt them.



Finally, stating that the Saturn had better games than the PS1 is ridiculous. Where? In Japan? If you can sit there and honestly say that in the US the Saturn had better games than the PS1 you might want to go find some psychiatric help.

[Daria]

In fact, was even that special about the PlayStation? Beyond Gran Turismo and Final Fantasy, what was there?


RPGs:
Alundra
Breath of Fire III
Breath of Fire IV
Grandia
Lunar: Silver Star Story Complete
Lunar 2: Eternal Blue Complete
Persona 2: Eternal Punishment
Star Ocean: The Second Story
Suikoden
Suikoden II
Tales of Destiny
Tales of Destiny II
Valkyrie Profile
Vandal Hearts
Wild Arms
Xenogears

Non RPGs:
klonoa
Heart of Darkness
Oddworld
Silent Hill
Resident Evil
Darkstalkers 3
Intelligent Qube
Megaman
Monster Rancher


...Just to name a few. PlayStation may have had a ton of filler games (like a certain 8-bit system we all love) but if you can't find a few classics to love you're simply not looking hard enough. Or more likely downplaying the system just to try and highlight the 64.

[j_factor]

I just find dismissing the N64 as whole odd as, if you weren't enjoying any it's games, what games WERE you enjoying? It's not like the PlayStation or the Saturn offered anything more in terms of the amount of decent games.

Playstation and Saturn offered a lot more IMO. It all depends on what sort of games you're into... I guess. Playstation is #1 for RPGs and rhythm games, Saturn is #1 for action and fighters, and N64 is #1 for... 3D collect-a-thons. :/

I guess part of it is that I never liked that whole "collect 9 different types of items!" type of gameplay that appeared in top-hyped N64 games like Banjo-Kazooie and Donkey Kong 64. Also, I didn't like how everything had to be 3D on N64 -- seriously, the system has, literally, like two decent 2d games to its name. For all the flack Sony gets about supposedly being anti-2d, they sure did have a lot more 2d games on their system, compared to N64.

There's just so much that N64 is hugely lacking in, for me. No shooters. No fighters (KI Gold sucks IMO). A lack of good arcade ports. And so on and so forth.


In fact, was even that special about the PlayStation? Beyond Gran Turismo and Final Fantasy, what was there?

I never liked Gran Turismo, and I only liked two of the four FF games for PSX, and I still consider PSX to be one of the top 5 systems ever. For all of the following, there was nothing like that on N64:

Parappa the Rapper
Syphon Filter
Castlevania SOTN
N2O: Nitrous Oxide
Tomba!
Roll Away
Treasures of the Deep
Persona
Jumping Flash!
Bust A Groove
Legacy of Kain: Blood Omen
Metal Slug X
Einhander
Top Shop
Colony Wars
Tenchu: Stealth Assassins
Rollcage
Wild 9
Skull Monkeys
No One Can Stop Mr. Domino


I'd even say the Saturn had a stronger library of games than the PSX.

I agree (but not by a lot), but I definitely think both far surpass N64. I'd rate N64 only slightly higher than Jaguar, really.

[smokehouse]

Finally, stating that the Saturn had better games than the PS1 is ridiculous. Where? In Japan? If you can sit there and honestly say that in the US the Saturn had better games than the PS1 you might want to go find some psychiatric help.

[zerohero]

No

I dont even consider PSX classic IMO, but since its two generations old SYSTEM wise I guess they are somewhat classic, but its hard to consider anything after jag classic.

[j_factor]

Finally, stating that the Saturn had better games than the PS1 is ridiculous. Where? In Japan? If you can sit there and honestly say that in the US the Saturn had better games than the PS1 you might want to go find some psychiatric help.

Saturn certainly had better games than Playstation. Yes, in the US. It didn't have as many games, but it absolutely had better games.

Do you really think PSX games were always better than Saturn games? I don't know what you were playing, but from my perspective, Saturn games played better, controlled better, and often (though certainly not always) looked better.

[Malon_Forever]

I consider it a classic, because I have so many memories with the N64, and so many games. Also, the main format for games now are discs. N64 games are carts. Come on, let it sit high with the NES, and SNES.

[bangtango]

Classic, imo, has less to do with age and more to do with how memorable it was system was. The N64 will therefore never attain the "classic" status (in my eyes) other systems like the Atari 2600 and NES have because it is not as fondly remembered.

On the other hand, the system may never be classic but some of the games can attain "classic" status.

I think it has a lot to do with age. There are systems that predate the NES, which weren't even as successful as the N64, that are referred to as classic because of their age.

When the time comes, people will grudgingly accept the N64 as classic. It isn't fair to say the system will never be classic just because it lives in so-called infamy with people who expected an improvement on the Super NES.

So what? Talk to most anyone out there, not on the internet message boards, and they'll say Sega never came up with anything measuring up to the Genesis again. Doesn't mean people didn't have fun, somewhere along the line, with the systems that came afterwards.

It is also embarrassing to say that the N64 shouldn't be called "classic" just because it was outsold by the Playstation. What system in that era did? If it is all about sales, or being compared to Playstation, then I guess that means the Saturn and Dreamcast will forever be in purgatory.

I'll say it again. There are systems being called "classic" right now that fared as poorly in their respective eras as the Nintendo 64 did, if not more so, and were (or are) lambasted just as often.

Why does Atari always get a free pass when the discussion turns to whether something is classic or not? Other than the 2600 and some of their computers, the rest of their output is middling at best. I'm not saying that as an 18-20 year old. I was playing their games on the 2600 then the 7800 when they were still being produced and sold in stores. I didn't show up one day at a flea market in 1998 and say, "Shit, an Atari. Old school. Ain't never played this before. They'll love this on campus! Ha ha."

Nintendo managed to clean up the huge mess that Atari made of the industry in the 1980's. All Sony did was wait until the heavy work and lifting was over then hop on the gravy train once a healthy industry was rebuilt by Nintendo and Sega. They'll always be outsiders that just don't belong, if you ask me. I like their library for PS1 as much as anyone here but I also think gaming would have been just fine if they'd never released a system and had just went the hell away when Nintendo (and apparently Sega) blew them off. The same "great" games (all third-party ones) would have just come out on Saturn, Dreamcast or N64, anyway. A pretty safe bet since Sony never produced a game that mattered on their own.

[aaronpetrosky]

N shitty 4 as I call it.

[j_factor]

Nintendo managed to clean up the huge mess that Atari made of the industry in the 1980's.

All Nintendo did was come out with a console that sold. In terms of the industry, they made more of a mess than they cleaned. I don't like the license-based business model that Nintendo championed; I much prefer the pre-crash way of doing business. And I don't think it caused the crash.



They'll always be outsiders that just don't belong, if you ask me. I like their library for PS1 as much as anyone here but I also think gaming would have been just fine if they'd never released a system and had just went the hell away when Nintendo (and apparently Sega) blew them off. The same "great" games (all third-party ones) would have just come out on Saturn, Dreamcast or N64, anyway. A pretty safe bet since Sony never produced a game that mattered on their own.

Hey now, what about Parappa? What about ICO? Twisted Metal?

I guess those games could've come out on the other systems, since Sony had been a third party publisher. But I think the only reason they made a serious investment in their own game development was because they had their own system.

[ShinobiMan]

I'm really starting to hate this thread. Some of you people (I won't name names) really need to lighten up. To me it's foolish to even consider the N64 not being classic, as it housed many games that were loved by both fans and critics alike. It's ten years old for God's sake and two generations of platform ago.

Many have said it already so this post will be worthless for those non-believers. I find it funny that some people are so hellbent on trying to dismiss an entire system based on their narrowness possibly bias attitudes.

[bangtango]

I'm really starting to hate this thread. Some of you people (I won't name names) really need to lighten up. To me it's foolish to even consider the N64 not being classic, as it housed many games that were loved by both fans and critics alike. It's ten years old for God's sake and two generations of platform ago.

Many have said it already so this post will be worthless for those non-believers. I find it funny that some people are so hellbent on trying to dismiss an entire system based on their narrowness possibly bias attitudes.

Well, people tend to champion either Sega, Atari or Sony. It seems like there are only 3-4 regular people who will admit to liking Nintendo and they usually have it in their own user name.

You'll make more enemies around here by saying good things about Nintendo than you would by admitting you're a sex offender (any of those here?).

[dreamcaster]

In reply to everyone who responded to my first post:


Your replies contain the same amount of subjectivity as my own, therefore nullifying this discussion.

The only reason it seems that one side is right and the other side is wrong, is that there's a clear majority in this thread.


Also to the majority of titles listed on PSX to counter me: SNORE.



Another thing to take into consideration is that the games worth playing are not truly "rare" , ie Mario Kart, SM64, Goldeneye, Zelda OoT and MM, etc.

So wait, the only good games worth playing are ones that are hard to find?

If you truly believe this, then you have absolutely no credibility from this point on.

[bangtango]

In reply to everyone who responded to my first post:


Your replies contain the same amount of subjectivity as my own, therefore nullifying this discussion.

The only reason it seems that one side is right and the other side is wrong, is that there's a clear majority in this thread.


Also to the majority of titles listed on PSX to counter me: SNORE.



Another thing to take into consideration is that the games worth playing are not truly "rare" , ie Mario Kart, SM64, Goldeneye, Zelda OoT and MM, etc.

So wait, the only good games worth playing are ones that are hard to find?

If you truly believe this, then you have absolutely no credibility from this point on.

I think KentuckyFried was making the point that seemingly every system, except for N64, has "rare" games that also happen to be great. N64 just doesn't have the games that are BOTH rare and great, like Panzer Dragoon Saga (Saturn). I think he has plenty of credibility. So do you. You just misread his post, it appears :)

He was thinking from the point-of-view of a collector. I'm sure as a gamer, he likes those titles just fine and would say they are worth playing. I'm a gamer, and not a collector, but I can appreciate his comment.

[bangtango]

Nintendo managed to clean up the huge mess that Atari made of the industry in the 1980's.

All Nintendo did was come out with a console that sold. In terms of the industry, they made more of a mess than they cleaned. I don't like the license-based business model that Nintendo championed; I much prefer the pre-crash way of doing business. And I don't think it caused the crash.



They'll always be outsiders that just don't belong, if you ask me. I like their library for PS1 as much as anyone here but I also think gaming would have been just fine if they'd never released a system and had just went the hell away when Nintendo (and apparently Sega) blew them off. The same "great" games (all third-party ones) would have just come out on Saturn, Dreamcast or N64, anyway. A pretty safe bet since Sony never produced a game that mattered on their own.

Hey now, what about Parappa? What about ICO? Twisted Metal?

I guess those games could've come out on the other systems, since Sony had been a third party publisher. But I think the only reason they made a serious investment in their own game development was because they had their own system.

Sure, Nintendo came out with a console that sold and for good reason. What is it they could have possibly done better with the NES, aside from the blinking issues and a few cheesy accessories? The games were great and the marketing was second to none, even if you want to say their business practices were unfair.

Without the NES, what sort of market would there have been for a bunch of other systems that came in the years following it?

Do you think the Sega Master System or Atari 7800 would have rescued the industry without the NES in the picture? Does either system contain a killer game that had a shot in hell of moving 2 or 3 million copies like a Mario or Zelda game? Realistically? Not saying the games aren't fun, because I know they are.

There were no killer apps to pull kids into the mall. Just titles that were good enough to satisfy hardcore gamers who enjoyed old Sega arcade games or wanted better versions of games that sucked on 2600. Even without Nintendo in the picture, I don't see Atari or Sega achieving that same type of success with those systems.

[j_factor]

Nintendo managed to clean up the huge mess that Atari made of the industry in the 1980's.

All Nintendo did was come out with a console that sold. In terms of the industry, they made more of a mess than they cleaned. I don't like the license-based business model that Nintendo championed; I much prefer the pre-crash way of doing business. And I don't think it caused the crash.



They'll always be outsiders that just don't belong, if you ask me. I like their library for PS1 as much as anyone here but I also think gaming would have been just fine if they'd never released a system and had just went the hell away when Nintendo (and apparently Sega) blew them off. The same "great" games (all third-party ones) would have just come out on Saturn, Dreamcast or N64, anyway. A pretty safe bet since Sony never produced a game that mattered on their own.

Hey now, what about Parappa? What about ICO? Twisted Metal?

I guess those games could've come out on the other systems, since Sony had been a third party publisher. But I think the only reason they made a serious investment in their own game development was because they had their own system.

Sure, Nintendo came out with a console that sold and for good reason. What is it they could have possibly done better with the NES, aside from the blinking issues and a few cheesy accessories? The games were great and the marketing was second to none, even if you want to say their business practices were unfair.

I'm not knocking the NES itself. It's a fine system with some great games. It definitely sold well for good reason. But that doesn't justify monopoly business tactics. Nintendo ignored the law in its quest to fully monopolize the US console market. Not cool.


Without the NES, what sort of market would there have been for a bunch of other systems that came in the years following it?

Do you think the Sega Master System or Atari 7800 would have rescued the industry without the NES in the picture?

Absolutely. Sega Master System did just that in Europe, where NES was never very popular. Before SMS, European home gaming was strictly on computers.

I don't think Atari 7800 could've done anything, though. It was too primitive, and lacking in games even from Atari themselves. But Master System definitely could've "done it" in the US had Nintendo not been around. I don't know about Japan, though.

[j_factor]

I'm really starting to hate this thread. Some of you people (I won't name names) really need to lighten up. To me it's foolish to even consider the N64 not being classic, as it housed many games that were loved by both fans and critics alike. It's ten years old for God's sake and two generations of platform ago.

Many have said it already so this post will be worthless for those non-believers. I find it funny that some people are so hellbent on trying to dismiss an entire system based on their narrowness possibly bias attitudes.

Well, people tend to champion either Sega, Atari or Sony. It seems like there are only 3-4 regular people who will admit to liking Nintendo and they usually have it in their own user name.

You'll make more enemies around here by saying good things about Nintendo than you would by admitting you're a sex offender (any of those here?).

I get the feeling that these posts were partially directed at me.

I said in my original post that I don't consider N64 classic because of its age; I consider classic to be pre-3DO. All this discussion of N64's quality is basically just idle conversation.

I like Nintendo. SNES is one of my favorite consoles, I've greatly enjoyed Gamecube and GBA, I love DS, and if I get any next-gen console it'll be Wii. But I am honestly of the opinion that N64 was a very lacking system in comparison to other major systems. I'm not equating it with truly terrible consoles like CDi or anything.

[NeoZeedeater]

Do you think the Sega Master System or Atari 7800 would have rescued the industry without the NES in the picture? Does either system contain a killer game that had a shot in hell of moving 2 or 3 million copies like a Mario or Zelda game?
Yes(well the SMS, not the 7800), except the industry didn't even need "rescuing" at all. It was alive with millions playing games on their Commodore 64s, which aside from some semantics, were almost the same as consoles anyway. There was never a point where there weren't tons of great games in stores. The NES isn't some magical device destined to save gaming or any such romantic notion.

[cyberfluxor]

N64 is approaching classic people. 20+ years is ancient, and becomes known as retro. everything of 10-20yrs is classic due to it being 2 or more generations ago. Once they said "We're going with the revolution (Wii)" it was set in stone that the N64 is becomming a classic. And I just threw the years in there because it is a rough estimate as to how long ago the generations are.

Current Gen = Modern
1 Gen ago = Fading out
2 Gen ago = Getting classic
3-4 Gen ago = Classic
5+ Gen ago = Retro

[bangtango]

I'm really starting to hate this thread. Some of you people (I won't name names) really need to lighten up. To me it's foolish to even consider the N64 not being classic, as it housed many games that were loved by both fans and critics alike. It's ten years old for God's sake and two generations of platform ago.

Many have said it already so this post will be worthless for those non-believers. I find it funny that some people are so hellbent on trying to dismiss an entire system based on their narrowness possibly bias attitudes.

Well, people tend to champion either Sega, Atari or Sony. It seems like there are only 3-4 regular people who will admit to liking Nintendo and they usually have it in their own user name.

You'll make more enemies around here by saying good things about Nintendo than you would by admitting you're a sex offender (any of those here?).

I get the feeling that these posts were partially directed at me.

I said in my original post that I don't consider N64 classic because of its age; I consider classic to be pre-3DO. All this discussion of N64's quality is basically just idle conversation.

I like Nintendo. SNES is one of my favorite consoles, I've greatly enjoyed Gamecube and GBA, I love DS, and if I get any next-gen console it'll be Wii. But I am honestly of the opinion that N64 was a very lacking system in comparison to other major systems. I'm not equating it with truly terrible consoles like CDi or anything.

That post of mine you quoted above was not directed at you. You've already covered the ones that were, so disregard that one! :D

Perhaps N64 didn't live up to the standards of NES or Super NES but what kind of system could have? It would be hard as hell for any company trying to follow up those consoles and be taken seriously. I can see why they failed. With that said, Sega CD, 32X, Saturn and Dreamcast all did a poor job of following up Genesis any way you look at it: Sales figure, number of games, the bottom line (money) and lifespan. Of course, other people may have different opinions. Like I said before, though, it wouldn't have been easy for anybody to follow up the Genesis, regardless of how many critics like to bash it for being underpowered.

For the record, I like Genesis, Saturn, Dreamcast, NES, Super NES and N64. As for the real "classics", I played or owned the majority of them. The only high-profile one I missed would have been the Colecovision and Atari 5200. I had both the Commodore Vic 20 and 64. I've been gaming regularly since about 1983 or so......... 8-)

[dreamcaster]

In response to the thread:

Sorry if I came across as a bit inflammatory, but I was really shocked to find such rash hatred of the N64, a system that does have quite a few truly memorable and influential games.

So to come in here and find people rubbishing the system and all its games was really quite surprising.

A lot of posts seemed to be along the lines of: "Oh, I didn't like GoldenEye and everyone else did. Waaah."

I didn't post in this thread to debate whether the N64 was classic or not, I just wanted to shake things up and make people think twice about categorising the N64 as worthless as the Atari Jaguar or Sega 32X.

Oh and for the record, I like the PlayStation. Point Blank, Gran Turismo, Gran Turismo 2, Final Fantasy VIII, Ridge Racer Type 4, Driver and Vib-Ribbon are just but a few titles I've enjoyed on that system.

[unwinddesign]

Personally, I think that everything of the 16 bit gen is classic, and henceforth is a "no man's land" period up until current-gen/next gen.

If I had to dub the N64 anything at this point, I'd say it was "last-gen."

I'm surprised so many people hate the N64. I owned a PS1 and N64 in their heydays, and loved both, but the Nintendo 64 was better in the end. I mean shoot, I love my Final Fantasy games, and Ape Escape/Tony Hawk was friggin' amazing, but I loved Rare's N64 games. Say what you will about them now, but back then, they had it going on.

I never have even played Super Mario 64, and the N64 is my favorite system of all time. Banjo Kazooie? Yes please. Goldeneye multiplayer? Awesome. Just friggin' awesome. MK64? Sweetness. Diddy Kong Racing? Off the hook. Harvest Moon 64? Best game that no one played. Super Smash Brothers? Multiplayer madness. Zelda: OoT? Holy shit, that game is amazing.

3rd party support was poor, but there were some decent games that came out of them. Turok/Turok 2, notably, and also the aforementioned Harvest Moon 64. Not to mention an Ogre game which, from what I've heard, was pretty good.

Saying that the N64 was a failure or disappointment is, in my opinion, very harsh.

[smokehouse]

This may come across as a rude question, but of the N64 lovers posting in here, how old are you?

Seriously, a good friend and myself were having a discussion about the N64 a few days ago and age seemed to come up again and again. In Sept 1996 I was 19 and just out of high school. I was 11 when the NES made it’s way to Illinois and 14 when the SNES came out. I think that fact that I wasn’t young enough to really enjoy many of the games (you have to admit, most of the N64 games were lighthearted). Call it late teen ignorance but I was more interested in the more adult themed PS1.

Most guys who love the N64 were 10-15 when the N64 came out (again, Sept 1996). Most were too young to really appreciate the SNES and were under 5 when the NES came out. Simply put, many don’t know any better, the missed the 8-16 bit era.

I find the same thing with Pokemon. Unless I’m wrong that started hitting the US around 1997-1998. Kids that were 10-12 at the time will have a MUCH different opinion of it than I will. Talk to most 20-22 year old gamer now and most will tell you they loved Pokemon. Myself, I was just too old to get into that and will give you a completely different response.









To answer the original question, no the N64 is not classic yet, nor is the PS1 for that matter. Hell, my beloved SNES is not even classic yet. A system does not need good games to be considered classic either. Like it or not, in the next decade, the N64 will be classic.

[NeoZeedeater]

This may come across as a rude question, but of the N64 lovers posting in here, how old are you?
30. I turned 21 shortly after the N64 launch.

I love the N64. In some areas it's better than its competition(there are no worthy PS1 and SS equivalents of Ocarina, Super Mario 64, Sin and Punishment, Super Smash Bros., Waverace 64, etc.).

One the other hand, the PS1 and SS have more variety and more good games in total so I rank them higher overall. All three were necessary for me to own to play all the awesome games.

I think your age question has merit but more for those people that consider the N64 the best console of the three as opposed to just loving it.

[MrRoboto19XX]

Im with Flack, the 64 has polygons, hence it is too new to be considered a classic in the chronological sense.

Realizing things dont have to be old to be classic, I'd say that while the system itself isn't a classic, some of the games for it certainly are. There are a few games for the system that are the pinnacle of their respective series' (Star Fox, the 3D Marios, Mario Kart) and become classics in that sense.

As for the whole "I don't get goldeneye" thing. The major appeals of that game were:

1) It was James Bond, and nearly everyone can agree that James Bond is the man.

2) It was incredibly easy to pick up and play, and a bit more difficult (but not too) to master. I mean honestly, me and my Dad would play this for hours on end, the man had never played an FPS since Wolfenstein 3D.

3) I'll probably get a lot of flack for this, but the N64's controller was perfectly set up for this game, adding to my second point. Maybe it was hard for you to hold it, I dont know but I thought that it was great for this game, with the Z trigger, the analog stick and the C buttons for more precise aiming.

4) Replay value, tons of it. Be it in the single player game and trying to get all the secret settings, or multiplayer with some friends.

Phew.

Well, all that being said, the N64 is a bit new for me to consider it a classic, to me the last system that qualifies to be classically old is the NES. If you play an SNES game on some gba port or something, you wont think "This feels old", but if you play a game from the NES Classics series, chances are you're going to think "Man, this is old."

Fun little topic though.

[smokehouse]

Yeah, my question concerning age wasn’t meant to be mean in any way (it seems no one has taken it that way yet). Age has a ton to do with how things are perceived. Case-in-point, my uncle (in his 50’s) is a huge sci-fi fan. We had a discussion about Star Wars and how much I despised Jar Jar Binks. He told me the Ewoks were no better….I quickly disagreed with him. He then asked me how old I was was Return of the Jedi came out (1983). I replied with “6” and he said “Well, there you go, you were a kid, I was an adult and I found them to be annoying”.

I was a Nintendo fanboy and was in love with the SNES (hell, in many ways I still am). I had such high hopes for the N64 that when it came out…..I was grossly disappointed. Again, this is personal opinion but I thought the PS1 was the next step in gaming…not the N64. Both were polygon pushers but the FMV, soundtracks and more adult themed games really stood out to me. The N64 is not a pile of shit…it was just a huge disappointment.

[Mayhem]

Of course the N64 is now classic, I'm writing an article on it for Retro Gamer currently, so it must be ;)

[bangtango]

Do you think the Sega Master System or Atari 7800 would have rescued the industry without the NES in the picture? Does either system contain a killer game that had a shot in hell of moving 2 or 3 million copies like a Mario or Zelda game?
Yes(well the SMS, not the 7800), except the industry didn't even need "rescuing" at all. It was alive with millions playing games on their Commodore 64s, which aside from some semantics, were almost the same as consoles anyway. There was never a point where there weren't tons of great games in stores. The NES isn't some magical device destined to save gaming or any such romantic notion.

FACT: No, it is not a romantic notion but instead reality. NES created a market for the Super NES, Gameboy and even N64. Sony and 3DO wouldn't have stuck their nose into the gaming business if Nintendo hadn't been making a killing. Sony practically begged for the opportunity to piggyback on Nintendo during the SNES era. Facts are facts.

MORE FACTS: The Commodore 64 wasn't going to be around forever. So you say gaming would have been flourishing without the 700-plus games for the NES and all of the ones later released on the SNES and various Gameboy formats. Keep in mind that some of the best were made by Nintendo themselves. Sony didn't make any impact with their own games and the only thing they inspired in the industry was giving Microsoft the itch to enter the console wars and compete with them. Probably a good thing but again Sony wouldn't be around with their consoles if Nintendo hadn't already been making money. Nintendo also inspired some of the good (and bad) decisions made by Sega who were always out to one-up them.

FACTS (CONTINUED): As for the Sega Master System, their library was full of arcade conversions or inferior versions of Genesis titles. Not to mention "Great" sports titles. There just weren't enough "Phantasy Stars" to ensure that gamers would keep buying the system year after year. I had a lot of fun with mine and wish I still had it. I think it is a very nice system, really I do, but don't live with the notion that it should of sold 10-15 million units, regardless of the specs.

FACTS: The third party support wasn't there on SMS and Nintendo may have used unethical tactics but that is a moot point. Maybe if Sega had actually moved units out of the stores, they could have had some leverage. Nintendo had to sell at least a few systems, themselves, to ensure they got the third party support they did. They didn't just wake up one morning to find 50 companies ready to develop for them the second NES was released.

[unwinddesign]

To answer smokehouse's question:

I was 7 when the N64 was released. I was 8 when I bought one, with my allowance money no less. I still enjoy it today, and not because of any "warm and fuzzy" feelings. Some games haven't aged well (Diddy Kong Racing, for instance, and probably Goldeneye as well), but I still have a lot of fun with mine, "nostalgia" factor withstanding.

[smork]

FACT: No, it is not a romantic notion but instead reality. NES created a market for the Super NES, Gameboy and even N64. Sony and 3DO wouldn't have stuck their nose into the gaming business if Nintendo hadn't been making a killing. Sony practically begged for the opportunity to piggyback on Nintendo during the SNES era. Facts are facts.

MORE FACTS: The Commodore 64 wasn't going to be around forever. So you say gaming would have been flourishing without the 700-plus games for the NES and all of the ones later released on the SNES and various Gameboy formats. Keep in mind that some of the best were made by Nintendo themselves. Sony didn't make any impact with their own games and the only thing they inspired in the industry was giving Microsoft the itch to enter the console wars and compete with them. Probably a good thing but again Sony wouldn't be around with their consoles if Nintendo hadn't already been making money. Nintendo also inspired some of the good (and bad) decisions made by Sega who were always out to one-up them.

FACTS (CONTINUED): As for the Sega Master System, their library was full of arcade conversions or inferior versions of Genesis titles. Not to mention "Great" sports titles. There just weren't enough "Phantasy Stars" to ensure that gamers would keep buying the system year after year. I had a lot of fun with mine and wish I still had it. I think it is a very nice system, really I do, but don't live with the notion that it should of sold 10-15 million units, regardless of the specs.

FACTS: The third party support wasn't there on SMS and Nintendo may have used unethical tactics but that is a moot point. Maybe if Sega had actually moved units out of the stores, they could have had some leverage. Nintendo had to sell at least a few systems, themselves, to ensure they got the third party support they did. They didn't just wake up one morning to find 50 companies ready to develop for them the second NES was released.

Um, just because you label your opinions as "facts" doesn't make you right. Quit trying to boss people around in this thread, yours is just one voice from among thousands on this board, not the only voice.

Anyway, in my corner of the 80s the Commodore 64/128 was the only platform to be had. Nobody I knew (well) as a kid had an NES or an SMS. I was a high schooler at the time, so that may have had something to do with it, but among people I knew the gaming platforms were:

1) Commodore 64/128.
2) Apple IIC/IIGS/Mac (Apple and variants, basically)
3) TRS-80 and variants.

Yep, all computers, not cartridge (or at least strictly cartridge based) consoles. Most people I knew hopped onto the next console generation -- Genesis or SNES, mostly. But alot of PC gaming, too! I think in many ways late-80s and early 90s PC gaming was more popular than now since a) games were cheaper than the $60 and $70 new carts for Genesis and SNES b) graphics COULD be alot better (gap has closed alot now, as many console games look just as good if not better than PC games)

I think the age of the person has alot to do with perception, too. If you were a child (elementary school age) during NES era, you probably had an NES, since it was easier to give a child than a computer. If you are over 30 now, I bet there's a good chance you had a Commdore or Apple as your gaming platform in the mid to late 80s, rather than an NES, which was "for kids".

My point? Gaming was alive and kicking after the so-called crash of the game market, alive on people's computers. Many of us who left the 2600/Intellivision/O2 world went to a computer instead of a console. Of course the market would be totally different with no Nintendo now, but the same is true without any of the major players in gaming history. Hell, I think Nintendo's true legacy is its domination of the handheld market over the past 20 years, not in home consoles. Everybody (well, you know what I mean) has had a Gameboy/GBC/GBA/DS....

[bangtango]

FACT: No, it is not a romantic notion but instead reality. NES created a market for the Super NES, Gameboy and even N64. Sony and 3DO wouldn't have stuck their nose into the gaming business if Nintendo hadn't been making a killing. Sony practically begged for the opportunity to piggyback on Nintendo during the SNES era. Facts are facts.

MORE FACTS: The Commodore 64 wasn't going to be around forever. So you say gaming would have been flourishing without the 700-plus games for the NES and all of the ones later released on the SNES and various Gameboy formats. Keep in mind that some of the best were made by Nintendo themselves. Sony didn't make any impact with their own games and the only thing they inspired in the industry was giving Microsoft the itch to enter the console wars and compete with them. Probably a good thing but again Sony wouldn't be around with their consoles if Nintendo hadn't already been making money. Nintendo also inspired some of the good (and bad) decisions made by Sega who were always out to one-up them.

FACTS (CONTINUED): As for the Sega Master System, their library was full of arcade conversions or inferior versions of Genesis titles. Not to mention "Great" sports titles. There just weren't enough "Phantasy Stars" to ensure that gamers would keep buying the system year after year. I had a lot of fun with mine and wish I still had it. I think it is a very nice system, really I do, but don't live with the notion that it should of sold 10-15 million units, regardless of the specs.

FACTS: The third party support wasn't there on SMS and Nintendo may have used unethical tactics but that is a moot point. Maybe if Sega had actually moved units out of the stores, they could have had some leverage. Nintendo had to sell at least a few systems, themselves, to ensure they got the third party support they did. They didn't just wake up one morning to find 50 companies ready to develop for them the second NES was released.

Um, just because you label your opinions as "facts" doesn't make you right. Quit trying to boss people around in this thread, yours is just one voice from among thousands on this board, not the only voice.

Anyway, in my corner of the 80s the Commodore 64/128 was the only platform to be had. Nobody I knew (well) as a kid had an NES or an SMS. I was a high schooler at the time, so that may have had something to do with it, but among people I knew the gaming platforms were:

1) Commodore 64/128.
2) Apple IIC/IIGS/Mac (Apple and variants, basically)
3) TRS-80 and variants.

Yep, all computers, not cartridge (or at least strictly cartridge based) consoles. Most people I knew hopped onto the next console generation -- Genesis or SNES, mostly. But alot of PC gaming, too! I think in many ways late-80s and early 90s PC gaming was more popular than now since a) games were cheaper than the $60 and $70 new carts for Genesis and SNES b) graphics COULD be alot better (gap has closed alot now, as many console games look just as good if not better than PC games)

I think the age of the person has alot to do with perception, too. If you were a child (elementary school age) during NES era, you probably had an NES, since it was easier to give a child than a computer. If you are over 30 now, I bet there's a good chance you had a Commdore or Apple as your gaming platform in the mid to late 80s, rather than an NES, which was "for kids".

My point? Gaming was alive and kicking after the so-called crash of the game market, alive on people's computers. Many of us who left the 2600/Intellivision/O2 world went to a computer instead of a console. Of course the market would be totally different with no Nintendo now, but the same is true without any of the major players in gaming history. Hell, I think Nintendo's true legacy is its domination of the handheld market over the past 20 years, not in home consoles. Everybody (well, you know what I mean) has had a Gameboy/GBC/GBA/DS....

I'll be 100% honest with you and say the "Fact" thing, which I bold, is a trademark that I do on some of the message boards I frequent. I mean no harm by it and do it mostly for my own amusement. I'm aware I voice opinions, the same as everyone else.

The stuff below isn't related to your quote, just didn't want to create a second new post.

In General:

I had a couple of those Commodore computers, the Atari's, the Intellivision, the Odyssey, the SMS AND the NES. So I'm not one of the 15-22 year olds that keep getting put down in this thread.

With that said, why should someone who is 18-25 have to apologize to the rest of you for how old they are or for enjoying the N64? I don't care how old people on this board are. We all play games and we're here. That's good enough for me.

I've been out of high school, and college, for quite a few years now so I am older than the so-called stereotypical N64 fan but I like it fairly well. I'm not going to apologize for enjoying the system or the games released for it. I owned the NES, SNES and all the Gameboy platforms. It was only natural I'd want to pick up an N64. So what if it was the worst Nintendo system, as some of you claim while conveniently forgetting the Virtual Boy? It's a damn sight better than playing no games at all. I could understand all of the negativity if this was strictly a Sega, Atari or Colecovision board but it's not.

I also wanted to comment on the systems people lumped the N64 in with:

As for the Atari Jaguar, which I also own, why should the people posting here or on AtariAge apologize for buying it or enjoying it? Same with the people who bought the 32X and Sega CD. Cut the crap. Those systems failed but considering the very low used prices for them on Ebay, they are worth picking up for the 2-3 good games that appeared on each of those platforms.

[NeoZeedeater]

MORE FACTS: The Commodore 64 wasn't going to be around forever. So you say gaming would have been flourishing without the 700-plus games for the NES and all of the ones later released on the SNES and various Gameboy formats. Keep in mind that some of the best were made by Nintendo themselves. Sony didn't make any impact with their own games and the only thing they inspired in the industry was giving Microsoft the itch to enter the console wars and compete with them. Probably a good thing but again Sony wouldn't be around with their consoles if Nintendo hadn't already been making money. Nintendo also inspired some of the good (and bad) decisions made by Sega who were always out to one-up them.
The C64 lived a very long lifespan. I don't know why it's hard to believe that if Nintendo wasn't around that some other companies wouldn't have been popular. Gamers want their games and some format always becomes successful in each era.


FACTS (CONTINUED): As for the Sega Master System, their library was full of arcade conversions or inferior versions of Genesis titles. Not to mention "Great" sports titles. There just weren't enough "Phantasy Stars" to ensure that gamers would keep buying the system year after year. I had a lot of fun with mine and wish I still had it. I think it is a very nice system, really I do, but don't live with the notion that it should of sold 10-15 million units, regardless of the specs.
j_factor already addressed this in this thread. The SMS did outsell the NES in several countries. There's nothing inherent to the NES to make it sell better than the SMS as the sales variations by region show. Marketing plays a massive role and it's not really much different than how the Mega Drive failed in Japan but was successful in the West.

The NES was no doubt a very successful product. No one is denying that. It's the notion that gaming wouldn't have been popular without it that is extremely far-fetched, especially since A) closed format gaming-focused computers were already successful and B) The NES' competition was successful in various places.

This isn't directed at you but all too often I see this pattern with regards to console business success discussion:

Nintendo contributes to gaming popularity - massive praise
Atari contributes to gaming popularity - dismissed because it was too long ago or because of the company's stupid decisions later on
Sony contributes to gaming popularity - they are considered evil or ruining the industry

[smork]

I'll be 100% honest with you and say the "Fact" thing, which I bold, is a trademark that I do on some of the message boards I frequent. I mean no harm by it and do it mostly for my own amusement. I'm aware I voice opinions, the same as everyone else.

No worries, it just really made you sound like a dick. Apologies if I implied that or you inferred it! :)


With that said, why should someone who is 18-25 have to apologize to the rest of you for how old they are or for enjoying the N64? I don't care how old people on this board are. We all play games and we're here. That's good enough for me.

Nobody needs to apologize for their tastes. People like what they like, for whatever reason! I played N64 during it's lifespan, and i've played after, and for a variety of reasons i've never liked it, with the exception of a few games. And I really like both the GC and the SNES. Why don't I like it? It's probably 90% the controller, and the rest the fact I didn't find many games appealing. Didn't have much to do with me being older, as I like alot of the "younger" games on the GC (and other systems as well). The whole thing just doesn't work for me. It's my only system to have lent out (except for a PS1 -- which I have multiple) and not really cared if it came back.

But hell, I like the VB (as I mentioned earlier), and I am spending most of my recent game time on a failed import handheld (WonderSwan), so perhaps my judgement is suspect. :P

[bangtango]

The C64 lived a very long lifespan. I don't know why it's hard to believe that if Nintendo wasn't around that some other companies wouldn't have been popular. Gamers want their games and some format always becomes successful in each era.

j_factor already addressed this in this thread. The SMS did outsell the NES in several countries. There's nothing inherent to the NES to make it sell better than the SMS as the sales variations by region show. Marketing plays a massive role and it's not really much different than how the Mega Drive failed in Japan but was successful in the West.

The NES was no doubt a very successful product. No one is denying that. It's the notion that gaming wouldn't have been popular without it that is extremely far-fetched, especially since A) closed format gaming-focused computers were already successful and B) The NES' competition was successful in various places.

This isn't directed at you but all too often I see this pattern with regards to console business success discussion:

Nintendo contributes to gaming popularity - massive praise
Atari contributes to gaming popularity - dismissed because it was too long ago or because of the company's stupid decisions later on
Sony contributes to gaming popularity - they are considered evil or ruining the industry

Nothing wrong with the Commodore 64, wish I still had one. I love the Atari Jaguar and 7800, regardless of my assessment of their impact. As for Sony, I have 4 Playstation consoles in my small collection which is a higher quantity of consoles than I own for any other format.

Regarding Nintendo:

Sure, the third party Contra, Castlevania and Mega Man titles of the world that they hoarded would have played great on SMS, Turbografx, Genesis or the Commodore.......They may have wiped the floor with the NES versions but they still played pretty damn good on an NES. I'll leave it at that :D

[PentiumMMX]

I'd say N64 is classic. I've loved mine since day 1 (NINTENDO 64! OMG!).

I still don't get why everyone says that the GCN is better then the N64 (Remember this, n00bs: Diddy Kong Racing & Zelda: OOT > Sonic Adventure 2: Battle & Super Mario Sunshine). Cone on, with games like Diddy Kong Racing, Zelda: OOT, Diddy Kong Racing, Mario 64, Diddy Kong Racing, Mario Kart 64, Diddy Kong Racing, Goldeneye 007, Diddy Kong Racing, Banjo-Kazooie, Diddy Kong Racing, Paper Mario, Diddy Kong Racing, Mystical Ninja starring Goemon, Diddy Kong Racing, Jet Force Gemini, and Diddy Kong Racing, it's way better then GCN. I find myself playing my N64 more because it's better then GCN (I stil can't beleve I wasted $50 on one considering the only games that made it worth buying are SSBM and Soul Calibur 2)

[Mayhem]

The C64 lived a very long lifespan.

Indeed... it was still commercially selling software here in the UK up until 1995 (so that's 13 years on the shop shelves), and after that, imported and sold by individuals for another few years after that. Like the 2600 and Vectrex, and other platforms, people are still writing and selling software for it today.

The N64 is a tricky one to call really. Do people consider the Dreamcast the same or not? Or the Playstation? Or the Saturn? It's in the same bracket to me...

[j_factor]

FACTS (CONTINUED): As for the Sega Master System, their library was full of arcade conversions or inferior versions of Genesis titles. Not to mention "Great" sports titles. There just weren't enough "Phantasy Stars" to ensure that gamers would keep buying the system year after year. I had a lot of fun with mine and wish I still had it. I think it is a very nice system, really I do, but don't live with the notion that it should of sold 10-15 million units, regardless of the specs.

FACTS: The third party support wasn't there on SMS and Nintendo may have used unethical tactics but that is a moot point. Maybe if Sega had actually moved units out of the stores, they could have had some leverage. Nintendo had to sell at least a few systems, themselves, to ensure they got the third party support they did. They didn't just wake up one morning to find 50 companies ready to develop for them the second NES was released.

FACT: You said "without NES in the picture". And without NES in the picture, Master System's library would've been much larger. There's absolutely no reason to believe that all those third parties that were on NES wouldn't have been on SMS instead had NES not been around. You think NES was some magical machine that solely caused Capcom, Konami, Natsume, Jaleco, et al to make console games?

Hell, if Nintendo hadn't made a console, they likely would've put their games on SMS too.