Game Radar's Top 7 Nintendo mistakes

[GuyinGA]

I've never heard the NES controller referred to as "shocking". There were all kinds of different controllers out before this one. It had 4 buttons. Ok. Not revolutionary.

...


My point is that there's a logical progression to Nintendo's controllers. In a way, the Wii is like the original NES controller except it has motion control and other things.

And Sega Master System's controller had two buttons as well. So you have the competition with Sega playing into it as well.


Ok, so you wish they had more games but you're glad they don't? Could be I misunderstood that part. But how could it possibly be better (if it's even true) to have a more limited selection of options available for your chosen gaming platform? You like Resident Evil. Maybe I don't.

I'm OK with Resident Evil, but I wouldn't say I like it. Basically, I was pointing out how if Nintendo had not limited what games were published for years, then they would have a different outcome. There would have been a lot more games published from different companies every year on the NES and definitely the SNES. Today, we might see Dead Rising on the Wii, not just the X-Box 360. Or Final Fantasy VII on the Nintendo 64. If Nintendo had made their N64 a CD-format system and Gamecube a DVD-format system, it would present a different picture. Then, the market would be oversaturated because all systems would have a similar format (obviously, a game from one system wouldn't work on the other, but I hope you get my drift)! You would basically buy a CD or DVD game based on which game system manufacturer you like the most. The cartidge and later the mini-disc limits what companies will put out what games. Hence, why the N64 and GC libraries seem quaint compared to the other systems.

So, with the format limitations, the better games are more easier to find or stand out more.

I know it's a tad confusing, but I hope you see what I mean.

[PentiumMMX]

Overruled.

You forgot Hey You, Pikachu!

Pokemon Puzzle League is also vaguely Pokemon related.

I tend to forget those two...(Mainly because of Seaman and Tetris Attack)

[bangtango]

Both Atari and Sega "failed" more often than Nintendo and you don't see these lists being made about them. I guess Nintendo is just an easier target because they still make consoles. That and a few writers are still bitter about them backing out of a contract with Sony or "bullying" third parties on old cartridge based consoles from 10-20 years ago. Most of those same third parties still release product for Nintendo, so they've gotten over it. I bet Sony has, too. After all, they are "winning" and I don't think they'd be opposed to partnering with Nintendo on something again down the road if it ever came to it.

[Nature Boy]

My Then, the market would be oversaturated because all systems would have a similar format (obviously, a game from one system wouldn't work on the other, but I hope you get my drift)! You would basically buy a CD or DVD game based on which game system manufacturer you like the most.

That's true only if the console manufacturer's don't make games that are exclusive to their systems. And that would never happen, regardless of what 'media' or 'controller' or anything else everybody decides to choose.

[Push Upstairs]

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/7699/nintendon64horiminipadbfo6.jpg
http://media.arstechnica.com/staff/fatbits.media/n64-controller.jpg

Hori 1, Nintendo 0

Really Nintendo, what were you thinking?

I remember seeing this other generic controller made by Performance, and even thought I know Performance stuff is excrement, it was still better laid out than the official controller.

[Gentlegamer]

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/7699/nintendon64horiminipadbfo6.jpg
http://media.arstechnica.com/staff/fatbits.media/n64-controller.jpg

Hori 1, Nintendo 0

Really Nintendo, what were you thinking?The Hori looks good but isn't the D-Pad too far away from the left grip? Then again, most N64 games don't use the D-Pad for control.

[Sweater Fish Deluxe]

The Performance controller is the one I use with my N64, but only because I can't find one of the Hori ones. I find it preferable to the stock controller in almost every way, but the Hori one just looks loads better again. The analog stick especially looks like the best ones since the Saturn analog controller.


The Hori looks good but isn't the D-Pad too far away from the left grip? Then again, most N64 games don't use the D-Pad for control.
Yeah, it's definitely oriented to games that only use the dpad for maybe menu selctions and stuff, but are strictly analog in-game. Which accounts for like 90% of N64 games. However there would be some games that wouldn't be playable on it. Not just games that used all-digital control, either. A couple games like Bangaioh used the dpad and analog stick together. That was the one positive advantage the N64 controller's layout, that you had more options for control layouts. However, Sony did a better job of offering the same and more without sacrificing standard control layouts in the Dual Analog design, which is why Nintendo abandoned the three-prong design for a more-or-less Dual Analog-like design for the Gamecube controller.




The NES controller was shocking when it first appeared because most people at the time were familiar with a one-button or two-button controllers (Atari) or a key-pad controller (IntellVision).
I've never heard the NES controller referred to as "shocking". There were all kinds of different controllers out before this one. It had 4 buttons. Ok. Not revolutionary.
It's not the number of buttons but the overall layout and especially the dpad that were revolutionary about the NES controller. It allowed for better control than any previous system's controller had.


...word is bondage...

[j_factor]

As much as I dislike just about everything about N64, it was no failure. People tend to forget that N64 sold almost exactly the same number of systems in the US as SNES did. Although that's not a good thing (it means they stagnated while all the growth in the videogame market went to Playstation), it's not that bad. N64 was only a failure in Japan, and even there it wasn't a total flop.

The article really should've been titled "7 things I hate about Nintendo", since this isn't really a list of failures. Even then, it has some inaccuracies that piss me off, for example it seems to imply that SNES started off on top and then Genesis overtook it later, when actually the opposite is true.

[Push Upstairs]

Irregardless of what the guy intended in his article, I find the N64 a failure because it simply didn't live up to the greatness of the systems that came out before it.

"Quality over quantity games" this and "made money" that do not justify its inability to meet the expectations set by the SNES.

[KREATIVEassassin]

You people do realize that he doesn't use the word "failure" in the article at all, right? I keep seeing posts about how he calls the Nintendo 64 a failure, or how he says the Wii is a failure. It's like everyone just sees the title of the thread (Which is titled incorrectly, I should add. The article is actually called "The Top 7 Nintendo Mistakes.") and has this knee-jerk reaction to it. Did most of you even bother reading what he wrote? I think it's spot on.

[bangtango]

You people do realize that he doesn't use the word "failure" in the article at all, right? I keep seeing posts about how he calls the Nintendo 64 a failure, or how he says the Wii is a failure. It's like everyone just sees the title of the thread (Which is titled incorrectly, I should add. The article is actually called "The Top 7 Nintendo Mistakes.") and has this knee-jerk reaction to it. Did most of you even bother reading what he wrote? I think it's spot on.

Well I guess you caught a bunch of us with our pants down. Last time that happened to me, I was in the cooler of the meat room at work.

I just read the title of the thread. Blame Him! :)

[Retrodigital]

My main beef and hate for Nintendo stems from their man made shortage of Wiis and Ds lites. I work for a retailer and for almost 3 months we didnt see any Wiis or DS lites because they couldnt keep them in stock. Well come April and Nintendo post last years earnings and they are starting their New finicial year, in pour the Wiis and Ds lites. Seriously, I didnt see one damn Ds lite in my store and now I have over 20, 12 wiis shipping at a time!? THis is a small store, some of the higher volume stores were getting double or triple this!

Screw you Nintendo

[Rob2600]

I remember seeing this other generic controller made by Performance, and even thought I know Performance stuff is excrement, it was still better laid out than the official controller.

That's interesting because I remember thinking at the time how comfortable and well-designed the Nintendo 64 controller is. I still think it's one of the best controllers out there, along with the Game Cube and SNES.

I'm not sure why people consider the Nintendo 64 to be a failure or a disappointment. I enjoyed Super Mario 64 and Wave Race 64 for several months...surely worth the price of admission ($60 each). I also enjoyed Mario Kart 64, StarFox 64, Diddy Kong Racing, 1080 Snowboarding, Mischief Makers, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Rayman 2, Mario Party, Bust a Move 99, Mario Golf, Pokemon Snap, Pokemon Puzzle League, Turok 3, Perfect Dark, Conker's Bad Fur Day, etc.

I was also not disappointed with the Nintendo 64's sound capabilities. In fact, I remember being thoroughly impressed with the audio in games like Killer Instinct Gold, Castlevania, Jet Force Gemini, Star Wars: Rogue Squadron, Goldeneye 007, F-Zero X, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, StarFox 64, Tetrisphere, 1080 Snowboarding, Perfect Dark, Conker's Bad Fur Day, etc.

I'm probably the only person who thought the lack of full-motion video (FMV) in Nintendo 64 games was a good thing. My friends and I sat through hours of grainy, compressed video in games like Final Fantasy VII and Resident Evil for the PlayStation and Saturn. It was cool at first, but I was always more impressed with real-time cut scenes. Games like The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, StarFox 64, or Conker's Bad Fur Day wouldn't have been the same (or as good) with FMV. Besides, the Nintendo 64's graphic capabilities were good enough that it didn't need pre-rendered cut scenes.

Games that were ported to the Nintendo 64 by talented developers were always better than the PlayStation versions. Games like Rayman 2, Shadow Man, Rainbow Six, South Park, Roadsters, The World Is not Enough, Re-Volt, and Mortal Kombat 4 had much better graphics and control on Nintendo 64. They were horrendous on PlayStation. Even Resident Evil 2, Ridge Racer, and Wipeout had better graphics and control on Nintendo 64. Of course, less capable developers had a more difficult time porting PlayStation games to Nintendo 64...those games (A Bug's Life, Toy Story, etc.) didn't turn out so great.

Regarding financials, Nintendo 64 games were the highest selling games of the year, every year. More people bought PlayStation consoles, but more people bought Nintendo 64 games, at least in the U.S.

[Nature Boy]

That's interesting because I remember thinking at the time how comfortable and well-designed the Nintendo 64 controller is. I still think it's one of the best controllers out there, along with the Game Cube and SNES

I thought, at the time, that it was comfortable and well designed too. And then I got a PlayStation and the N64 controller suddenly felt a little convoluted.

It's a personal preference thing to be sure, but the button layout on the PS controllers has always felt more comfortable to me than trying to hit the Z button on a cube controller, or the L on the N64.

[bangtango]

I thought, at the time, that it was comfortable and well designed too. And then I got a PlayStation and the N64 controller suddenly felt a little convoluted.

It's a personal preference thing to be sure, but the button layout on the PS controllers has always felt more comfortable to me than trying to hit the Z button on a cube controller, or the L on the N64.

I know everyone pretty much considers the PS controllers "the greatest of all time" but they still aren't perfect. The PS controllers "feel" fine. That isn't the problem. What is? After all these years, I still can't be convinced that using shapes instead of numbers or letters on the buttons is the best idea. Maybe somebody has a patent on numbers or letters for buttons, though I doubt it. Using shapes was a mind-numbing move that made little sense. I assume the strategy was to make the controller/system look more modern and less like a toy.

[Nature Boy]

Using shapes was a mind-numbing move that made little sense. I assume the strategy was to make the controller/system look more modern and less like a toy.

You're serious? You don't like it because it has a circle instead of a B?!?

It's been a great marketing gimmick for them, as they can and do use it in their ad campaigns. I think it was rather clever of them to be honest. Why not do what you can to differentiate yourself from your competitors?

[Push Upstairs]

That's interesting because I remember thinking at the time how comfortable and well-designed the Nintendo 64 controller is. I still think it's one of the best controllers out there, along with the Game Cube and SNES.

The analog control stick and the action buttons are placed far too close together. Things are so cramped that it really detracts from gameplay. Controllers need to have an ergonomic flow or, in the case of the NES, at least feel comfortable in the hands.

Having my hands so close just really takes me out of the gaming experience.

[bangtango]

You're serious? You don't like it because it has a circle instead of a B?!?

It's been a great marketing gimmick for them, as they can and do use it in their ad campaigns. I think it was rather clever of them to be honest. Why not do what you can to differentiate yourself from your competitors?

When I have to try and remember which button is where, nearly every time I play, then I can't really jump on the bandwagon and call it "the greatest controller of all time" which is slowly becoming "fact" to most people.

I'll clarify, though. It isn't a problem for the Ridge Racer's or Resident Evil's of the world. That never becomes an issue with those games. However, I play a lot of sports games. It isn't a controller I enjoy using for football games in which I have four receivers racing down the field.

I've had the system for several years and I still have to look at the controller several times during a session to make sure I'm not hitting the wrong button. I've never had problems like that with any other controller. The majority will surely say Sony using shapes to mark their buttons is "pure genius" but I won't agree with it.

Nintendo does something "different" and they usually get their nuts busted. Sega does something different and it is called ambitious at best but more often than not, their moves are referred to as ill-advised or ill-fated. Sony does something different and they are universally called "geniuses."

[FantasiaWHT]

I've had the system for several years and I still have to look at the controller several times during a session to make sure I'm not hitting the wrong button. I've never had problems like that with any other controller. The majority will surely say Sony using shapes to mark their buttons is "pure genius" but I won't agree with it.
"

I'm not gonna orgasm over the idea of shapes, but I do find it surprising that after years of playing you still aren't used to it. My first console was a Genesis, but I got used to the backwards layout of the B/A buttons of the NES and the backwards B/A, Y/X buttons of the SNES. Those buttons are contrary to what a western mind would consider "normal".

[bangtango]

I'm not gonna orgasm over the idea of shapes, but I do find it surprising that after years of playing you still aren't used to it. My first console was a Genesis, but I got used to the backwards layout of the B/A buttons of the NES and the backwards B/A, Y/X buttons of the SNES. Those buttons are contrary to what a western mind would consider "normal".

I don't get it either. The control feels good, the buttons are at a perfect distance from each other. It's just trying to remember where the square button is or where the button with the circle is, etc. Each button is a different color, of course, but that doesn't help either. I guess what I am saying is that every other controller I have ever used, I have a pattern or mechanism for remembering which button is which and how to find them without even looking at the controller. After all these years, I've never developed such a mechanism for the PS controller. I'm certainly open to suggestions but I do love the system ;)

In short, the PS controllers are the only ones I ever have to look at during game play. Any other controller (Sega, Nintendo, Microsoft, Atari, etc.) I don't even have to glance at them in the middle of a game. It is all second nature for other controllers I handle.

[Push Upstairs]

I don't have a problem with the PSX "symbol" buttons when playing but when it asks me to "press O button" for some reason I have to look at the controller to see which one it is.

Not sure why though....maybe my brain really can't comprehend the use of shapes as names for buttons. :-/

[j_factor]

I was also not disappointed with the Nintendo 64's sound capabilities. In fact, I remember being thoroughly impressed with the audio in games like Killer Instinct Gold, Castlevania, Jet Force Gemini, Star Wars: Rogue Squadron, Goldeneye 007, F-Zero X, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, StarFox 64, Tetrisphere, 1080 Snowboarding, Perfect Dark, Conker's Bad Fur Day, etc.

I have never heard anyone say they were impressed with N64's sound capabilities. Had you simply never played a CD-ROM based console before?

Cartridges were one of my big beefs with Nintendo 64. I was one of the few people who had been playing Turbo CD and Sega CD, so by the time N64 came out, cartridges seemed positively archaic to me.


I'm probably the only person who thought the lack of full-motion video (FMV) in Nintendo 64 games was a good thing. My friends and I sat through hours of grainy, compressed video in games like Final Fantasy VII and Resident Evil for the PlayStation and Saturn. It was cool at first, but I was always more impressed with real-time cut scenes. Games like The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, StarFox 64, or Conker's Bad Fur Day wouldn't have been the same (or as good) with FMV. Besides, the Nintendo 64's graphic capabilities were good enough that it didn't need pre-rendered cut scenes.

PSX and Saturn also had games with cutscenes that used the in-game engine. Metal Gear Solid for example. I'd also say that "grainy, compressed" video really only applies to Saturn games and the earlier Playstation games, because later PSX games had rather nice-looking, clear FMVs. I still think FF8's intro looks great (too bad about the gameplay).


Regarding financials, Nintendo 64 games were the highest selling games of the year, every year. More people bought PlayStation consoles, but more people bought Nintendo 64 games, at least in the U.S.

Individually, N64's biggest hits were always at the top of the charts, but it's not true that more people bought N64 games. Total software sales definitely favored Playstation, in fact the ratio of PSX games sold to N64 games sold favored Sony even more than the hardware sales did, IIRC. Playstation game sales were just spread out over more games.

...Actually, I just thought about that sentence a bit. More people bought N64 games? That would mean either millions of people bought N64 games without owning an N64, or millions of people bought a Playstation with no games. I don't think that's what you meant to say. lol

[ShenmueFan]

I have never heard anyone say they were impressed with N64's sound capabilities. Had you simply never played a CD-ROM based console before?
Many, many PS1 and Saturn games didn't opt for true CD-quality sound in their games. FFVII is a perfect example of a game soundtrack that could have been done on the N64 or probably even the SNES. Only FMV segments usually had CD-quality sound.


Cartridges were one of my big beefs with Nintendo 64. I was one of the few people who had been playing Turbo CD and Sega CD, so by the time N64 came out, cartridges seemed positively archaic to me.
I prefer data storage devices in a hard-disk type format over digital-disc format any day. You'll see what I mean in 20-30 years when most of these CD/DVD games from even just 10 years ago stop working because the discs degrade so quickly over time, even if in good condition and commercially pressed.


PSX and Saturn also had games with cutscenes that used the in-game engine. Metal Gear Solid for example. I'd also say that "grainy, compressed" video really only applies to Saturn games and the earlier Playstation games, because later PSX games had rather nice-looking, clear FMVs. I still think FF8's intro looks great (too bad about the gameplay).
MGS's cutscenes looked so good mainly because of that ghosting/blurring effect that made the framerate seem smoother than it really was, exactly the same way GTA 3 does its graphics. I agree that early FMV looked back/choppy because either people couldn't compress video very well or the software video decoding technology didn't allow for high quality video at the time.

Sometimes video cutscenes help, but its an addition that can easily be abused. Same goes for in-game cutscenes. Just because you don't have to spend a million bucks making cutscenes for your game doesn't mean I should have to sit through them every 20 minutes.

[Rob2600]

I have never heard anyone say they were impressed with N64's sound capabilities. Had you simply never played a CD-ROM based console before?

Between my friends and I, we had almost every home video game console...even the Turbo Duo, which used CDs. We still thought the Nintendo 64 was capable of impressive audio. The audio in games like Jet Force Gemini, Perfect Dark, Tetrisphere, Star Wars: Rogue Squardon, Killer Instinct Gold, Castlevania, Goldeneye 007, Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon, StarFox 64, and 1080 Snowboarding prove that. Several games even make extensive use of vocals and real instruments.

Cartridges store data digitally, just like CDs. They are perfectly capable of storing CD-quality sound. Some developers made clever use of the N64's MIDI and tracking features, which allowed the music in games to be manipulated and interactive. Depending on where the player is in the game, different instruments could fade in and out, the tempo could change, the key signature could change, etc., all seemlessly and in real-time. Redbook CD audio can not be manipulated like that.

Did every developer create impressive music in their N64 games? No, but that's the developers' faults, not the N64's fault.


Cartridges were one of my big beefs with Nintendo 64. I was one of the few people who had been playing Turbo CD and Sega CD, so by the time N64 came out, cartridges seemed positively archaic to me.

Why? There is absolutely nothing wrong with cartridges. Like I said, it's just another digital storage medium...and a more energy-efficient and durable one, at that. These days, a small USB memory stick or a nickel-size Fuji xD picture card could store up to 4 GB of data and the transfer rate is faster than CD or DVD. How is that archaic? I'd much rather have a cartridge-based game that loads almost instantly than have to wait for "cutting-edge" Blu-ray games to load.

Not only that, but why do CD and DVD games still cost $40 to $60? I thought CDs and DVDs were so much cheaper to make than cartridges, so how come the price of video games hasn't gone down?


PSX and Saturn also had games with cutscenes that used the in-game engine. Metal Gear Solid for example.

Yes, but many Saturn and PlayStation 3D game engines were not that great. The graphics were pixellated, twitchy, and low-resolution and the character models were often a mess. The N64 was capable of displaying much nicer, more stable 3D graphics with better lighting effects, so I didn't see the lack of FMV on the N64 as a problem. A few games used it, but it wasn't necessary in most.


More people bought N64 games? That would mean either millions of people bought N64 games without owning an N64, or millions of people bought a Playstation with no games. I don't think that's what you meant to say. lol

I should have rephrased that. I meant that even though more people bought PlayStation consoles, Nintendo 64 hits almost always sold better than PlayStation hits. Maybe that means Nintendo 64 had more hard core players and PlayStation had more casual players. I don't know.

[All Things Sega]

I should have rephrased that. I meant that even though more people bought PlayStation consoles, Nintendo 64 hits almost always sold better than PlayStation hits. Maybe that means Nintendo 64 had more hard core players and PlayStation had more casual players. I don't know.


Just basic math, economics and exculsivity to explain why some of the N64 hits outsold ps1 hits. Better way to compare is to look at how many maddens sold each year for both systems. You'll see that the PS1 ones sold more. Being hardcore or a casual gamer isn't that significant.

*Disclaimer - These figures are just an example and fictional so don't shoot me. LOL

Ps1 20 million units sold 1000 games available

N64 5 million units sold 250 games available


The PS1 had a much higher installed base but the sales figures for games are going to be spread out more evenly because there is more to choose from. What limits all of this is the amount available to spend. This doesn't change. If a consumer only has $1000 to spend on games during a systems life cycle, the system with fewer choices is going to have certain games sell higher than on the other systems. Its the same as a car company stating their red sports car is the top seller but failing to mention that red and puke green are the only choices. The problem N64 had was their limited selection so basically you were forced to buy their exclusive games. You couldn't buy many 3rd party games because they barely made any for them so the 1st party sales were inflated. Hope this helps explain everything and I'll never have to hear those stupid fanboys from back in the day that would quote EGM sales figure as gospel (Scott from NJ I'm talking to you! LOL) or why their system was number 1

[Rob2600]

Better way to compare is to look at how many maddens sold each year for both systems.

I always figured it was because more sports fans bought Playstation and more traditional video gamers bought Nintendo 64. That's why the sports games were usually more popular on Genesis than on SNES, even thought more people owned a SNES.


The PS1 had a much higher installed base but the sales figures for games are going to be spread out more evenly because there is more to choose from.

It's not like the Nintendo 64 only had 20 games to choose from. There were about 290 games released for it in the U.S. and over half of them have received a 7.0 or higher on IGN.com. That's plenty of good games to choose from.

[All Things Sega]

I always figured it was because more sports fans bought Playstation and more traditional video gamers bought Nintendo 64. That's why the sports games were usually more popular on Genesis than on SNES, even thought more people owned a SNES.



It's not like the Nintendo 64 only had 20 games to choose from. There were about 290 games released for it in the U.S. and over half of them have received a 7.0 or higher on IGN.com. That's plenty of good games to choose from.

Ratings are helpful but since when do most consumers go by them anyway. People will buy certain games just by name, no matter what the quality or how dreadful the games have become. Recent example is all of the sonic games for different systems. Low ratings by everyone and yet sells a bundle every time. I can think of games like Okami that had wonderful reviews but didn't sell. Plus there is joke games like the BK ones that sold through the roof. As for N64 having 290 games, thats a small selection in comparison to the competition. PS1 had close to 1300 titles, even the snes had over 700 games. The amount of games it had resembled the saturn and dreamcast. The N64 started out gangbuster and basically turned into a niche system. Hopefully Nintendo can learn from their mistakes.

[Nature Boy]

I'll clarify, though. It isn't a problem for the Ridge Racer's or Resident Evil's of the world. That never becomes an issue with those games. However, I play a lot of sports games. It isn't a controller I enjoy using for football games in which I have four receivers racing down the field.

Fair enough. To be honest I find football games tough even when I do know which button is which receiver, as I find my brain doesn't work fast enough to make the right play. I guess that's why I'm not an NFL QB :)

I found PaRappa the Rapper was the one game that let me memorize which button is where. You have to look the first few times you play it, but afterwards it becomes second nature. Think of the buttons like an arrow of sorts: The triangle is the top of the arrow. The x is the feathers. Left right is a wrestling metaphor: the squared circle (square on the left, circle on the right) :)

I enjoy sports games too and to be honest, I never play them on a PS - I like playing them on Xbox better, as the HD makes saving rosters and seasons and that sort of stuff trivial, as it doesn't take up half of a memory card. :D

[Rob2600]

The N64 started out gangbuster and basically turned into a niche system.

33 million consoles is not niche...and since when do niche systems have the top selling games every year?

[Nature Boy]

33 million consoles is not niche...and since when do niche systems have the top selling games every year?

Why the heck not? It's focused and targetable (gamers who love the Nintendo style of games). And a lack of software choices but really great games meant that you could almost guarantee any must have was bought by almost everybody with a console (I know I owned all the big ones).

[Rob2600]

Why the heck not? It's focused and targetable (gamers who love the Nintendo style of games). And a lack of software choices...

Just because there weren't 1,000 games released for the Nintendo 64, that doesn't mean there was a lack of choices. 290 games is plenty to choose from...not as many as 1,000, but still plenty to choose from.

And yes, there were a bunch of Nintendo-style games on the Nintendo 64, but there were also many other types of games...violent first-person shooters, extreme sports, racing, flying, real-time strategy, one-on-one fighting, etc.

I don't see the Nintendo 64, Game Cube, or Xbox as being niche, just because they weren't the most popular consoles of their generation.

[Nature Boy]

Just because there weren't 1,000 games released for the Nintendo 64, that doesn't mean there was a lack of choices. 290 games is plenty to choose from...not as many as 1,000, but still plenty to choose from.

For every three games you'd have only once choice. Doesn't it makes sense that with fewer options it's more likely that the quality software will sell more?

And use the 90/10 rule. 90% of games are crap/recycled junk. 10% are the cream of the crop. With 1000 games out there I might have 100 great games to choose from. With only 290 that's 29 *total.* That's a huge difference.

[Sweater Fish Deluxe]

And use the 90/10 rule. 90% of games are crap/recycled junk. 10% are the cream of the crop. With 1000 games out there I might have 100 great games to choose from. With only 290 that's 29 *total.* That's a huge difference.
Who cares? 29 great games is 29 great games. I wouldn't choose to miss out on them just because some other system has more. There's more great novels than there are great video games on all platforms combined. Does that mean we should all stop playing video games and just read instead?


As for N64 having 290 games, thats a small selection in comparison to the competition. PS1 had close to 1300 titles, even the snes had over 700 games. The amount of games it had resembled the saturn and dreamcast. The N64 started out gangbuster and basically turned into a niche system. Hopefully Nintendo can learn from their mistakes.
The N64 had more releases in 1999 and 2000 than it did in 1996, 1997 and 1998, including many of the system's best games and many of its most mainstream releases as well, so your impression of the system seems to be skewed in some way.

Also, the Saturn in fact has about 1300 games as well.


...word is bondage...

[j_factor]

Many, many PS1 and Saturn games didn't opt for true CD-quality sound in their games. FFVII is a perfect example of a game soundtrack that could have been done on the N64 or probably even the SNES. Only FMV segments usually had CD-quality sound.

This is true, but many games did have CD-quality sound. Games long before N64 even launched. FF7's audio is indeed terrible, but it's quite an exception.


Sometimes video cutscenes help, but its an addition that can easily be abused. Same goes for in-game cutscenes. Just because you don't have to spend a million bucks making cutscenes for your game doesn't mean I should have to sit through them every 20 minutes.

I agree. It wasn't me who initially brought up FMV sequences, and while they can be nice sometimes, it's not on my list of slams against N64.


Between my friends and I, we had almost every home video game console...even the Turbo Duo, which used CDs. We still thought the Nintendo 64 was capable of impressive audio. The audio in games like Jet Force Gemini, Perfect Dark, Tetrisphere, Star Wars: Rogue Squardon, Killer Instinct Gold, Castlevania, Goldeneye 007, Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon, StarFox 64, and 1080 Snowboarding prove that. Several games even make extensive use of vocals and real instruments.

Tempo on 32x makes use of vocals and real instruments... who cares? All of those games you listed have perfectly fine audio, but I don't see how they're impressive. Game audio ceased to impress me after a while of playing CD games (somewhat re-starting with the use of surround sound); none of those games do anything 3DO couldn't have done audio-wise.


Cartridges store data digitally, just like CDs. They are perfectly capable of storing CD-quality sound.

Yes, they are. The limitation with cartridges here isn't the quality, it's the space. Audio was often cut and compressed to squeeze the game onto an N64 cart. A game like Road Rash 3DO wouldn't really be feasible on N64.


Some developers made clever use of the N64's MIDI and tracking features, which allowed the music in games to be manipulated and interactive. Depending on where the player is in the game, different instruments could fade in and out, the tempo could change, the key signature could change, etc., all seemlessly and in real-time. Redbook CD audio can not be manipulated like that.

Redbook cannot, but CD systems can do that. One example of that being really well-done was in NiGHTS for Saturn (which even changes the music progressively over multiple plays depending on your actions in the game). Even for non-redbook audio, the CD still has much more room for a larger quantity of audio.


Did every developer create impressive music in their N64 games? No, but that's the developers' faults, not the N64's fault.

I think it's at least partly the fault of prohibitive costs involved with the larger-capacity N64 carts.

[/quote]Why? There is absolutely nothing wrong with cartridges. Like I said, it's just another digital storage medium...and a more energy-efficient and durable one, at that.[/quote]

In terms of space:cost ratio, cartridges were rather inefficient.


These days, a small USB memory stick or a nickel-size Fuji xD picture card could store up to 4 GB of data and the transfer rate is faster than CD or DVD.

What compact flash can do in 2007 is completely neither here nor there.


I'd much rather have a cartridge-based game that loads almost instantly than have to wait for "cutting-edge" Blu-ray games to load.

I'd rather have a system load a good game than instantly bring up a bad one. ;)


Not only that, but why do CD and DVD games still cost $40 to $60? I thought CDs and DVDs were so much cheaper to make than cartridges, so how come the price of video games hasn't gone down?

CD games are not commonly manufactured anymore, except for some PC releases. DVDs are more expensive than CDs. A cartridge of comparable size would still be way more expensive.


Yes, but many Saturn and PlayStation 3D game engines were not that great. The graphics were pixellated, twitchy, and low-resolution and the character models were often a mess. The N64 was capable of displaying much nicer, more stable 3D graphics with better lighting effects,

N64's 3D game engines weren't exactly great either. Blur, fog, clipping, poor textures, and lack of transparency and similar effects characterized N64's graphics. It's no better than Playstation or Saturn IMO.



so I didn't see the lack of FMV on the N64 as a problem. A few games used it, but it wasn't necessary in most.

I agree. I don't even know why we're arguing this point. FMVs are nice sometimes, but they're not a big deal.


I should have rephrased that. I meant that even though more people bought PlayStation consoles, Nintendo 64 hits almost always sold better than PlayStation hits. Maybe that means Nintendo 64 had more hard core players and PlayStation had more casual players. I don't know.

All it means is that N64 players gravitated to the same games.

[j_factor]

Who cares? 29 great games is 29 great games. I wouldn't choose to miss out on them just because some other system has more.

Unless you're abnormally wealthy and have unlimited space in your home, you have to decide which systems are worth having around and which aren't. The number of worthwhile games is a relatively good litmus test for deciding what consoles to get (and which to get first), especially for a gamer like myself who enjoys amassing collections. If I were to rank every console based on the number of games I consider worth having and N64 is like #12, I'm going to get the other 11 first. And maybe by then I don't have any room for another console.



There's more great novels than there are great video games on all platforms combined. Does that mean we should all stop playing video games and just read instead?

Yeah, we probably should. :)

I'd just rather not.

[Nature Boy]

Who cares? 29 great games is 29 great games. I wouldn't choose to miss out on them just because some other system has more.

You asked how a niche system could have the top selling games for a given generation, and that's how I answered it. With fewer top games to choose from, consumers had less choice and therefore pushed their sales into the stratosphere. We're not talking about 'missing' anything...

[All Things Sega]

Who cares? 29 great games is 29 great games. I wouldn't choose to miss out on them just because some other system has more. There's more great novels than there are great video games on all platforms combined. Does that mean we should all stop playing video games and just read instead?


The N64 had more releases in 1999 and 2000 than it did in 1996, 1997 and 1998, including many of the system's best games and many of its most mainstream releases as well, so your impression of the system seems to be skewed in some way.

Also, the Saturn in fact has about 1300 games as well.


...word is bondage...

I was talking about the saturn releases in the USA. There is different markets. That can lead to a whole another story. The N64 was more niche because Nintendo and its "dream team" produced more as the time went on but not enough to compensate for how much the 3rd party developers were making for the competetion, i.e. the ps1. I owned a N64 and still remember how starved I was to get any decent games out. Heck any games at all. If you don't remember these "times" then your looking at the past with rose colored glasses or denial. They just didn't make enough games to satisfy their customers. So when a game actually came out, especially if it was a 1st party title, that game's sales shot through the roof. It's the same as if I starve you for a month and then feed you some crap. You'll happily take it and thank me for ever. That's why the sales figures were inflated.

PS For the one saying 290 games is enough is missing the point. As gamers, we love good games but we also love choice. No one wants to be limited in what they can get and unfortunately with the N64 we got limited choices. Simple as that

[Three-P]

Here are, as far as I'm concerned, Nintendo's 7 biggest fuck-ups.

7-The Virtual Boy. (Seeing the world through the eyes of a Terminator just seemed cooler before it was a reality.)
6-The absoludicrous censorship back in the 80's-early 90's. (Religion, Hitler, flying blood, scantily clad women, nothing was safe from the whistle-blowers at Nintendo of America. Though they did lighten up, the damage was done. Castlevania is a good example. The cross and holy water were renamed as boomerang and fire bomb.)
5-The N64. (It wasn't that bad a system, and though it had some good games, it did pale in comparison to the Sony PlayStation and the Sega CD/Saturn.)
4-Opening the doors to Sony. (Nintendo and Sony were partners for a while. But eventually, like many other partnerships, it led to a falling out. After Sony split from Nintendo, they decided to take their own position in the great game race.)
3-Most Ultra Games. (A defunct branch of gaming giant Konami, they made some rather inferior games. In fact, of all their games, I liked only three of them. Metal Gear, TMNT 2-The Arcade Game, and Snake's Revenge. You may disagree with the latter, but it wasn't that bad, to me.)
2-Most anything from Micronics. (Back in the days of the NES, they developed games with sluggish animation, making just trying to get through the first stage a chore.)
1-Questionable durability of Game Boy/GBA screens. (They scratched way too easily, and once scratched, there was really no way to fix it.)

[Push Upstairs]

7-The Virtual Boy. (Seeing the world through the eyes of a Terminator just seemed cooler before it was a reality.)ROFLROFL

[DigitalSpace]

3-Most Ultra Games. (A defunct branch of gaming giant Konami, they made some rather inferior games. In fact, of all their games, I liked only three of them. Metal Gear, TMNT 2-The Arcade Game, and Snake's Revenge. You may disagree with the latter, but it wasn't that bad, to me.)

That was more Konami's fault than Nintendo. And even then, LJN was a lot worse. A Nightmare On Elm Street, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and Wolverine were their best games, and I'm being more generous than most gamers.

Good list otherwise. I would have just replaced this with Nintendo pretty much promising Earthbound 64 and then cancelling it entirely.

[bangtango]

4-Opening the doors to Sony. (Nintendo and Sony were partners for a while. But eventually, like many other partnerships, it led to a falling out. After Sony split from Nintendo, they decided to take their own position in the great game race.)

Two things:

1. There are enough people roaming the internet who think Sony is THE greatest thing to happen to gaming. They are known far and wide as "the guys with the white hats who saved the video game industry from the stagnant Nintendo."

2. Let's say Nintendo had went through that partnership with Sony and did the PlayStation back in the beginning, around the time of the Super NES. Know what would have happened? Sony would have probably absorbed Nintendo or bought them out and then gotten rid of what THEY felt was dead weight. You can't really argue too much with that. They'd have at least tried to buy out Nintendo, no doubt about that. Then the Mario/Zelda games might have really been screwed up.

Honestly, I think it is best for everyone involved that the little partnership never happened. Nintendo obviously didn't want Sony tampering with their creations and Sony seems to be doing all right. Besides, the two companies release better product on their own than they would be if they were working together with mostly Sony calling the shots.

[Rob2600]

Sony would have probably absorbed Nintendo or bought them out and then gotten rid of what THEY felt was dead weight. You can't really argue too much with that. They'd have at least tried to buy out Nintendo, no doubt about that. Then the Mario/Zelda games might have really been screwed up.

There is no way the people in charge of Nintendo would have accepted any offer from Sony to buy them out. Nintendo would never share its consistently high profits with another company. That's the whole reason why they ditched Sony. Sony wanted a share of the profits on each SNES CD game, at which point Nintendo snubbed them for Philips, the European company that co-developed CD technology with Sony.

I don't think CD-ROM technology was good enough at the time, anyway. The hardware was too slow and expensive.

[bangtango]

There is no way the people in charge of Nintendo would have accepted any offer from Sony to buy them out. Nintendo would never share its consistently high profits with another company. That's the whole reason why they ditched Sony.

I know that is why they ditched Sony :) My whole reason for replying is because people continue to claim it is a mistake that Nintendo called off the agreement with Sony. Not really, since any Mario/Zelda game that had Sony's paws on it would have probably turned out like the Philips stuff.