Apparently you can't read because my words were:
I personally didn't like Super Mario 64 or see the appeal but to each their own.
Apparently you can't read because my words were:
I personally didn't like Super Mario 64 or see the appeal but to each their own.
ALL HAIL THE 1 2 P
Originally Posted by THE 1 2 P
Well, saying that those magazines and sites lied does imply that you believe that there was no possible way for those people in the press to genuinely feel that Super Mario 64 was an amazing game, enough to perhaps even consider it the best they've ever played.
Not that I don't think there was a lot of hyperbole going on, but I also don't think the press was secretly tenting their fingertips a la Mr. Burns saying "Hee hee, we're telling them that this is the greatest game ever, but we really think it stinks!"
Every single time I've seen someone elaborate on why they think Super Mario 64 is so great, they invariable explain it as "Back in 1996..." or "When the N64 launched..." I stand by my assertion that the circumstances of its release are a big part of the praise it got and continues to get.
So is that why new releases were so slow? Because the system was invented for one particular game?It won't be everyone's cup of tea, but it's hard to deny the effort that was put into the game. Super Mario 64 was the game that the N64 was invented for.
I can't fathom how you were satisfied with one game. I would never, ever buy a system for only one game -- THAT is "doing it wrong", IMO. Variety is the spice of life.So, really, the N64 could have had ONE game at launch and it would've been fine by me. If you were buying the system at launch looking for something else to buy, you were doing it wrong.
It brings to mind that one anti-N64 ad: "Do you want to play, or twiddle your thumbs?" Even if I did love Mario 64, I would still find the N64's launch and aftermath rather pathetic.
But Playstation had a steady stream of releases following, including such notable titles as Doom (by far the best console version at that time), Twisted Metal, WipEout, Warhawk, Destruction Derby, Discworld, Descent, and Jumping Flash!. The Playstation had more good/notable games in its launch-to-Christmas period than N64 had total releases in its corresponding period.In comparison, let's look at the PlayStation's launch with 10 games:
Total Eclipse Turbo
Power Serve Tennis
Street Fighter: The Movie
NBA Jam: Tournament Edition
Battle Arena Toshinden
Ridge Racer
The Raiden Project
Kileak: The DNA Imperative
ESPN ESPN2 Extreme Games
Rayman
First off, pretty much no one still knows/cares about these games, not remotely on the level of Super Mario 64 at least. Second, even as collectors, gamers that are more informed and more willing to try out obscure/forgotten games, how many do you guys think are worth giving a damn about whatsoever in this day and age? I would say only four: Toshinden, Ridge Racer, Raiden, and Rayman. And even though those may be worth picking up for cheap, none of those are remotely worth buying the PlayStation at launch for and spending $360 (even more if you picked up a memory card). I would easily say that the N64 had a far more satisfying launch, and I say this despite being a huge PS1 fan as well.
You're forgetting Clockwork Knight.The Saturn isn't even worth comparing because it only had a whopping ONE more launch release than N64. It had Virtua Fighter, Panzer Dragoon, and Daytona USA. But I'd say that was a more successful launch than the PlayStation's as well since those games are still held in decently high regards.
And actually, although the internet refers to the Saturn's "launch" as being in May, that was officially only a limited prerelease. The Saturn officially launched in September with around 20 games:
This is a screen from a video Sega circulated to promote the Saturn's launch. It is also featured as the intro video on the "Choice Cuts" disc.
(Yeah, I know, "spleen-busting"? Who the hell came up with that?)
Unfortunately I haven't been able to find or compile a concrete list of those 20 games.
But by the end of the year, Saturn had a lot of great games, covering a wide variety of genres. Platform, racing, fighting, strategy, sports, rail shooter, light gun, shmup, adventure, and even a passable RPG. That's more genres than N64 had games.
Last edited by j_factor; 02-03-2011 at 12:03 AM.
One game at a time. Super Mario 64 lasted a good while. And I don't see how what launch games there were have to do with how good the system was.
Yeah but then there was little else.
It doesn't, I was initially responding to buzz_n64's post that this thread is supposed to be about the N64's launch. So we started talking about the N64's launch.And I don't see how what launch games there were have to do with how good the system was.
Then I don't think you've seen many people elaborating on their fondness of Super Mario 64. What about all the kids out there that love Super Mario 64 or the DS version of it that weren't even born yet in 1996? What about the kids that were way too young to experience or remember the launch? What about latecomers, like collectors around here that didn't bother to get a N64 until much past the launch or even past the end of the N64? What about all the Player's Choice copies that continued to sell long past the launch and hype machine?
There are so many people that love Super Mario 64 without knowing anything of its launch. And even if one makes mention of the launch, who's to say that the hype or limited selection of N64 games "tainted" their perspective of the game? It's a historically significant game, so it's worth talking about its history. It was also mind-blowing for many gamers that had never seen or experienced anything quite like it. It really was the first of its kind. No attempt at something resembling a 3D platformer prior to that was even in the same ballpark.
I never said anything about buying the system for only that game, but I think every system-buying decision should have that one catalyst game that makes the initial purchase and playing worthwhile. I wouldn't be sold on just being promised a variety of good games. I want one AMAZING game first and foremost. Then picking up more quality games afterwords is icing on the cake (quite literally in the case of Mario 64 given its ending, heh). Maybe some rich folk out there will buy a system at launch and buy a whole assortment of games at the same time, but I always start with just one.I can't fathom how you were satisfied with one game. I would never, ever buy a system for only one game -- THAT is "doing it wrong", IMO. Variety is the spice of life.
Well, you have to pick your argument here. You can't specifically talk about the N64's launch, saying that it sucked because it only had two releases, and then excuse the PlayStation's launch day by bringing up what followed. If you're going to play that game, then others have already spoken of the solid titles that were available in the N64's first few months.It brings to mind that one anti-N64 ad: "Do you want to play, or twiddle your thumbs?" Even if I did love Mario 64, I would still find the N64's launch and aftermath rather pathetic.
But Playstation had a steady stream of releases following, including such notable titles as Doom (by far the best console version at that time), Twisted Metal, WipEout, Warhawk, Destruction Derby, Discworld, Descent, and Jumping Flash!. The Playstation had more good/notable games in its launch-to-Christmas period than N64 had total releases in its corresponding period.
In my own experience, Super Mario 64 kept me busy for a good month or two, then I had Pilotwings 64, which kept me busy until Cruis'n USA, and that kept me busy until Mario Kart 64, and so on. While I played a smattering of late SNES releases in 96/97 also, the rate of releases was good enough for me.
Also, even if we take those later PlayStation games into consideration that you've listed, those games still aren't remembered on remotely the same level as Super Mario 64 (or even Wave Race 64). In fact, I'd argue that a few of those are pretty bad, despite what popularity they had at the time. Most of those are regarded as aging pretty badly (which, to me, is another way of saying that the hype wore off). Jumping Flash! is the only one that collectors still want to play now in 2011 for the most part. Maybe the competition from the N64 was good for PlayStation since I don't think it really came into its own until '97 and later. As much as I love collecting longbox games, there's not a lot still worth playing in that set, and I think the playing habits of others PS1 collectors similarly skew toward the jewel case releases.
Actually, I have.
Do you have regular conversations with young children about games? I don't.What about all the kids out there that love Super Mario 64 or the DS version of it that weren't even born yet in 1996? What about the kids that were way too young to experience or remember the launch?
I'm not hearing anything from people in that group who were crazy about the game, or seeing any in-depth write-ups of their opinions. The few people I've talked to who didn't play the game until much later didn't like it all that much.What about latecomers, like collectors around here that didn't bother to get a N64 until much past the launch or even past the end of the N64? What about all the Player's Choice copies that continued to sell long past the launch and hype machine?
Show me some, then.There are so many people that love Super Mario 64 without knowing anything of its launch.
This is exactly what I'm talking about -- people talk about it as a good tech demo or a novel innovation more than they talk about it as an actual game. I give it credit for its achievements, but that doesn't make it actually good.And even if one makes mention of the launch, who's to say that the hype or limited selection of N64 games "tainted" their perspective of the game? It's a historically significant game, so it's worth talking about its history. It was also mind-blowing for many gamers that had never seen or experienced anything quite like it. It really was the first of its kind. No attempt at something resembling a 3D platformer prior to that was even in the same ballpark.
You said it would've been fine by you if it had one game at launch.I never said anything about buying the system for only that game,
I'm not rich, but I've always started with multiple games. No one game is that "amazing" to me. When I bought a Saturn I bought 12 games, a few with the system, the rest within a week or so. When I eventually got a Playstation, it too didn't have to do with any one particular game. Even when I got a Wii at launch, it wasn't for any one game, but because there were 8 or 9 launch games that interested me, plus more in the pipeline.but I think every system-buying decision should have that one catalyst game that makes the initial purchase and playing worthwhile. I wouldn't be sold on just being promised a variety of good games. I want one AMAZING game first and foremost. Then picking up more quality games afterwords is icing on the cake (quite literally in the case of Mario 64 given its ending, heh). Maybe some rich folk out there will buy a system at launch and buy a whole assortment of games at the same time, but I always start with just one.
The N64's launch sucked because it only had two releases, and the N64's immediate post-launch period sucked because it only had an additional six. Playstation had a so-so launch but a great post-launch period. That's hardly contradictory.Well, you have to pick your argument here. You can't specifically talk about the N64's launch, saying that it sucked because it only had two releases, and then excuse the PlayStation's launch day by bringing up what followed.
Just Wave Race, really. The others are a good example of what I was talking about with N64 games being overrated due to the lack of other games available. Shadows of the Empire is dreck, but many N64 owners convinced themselves it was good.If you're going to play that game, then others have already spoken of the solid titles that were available in the N64's first few months.
The rate of releases was good enough if everybody all plays the same games. There's a dearth of options. With N64, if you didn't like Mario 64, you were kind of screwed. There was no one Playstation game that everyone had to like, to appreciate the system.In my own experience, Super Mario 64 kept me busy for a good month or two, then I had Pilotwings 64, which kept me busy until Cruis'n USA, and that kept me busy until Mario Kart 64, and so on. While I played a smattering of late SNES releases in 96/97 also, the rate of releases was good enough for me.
Yeah, because they were all in competition with each other, whereas Mario 64 was virtually the only gig in town. None of those games was played by every Playstation owner, because they had a good number of options. Mario 64 was played by almost every N64 owner, at least in that early period.Also, even if we take those later PlayStation games into consideration that you've listed, those games still aren't remembered on remotely the same level as Super Mario 64 (or even Wave Race 64).
Moreover, I would much rather have 12 games that aren't remembered on the same level, but are nevertheless fun, than two games that are supposedly better.
Nonsense. The only game on there that's like that is Twisted Metal. The others are still great. Although I prefer the Saturn version of WipEout.In fact, I'd argue that a few of those are pretty bad, despite what popularity they had at the time. Most of those are regarded as aging pretty badly (which, to me, is another way of saying that the hype wore off). Jumping Flash! is the only one that collectors still want to play now in 2011 for the most part.
You can't have it both ways. How about contributing something meaningful to this topic instead making yourself look foolish?
Anyway,
Not to sound like an N64 fanboy (hell, one of my favorite games I played last year was The Mummy on the Playstation) but did the Playstation have anything remotely like Super Mario 64 at the time? It didn't seem like it to me. If anything developers were jumping the kart racing and party game bandwagon with Crash Bash, Crash Team Racing and the bad Sonic Shuffle because Mario Kart 64 and the Mario Party series were so successful.
Someone once told me Alundra was the Playstation's answer to Ocarina of Time. I haven't played the first one (didn't get into the 2nd one very much) so I don't know if that claim is true.
Has there been a thread on here discussing the best system launch?
Last edited by Doonzmore; 06-21-2015 at 02:09 PM.
That's just a silly cop-out internet-style comeback. I explained to you the types of people that have liked Super Mario 64 without buying it at launch. It's ridiculous to request that someone tracks down a bunch of people to post in a topic just to prove a single logical point that will never be believed by someone who refuses to believe. I bet even if I fulfilled this absurd request you would then say that they're made-up alternate accounts or that the people are lying or something equally ridiculous.
But given the basic fact that the N64 has existed for nearly 15 years, it's only logical that many people have discovered it since Sept. 96. And most of those people still do indeed like Super Mario 64 because negative comments on it are in the minority. You do the research if you feel it necessary. I'm sure there are countless topics right here on Digital Press with people talking about getting a N64 for the first time over the past decade and still enjoying SM64.
That's just ridiculous to me. Tech demo? Novel? If you want to talk about Pilotwings 64 like that, I could understand, but SM64 is all about its gameplay before graphics or anything else. It's loaded with action, puzzles, secrets, etc. When people praise SM64, it's because they like PLAYING it, not just looking at it. If someone doesn't like the gameplay, more power to them, but implying that it doesn't have gameplay at all is going to get scoffs from most people.This is exactly what I'm talking about -- people talk about it as a good tech demo or a novel innovation more than they talk about it as an actual game. I give it credit for its achievements, but that doesn't make it actually good.
And it was. I only bought one, and it kept me happy for a good long while (and through replays as well). That doesn't at all suggest that I wasn't planning on buying more games later on.You said it would've been fine by you if it had one game at launch.
And stuff like Descent and Destruction Derby aren't dreck? If you think games like those are great (especially if you think they're better than SM64), then I just don't know what to say.Just Wave Race, really. The others are a good example of what I was talking about with N64 games being overrated due to the lack of other games available. Shadows of the Empire is dreck, but many N64 owners convinced themselves it was good.
I would argue that someone who doesn't like SM64 probably shouldn't be buying a N64 period. That means you probably would also not appreciate the Banjo games, Conker, Donkey Kong 64, Kirby 64, Rayman 2, Rocket, and so many of the N64's best games. No system is perfect for everybody, even the PlayStation included. I mean, if someone was really looking for 3D platformers, then the PlayStation was pretty crappy. Crash and Spyro are about the most notable ones on the system, and they don't compare to the offerings of Nintendo and Rare (plus they came along after Super Mario 64). I think most people would also agree that a fan of console FPS games was better off with a N64 as well. And if someone likes 2D fighters, I think they're screwed with both the N64 and PlayStation because most of the ones on PlayStation are butchered.The rate of releases was good enough if everybody all plays the same games. There's a dearth of options. With N64, if you didn't like Mario 64, you were kind of screwed. There was no one Playstation game that everyone had to like, to appreciate the system.
But limited options aside, the pre-Christmas releases for N64 did cover platformers, flight sims, racing, fighting, sports, and action/adventure, so it's not like there wasn't a fair amount of genre representation. That's not to say every game was a shining example of its genre, but that was certainly the case with PlayStation as well. I think much of those early popular PlayStation games were only popular because there wasn't anything better. As a result, they've justly been forgotten, as is the case with the N64's Cruis'n USA for example, but games like Super Mario 64 and Wave Race 64 are still loved and played because they're genuinely good games (in most people's eyes, at least). Hype isn't eternal. It can only hide a sub-par game for so long.
I don't think that's a fair argument at this point in time. Those PlayStation games were popular sellers, many were available for cheap as Greatest Hits later on, they're extremely cheap now and easily accessible by collectors. Most PlayStation collectors have at least a couple of those in their collections, and they'll get tried out for 30 minutes and then get shelved. They'd rather be playing genuinely good PlayStation games that are still enjoyable and highly regarded to this day like Metal Gear Solid and Final Fantasy VII. Super Mario 64 is in their company, not junk like the first Twisted Metal.None of those games was played by every Playstation owner, because they had a good number of options.
Anyway, this is getting dangerously close to a system argument, which I don't think any of us want or need. I personally love the 32/64-bit generation in general. I can even appreciate the PC-FX, with its paltry 60-some games and its complete lack of many genres.
First row, Seat 2A to the N64 vs. PSX match. Called it.
I just looked up Alundra on youtube, it's another game to add to my want list. To me it looks better than Ocarina of Time as it's 2D like the older Zelda games, and it's by Working Design which is a good sign.
I agree with you on this, I don't really like 3D platformers that much or console FPS games so that's probably why I don't like the N64 that much. 2D platformers are alright but not 3D.
Um...my saying "they lied" was a direct response to this:
Surely I wasn't the only one to notice that Rob2600 took it upon himself to check every single magazine and website to assure that they ALL uniformly agreed that super mario 64 was the greatest game of all time. He didn't, he made that up and was exaggerating.....just like I was exaggerating when I said all those magazines lied. But I think that nostalgia and the fact that it was one of the only two launch games actually lead to it's early praise and high scores but thats just my opinion. I have played the game but didn't enjoy it.I wouldn't say it sucked, considering one of those two games was hailed as the greatest video game of all time by every magazine and web site.
ALL HAIL THE 1 2 P
I would say Alundra is more the PlayStation's answer to A Link to the Past, haha. A 2D overhead game can't capture the same feel as a 360 degree 3D adventure (not that one is inherently better than the other). Great game, though, and definitely taking after Zelda. It's a nice alternative for anyone that wasn't sold on the 3D transition for Zelda (as small as their numbers may be).
I'm not sure if PlayStation has anything quite like Ocarina of Time. People compared it to stuff like the Tomb Raider games and Soul Reaver, but I think those are different in significant ways. I wouldn't blame a PlayStation developer for trying to avoid taking Zelda head on, though. It would inevitably be doomed to be labeled as a cheap rip-off and ran through the coals, even if it was actually a good game when looked at on its own.
I'd say it's not. It's more like Illusion of Gaia on SNES, if anything. And waaaaaaaaaay too many puzzles for my taste, too. I didn't like it.
Yeah, I certainly don't remember any OoT clones on the PS1 or equivalents. OoT was pretty damn great, so I'm not so sure many companies could bring out a game on that level. MJ on the hand, feels like a poor-mans homebrew hack of OoT. It's definitely a love it or hate it game. And I think it stinks. I loved me some Zelda, but I wasn't that hard up of a Zelda freak to enjoy that game (funny, cause I've enjoyed pretty much every other Zelda game that came before and came out since).I'm not sure if PlayStation has anything quite like Ocarina of Time. People compared it to stuff like the Tomb Raider games and Soul Reaver, but I think those are different in significant ways. I wouldn't blame a PlayStation developer for trying to avoid taking Zelda head on, though. It would inevitably be doomed to be labeled as a cheap rip-off and ran through the coals, even if it was actually a good game when looked at on its own.
Also... SM64 cuts the roof of your mouth!
Last edited by tomaitheous; 02-03-2011 at 08:08 PM.
Tom: That third elephant is so elusive, ya know.
NFG: Elephants are so unpredictable.
Tom: Especially in groups of three.
NFG: Two pairs of three, no less.
This is the truth.
Although, Super Mario 64 was almost worth paying the price of the system alone!
I'm not saying it doesn't have gameplay at all. But the vast majority of what I hear about Mario 64 and why it's so great is everything but the gameplay.
Take, as a quick example, Gamespot's original review. It's a decent length. At no time does he even mention level design. He spends most of the review talking about its "worlds" and how "immersive" it is. This is, in my experience, typical. Super Mario 64: it's not a game, it's an experience.
You really think Descent and Destruction Derby are dreck? You think they're roughly the same quality as Shadows of the Empire?And stuff like Descent and Destruction Derby aren't dreck? If you think games like those are great (especially if you think they're better than SM64), then I just don't know what to say.
They may not be the best games ever, but they were both innovative, and they're both pretty fun. I've never heard anyone blast those games. What didn't you like about them?
This is exactly what makes the N64 weak in my eyes. If you don't like this one game and its clones, then its offerings are pretty limited. Even its fans apparently agree.I would argue that someone who doesn't like SM64 probably shouldn't be buying a N64 period. That means you probably would also not appreciate the Banjo games, Conker, Donkey Kong 64, Kirby 64, Rayman 2, Rocket, and so many of the N64's best games.
And true enough, I don't appreciate most of those games. I do like Rayman 2, but I'd rather play it on Dreamcast.
My preferred 3D platformer on PSX was Ape Escape actually. But I can't argue that it wasn't a great system for the genre. Then again, I think most 3D platformers of that era, including on N64, were pretty sloppy.No system is perfect for everybody, even the PlayStation included. I mean, if someone was really looking for 3D platformers, then the PlayStation was pretty crappy. Crash and Spyro are about the most notable ones on the system, and they don't compare to the offerings of Nintendo and Rare (plus they came along after Super Mario 64).
But that's really the inverse of what I was saying about N64. "You must like X" is a bigger problem than "if you do like X, you won't get it", because most people like more than one or two genres.
That's a close call IMO. For multiplayer, N64 definitely wins, but for someone focused just on single player, the Playstation is probably just as good. I thought the N64 releases of Quake, Doom, and Duke Nukem were all let-downs.I think most people would also agree that a fan of console FPS games was better off with a N64 as well.
Playstation did well with a few, but yeah, anyone who really cared about home versions of 2D fighters would have to go with a Saturn. Which shows you how many people really cared that much about home versions of 2D fighters.And if someone likes 2D fighters, I think they're screwed with both the N64 and PlayStation because most of the ones on PlayStation are butchered.
I'm not really sure what the point is of going down this road. If we kept playing the "if you like genre X" game, N64 would come out looking much worse.
I think it's true that, say, Battle Arena Toshinden has been justly forgotten (and I loathed that game from the very beginning). Ridge Racer and Tekken were both pure hype too. But I think Jumping Flash!, WipEout, Rayman, Discworld, Warhawk, NBA Jam T.E. (though not specifically the PSX version), and yes, even Destruction Derby and Descent, are still fondly remembered. When Warhawk was announced for PS3, a lot of people were excited about it. So the original wasn't forgotten. (And then when it was released, it was a big disappointment, but that's beside the point.)But limited options aside, the pre-Christmas releases for N64 did cover platformers, flight sims, racing, fighting, sports, and action/adventure, so it's not like there wasn't a fair amount of genre representation. That's not to say every game was a shining example of its genre, but that was certainly the case with PlayStation as well. I think much of those early popular PlayStation games were only popular because there wasn't anything better. As a result, they've justly been forgotten, as is the case with the N64's Cruis'n USA for example, but games like Super Mario 64 and Wave Race 64 are still loved and played because they're genuinely good games (in most people's eyes, at least). Hype isn't eternal. It can only hide a sub-par game for so long.
That's not what I was talking about. I used the past tense and you're talking about today. "PlayStation collectors" is a pretty small number of people.I don't think that's a fair argument at this point in time. Those PlayStation games were popular sellers, many were available for cheap as Greatest Hits later on, they're extremely cheap now and easily accessible by collectors. Most PlayStation collectors have at least a couple of those in their collections, and they'll get tried out for 30 minutes and then get shelved. They'd rather be playing genuinely good PlayStation games that are still enjoyable and highly regarded to this day like Metal Gear Solid and Final Fantasy VII. Super Mario 64 is in their company, not junk like the first Twisted Metal.
Also I think most people who got into PSX later in its lifespan (but while it was still around) never bothered to delve into the early games for the system. Probably because there were so many newer games for it. Whereas if you got an N64 in 1999, you'd probably still come around to Super Mario 64, because there were fewer (notable) games in the intervening period.
Now that's just crazy.Anyway, this is getting dangerously close to a system argument, which I don't think any of us want or need. I personally love the 32/64-bit generation in general. I can even appreciate the PC-FX, with its paltry 60-some games and its complete lack of many genres.Although you'd probably think it's just as crazy that I can appreciate the CD32.
CD32 has an excellent library of many UK classics.
OK, all playable on Amiga computer, but still it was nice to play them on CD with extra bits (eg Simon the Sorcerer), then on 120 floppy discs.
Trouble wit Mario 64 I had was that I played that kind of game (3D free roaming) years before on PC, Mac, Amiga and even Jaguar. So I thought...OK Mario 64 groundbreaking? Are those people living under a rock?
Truth is, USA'ers are obsessed with anything Mario and always will be. Nintendo can sell them the same game over and over and over, and USA people lap it up like Apple/Steve Jobs evangelists.
.
Last edited by tom; 02-04-2011 at 02:35 AM.
The N64 might have been a disappointment in the marketplace and a risky platform for 3rd party developers but Nintendo certainly made a pile of PROFIT from the N64 hardware and its 1st and 2nd party games.
Top 10 best selling Nintendo 64 games
Super Mario 64 (11 million)
Mario Kart 64 (8.47 million approximately: 6.23 million in US and PAL region, 2.24 million in Japan)
GoldenEye 007 (8 million)
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (7.6 million)
Super Smash Bros. (4.9 million approximately: 2.93 million in US, 1.97 million in Japan)
Diddy Kong Racing (4.434 million approximately: 3.78 million in US and PAL,653,928 in Japan
Pokémon Stadium (3.871 million approximately: 3.16 million in US, 710,765 in Japan)
Donkey Kong 64 (3.77 million approximately: 2.67 million in US, 1.1 million in Japan)
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask (3.36 million)
Star Fox 64 (3.325 million approximately: 2.76 million in US,565,222 in Japan)
OVERALL SALES OF PSX AND N64 GAMES... note that 4 of the top 10 are N64 titles as is the #1 game
Super Mario 64 (N64 - 11 million)
Gran Turismo (PSX - 10.85 million shipped)
Final Fantasy VII (PSX - 9.8 million, includes Final Fantasy VII International)
Gran Turismo 2 (PSX - 9.37 million shipped)
Mario Kart 64 (N64 - 8.47 million approximately: 6.23 million in US and PAL region,2.24 million in Japan)
GoldenEye 007 (N64 - 8 million)
Tomb Raider II (PSX - 8 million)
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (N64 - 7.6 million)
Metal Gear Solid (PSX - 7 million)
Tomb Raider (PSX - 7 million)
!
Thanks for indulging my gaming habit when I was young, Dad. You were the best. I miss you. ~David Barnes 1926-2007~
More than a decade later, those N64 games (Super Mario 64, Mario Kart 64, Goldeneye 007, and Ocarina of Time) have held up much better than their PlayStation counterparts (Tomb Raider II, Gran Turismo, Metal Gear Solid, and Final Fantasy VII). Those PlayStation games feel very dated now, especially in terms of graphics and load times, whereas those N64 games are still fun and playable and look nice.
Nobody ever has the urge to pop in the old Gran Turismo or Tomb Raider games, but Super Mario 64, Goldeneye, and Ocarina of Time are still played today.
Last edited by Rob2600; 02-04-2011 at 09:38 AM.
Posting Permissions
FTC Disclosure Notices:
This site contains affiliate links for which I may be compensated. As an eBay Partner, I may be compensated if you make a purchase.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Similar agreements apply to other advertising or affiliate programs such as those from Google, etc.
Copyright © 1991 - Present Digital Press. All rights reserved.
Reply With Quote
