The N64 was influential, sure, but it had nothing on the way the PSX changed the gaming industry.
Fact was, companies were tired of Nintendo at the time, with their huge licensing fees and their ability to simply throw their weight around and screw companies over. The PSX started as the SNES CD after all, until Nintendo told Sony they didn’t want to do the add-on anymore and discontinued it, leaving Sony with a working prototype they’d dump shittons of money into, so they developed that prototype into a standalone system.
PSX made CD based systems the standard. It wasn’t the first to use them, but it made them the standard.
Sony also killed the huge licensing fees that Nintendo was charging, which is one (of the many) reason(s) so many developers came to them. It was simply CHEAPER, not only to develop a game for the psx, but because they’d profit more from individual sales.
So yea, N64 had it’s sheer gold (Mario 64 revolutionized platformers, for instance), had its influences, but was nothing on the psx, imo.
It’s worse than that. All five of those games were released in the N64’s first two years. It got so bad that whenever I needed a new game I used to troll the bargain bins for stuff from the first few years that I hadn’t played yet.
The N64 had so few games in its first year that as a 15 year old with no job I was still able to play every game released for the system by either renting it, playing it at a friend’s house or getting it as a birthday/Christmas present.
Well, there have already been some other N64 greats named, and nobody has even touched on Star Fox 64, Jet Force Gemini, Blast Corps, Diddy Kong Racing, Perfect Dark, the Mario Party games, Super Smash Bros., or Legend of Zelda: Majora’s Mask.
And that’s just that AAA titles, not getting into solid games like Mystical Ninja, Snowboard Kids, and Body Harvest.
I’m not saying that the N64’s library had the breadth or overall quality of the PSX library. It obviously didn’t. But a “failed system?”
The CDi is a failed system. The 3D0 is a failed system. The Virtual Boy is a failed system.
The N64 was a solid, innovative, influential system with a library that stands the test of time, even if it isn’t as impressive as that of the monolithic PSX. It also made money for Nintendo.
I can’t believe I forgot Star Fox 64! Best Star Fox game ever.
But I never said “failed system” and I never said it wasn’t influential. All I’m saying is that there were not a lot of all-time great games on the system. The Wii is only two years old and I’d say it already has nearly as many classics as the N64 did.
That’s not even looking at the Xbox 360, which blows away the N64 after only three years and will likely have more AAA games than the PSX by the time it’s all said and done.
I’d say that the first golden age of video games was about 1980-1985, starting with the release of Pac-Man and ending with Tetris. Why do I say this? Because these games persist on cellular phones: they are simple, accessible, and easy to understand in that put-in-a-quarter-and-mash-buttons way.
Similarly, I’d put the start of golden age #2 around 1993 — that’s when Myst came out, and Lemmings started to get big. Accessible games for the masses.
Although I personally like Baldur’s Gate, it’s that Dungeons-and-Dragons aspect that made it much more a niche game. The games above, my parents might play. I think that’s a better yardstick for success.
There’s another video game along the same lines that escapes my brain at the moment.
This is true. I mean, where’s the Wii Cricket game? Where’s a reasonably sophisticated Wii Tennis or * Wii Golf*? The games are very simple and the actual motion-sensor controller is of very little effect in-game. I had a bowling game on my Cellphone about 5 years ago that was almost identical to the Wii Bowling one, minus the motion-sensor remote.
So the Wii Sports games aren’t really “Games” in the sense I think of Computer/Video games nowadays, but they’re not really “Tech Demos” either. Hence, “Software Toys” as the best compromise I can come up with.
Er…I dunno. I’m simply just not up with the Wii to know if there are any “classics” that have even been released yet. All I know is that what has been released that I’ve played are decent at best.
As far as N64 vs Wii games, if we cross off similar titles, (Super Mario, Legend of Zelda, Super Smash Bros., Mario Kart, etc.) look at what’s left:
N64:
Goldeneye & Perfect Dark (pretty much the same game IMO)
Wave Race 64
Shadows of the Empire
Ogre Battle 64 (personal favorite)
Legend of Zelda: Majora’s Mask
Star Fox 64
Wii:
Metroid Prime 3
Fire Emblem
Wii Sports
Zak & Wiki
WiiWare & Virtual Console (I’m cheating by lumping these together, but overall it adds a lot to the Wii’s library and experience.)
I would agree that the Wii has produced as many quality games as the N64 in its short life. However, outside of Wii Sports, Zak & Wiki, and some party games, most of the games are copy-and-pastes of earlier games with some extra polish and waggle. The Wii has its good games because it is just recycling the games that were previously popular (which also includes ports like Resident Evil 4 and Okami). N64 started from scratch by creating 3-D games on a console (where platformers and action/adventures lived) and making it work.
Almost nobody has fully utilized the Wii Remote in an innovative way for a full game experience. And yes, I know I’m just waving away Wii Sports and party games, but I’m looking for something immersive using the Wii Remote (the thing that distinguishes the Wii from the Xbox360 & PS3) and I’m not finding it.
I agree. In its time Mario 3 was revolutionary in a way very few games have ever been. The graphics, scope, depth, etc. were all completely beyond everything else out at the time. Super Mario World, otoh, while a good game, wasn’t a massive step forward in the way Mario 3 was.
I wanna play a FPS where the Wiimote snaps into a zapper-type shell that you hold on your right hand and the nunchuk hangs out by its cord and you hold it on your left hand. You use the gun to aim, shoot, and maybe reload (shoot offscreen.) You use to nunchuk to walk, throw grenades, and pull up the pause menu (which you can navigate with the Wiimote.) Oh and there should be a jump button in there somewhere. Nothing I hate more than games where you can’t jump.
I know; Apocalypso did. I was responding to his claims.
I think comparing the N64 library to the Wii library or whatever is sort of missing the point; the fact that we’re talking about it at all means that the N64 wasn’t a failed system and deserves some credit even against the giant that was the PSX.
Also, Wii Sports is a video game. The single most influential game of this generation, in fact.
I’d say there isn’t, as Wii Sports has pretty much changed the way people look at video games in a way that nothing else on the Wii does (and nothing period on the PS3 and Xbox 360).
But of course, I think that will be a permanent disagreement between us.
I was agreeing. I was obtuse, but I agree. When Microsoft and Sony seriously looked at some kind of motion-sensing controller, you know you’ve got their attention. Unfortunately, I’m just not impressed with the Wii.
How was the N64 an “influential” system? Some reasons have been listed as to why the PSX was considered influential, some of those people claiming that the N64 was influential (as a system), please elaborate. Having some good games does not make a system influential. Nintendo made the N64 notoriously difficult to program for, stubbornly persisted in sticking with an outdated cartridge system (which caused massive shortages of the few games that did sell well), and charged enormous licensing fees, all of which alienated most of their 3rd party developers (like Squaresoft). As a result, Nintendo and Rare seemed to be the only good companies producing decent N64 games, and they sure did trickle out slowly. Hence my opinion that the N64 was a failure, especially given how high they were riding with the SNES.
Ok, I’m not a video game developer, but I don’t think ANY system makes money. I’ve heard from many different sources that consoles cost more to produce than they sell for. After a system has been out for some time (2+ years), the components become cheaper, and the system is usually redesigned so that it costs less to produce, but can still play the same games (although not always, a handful of Genesis games wouldn’t run on specific versions of the console, for instance). At this point the console has a drastic ($100+) drop in price, so you’re still selling them for less than they cost to make. I’ve heard from numerous sources that you lose money on hardware, make it back on software. Possibly this is what you meant, the N64 sold enough software to make up for the money they lost on the hardware?
My $0.02 on the Wii is, you’re not supposed to be impressed with it, not if you’re a gamer. The typical reaction of non gamers to a PS3 or XBOX game is “Holy hell, that looks complicated. That controller has too many buttons on it.” The beauty of the Wii is, non gamers see other people playing it and say “Hey, I could do that. That looks fun”. The games, controls, and graphics are really basic, simple, and designed so people that don’t play games can pick it up and have fun with it. The “real” gamers I know that have Wii’s bought them so they have something they can play with the SO and/or kids. Cause you can’t really play Halo 3 or GTA with your 5 year old, but they can play and understand Wii sports or Lego Batman.
The N64 controller was one of the most influential of all time as it introduced the idea of an analong stick and rumble features.
Super Mario 64 was the first 3D game that got it right. From the camera, to the control to the look of the world. Some companies are still playing catch up to a game that came out 12 years ago. (For comparison, look at Tomb Raider, the other big 3D title of the time. The camera is crap, the controls are clunky and parts of that game are damn ugly.)
If you go back over the N64’s lineup, you’ll find a bunch of games that similarly influenced other games even today (most have been named in this thread already).
I’m sorry, you’re wrong. Consoles not making money is a relatively new phenomenom. The only consoles that have been sold at a loss when they launched were the PS2, Xbox, PS3 and Xbox 360. Every single Wii has made money for Nintendo.
First, the Lego series began on the PS2, not the Wii, so it was obviously built around those “scary” controllers. But second, anyone who believes this just doesn’t understand video games at all. Especially if they’re going to through around a phrase like “real gamers” which is absolutely moronic.
Also considering the fact that the Wii has more power than the Xbox and the PS2, there’s no reason “real” games couldn’t be made on the Wii (and there are plenty, trust me). Unless you’re arguing that “real” games didn’t start until the PS3 and Xbox 360.
I also don’t work in the video game industry, but I think systems do make money after a certain point. The original Xbox was a HUGE loss leader at first, but became profitable after about 2 or 3 years I think (I’ve been a Nintendo person all my life but for some reason I loved, owned, and closely followed the original Xbox.) I remember reading that one of the systems of this generation was designed to make money from day one (Wii, I think), but I’m not sure if it worked out or not.