ABS: Metroid Prime/Metroid Prime 2, MGS: Twin Snakes, RE4, new Zelda,etc. That is some awesome stuff. I know I have more games for my Cube than I did for my N64, and I enjoy them more.
[snapback]35700[/snapback]
N64: Conker's Bad Fur Day. 'Nuff said.
Oh sweetness, Forsaken multiplayer. Only ever got the PC demo, but infected an entire LAN with it for hours on end. Just that much highly condensed awesome in it.
Guns. Hoverbikes. Free 3 dimensional combat. Nuff said.
[snapback]35718[/snapback]
WIN! I think I have that game, but none of the noobs around here want to play it because they just don't get playing in 3 dimensions. They'd rather play Bond, Perfect Dark, or God help us, SuperSmash Brothers.
N64 has doom, turok 2, forsaken (sp was poo but oh the many hours of mp fun I had), duke nukem (more mp mayhem ftw), and some others I can't think of the I've had great fun with. I think turok 2 is my favorite game to this day because of both the interesting twists on classic weapons and inovative new ones I had never seen. *huggles the Cerebral Bore, Firestorm Cannon, Shredder... oh hell I hug them all :p ^_^
[snapback]35712[/snapback]
* shudders
Doom: Straight port... N64 controller or Mouse & Keyboard? I'll take the latter.
Turok 2: My god man what are you smoking? It had some of the clunkiest controls and their resulting movements known to man!
Duke Nukem: As in Duke Nukem 3D port or as in Duke Nukem: Zero Hour? If it's the first then I'll gladly refer you to what I said about Doom 64, if it's the latter then I'll refer you to what I said about Turok 2 (but obviously with a hellovalot less emphasis).
I remember the first time I played Turok 2. First I chose a tank character and decided he was too slow so my friends said to choose a lighter character if I preferred a more agile and responsive playing style. Having done this and not noticed the slightest bit of difference I vowed never to play the game again...
@Legionnaired: If you have the cash buy a set of headphones + mic, no more hearing lil' kiddies arguing over who gets to play as Pink Captain Falcon but more importantly: you'll look the mustard!
Doom: Straight port... N64 controller or Mouse & Keyboard? I'll take the latter.
Turok 2: My god man what are you smoking? It had some of the clunkiest controls and their resulting movements known to man!
Duke Nukem: As in Duke Nukem 3D port or as in Duke Nukem: Zero Hour? If it's the first then I'll gladly refer you to what I said about Doom 64, if it's the latter then I'll refer you to what I said about Turok 2 (but obviously with a hellovalot less emphasis).
I remember the first time I played Turok 2. First I chose a tank character and decided he was too slow so my friends said to choose a lighter character if I preferred a more agile and responsive playing style. Having done this and not noticed the slightest bit of difference I vowed never to play the game again...
[snapback]35741[/snapback]
I, unlike most people seem to be, am not a kboard&mouse whore :p I will full well play an FPS with a controller, I see nothing wrong with it. Hell, I played TFC for about 18 months with a joystick and keyboard and did fairly decent. When I finally decided to try a mouse, my skill plumetted to the ground since I was not used to it.
I never noticed anything wrong with the turok controls, both my brother and I considered them the best console FPS control setup untill Halo came along. Last month I just replayed through the entire game and didn't feel the controls were bad. When I first started it was a bit akward but I think only because I hadn't used an N64 controller in awhile, by the second level I was doing just fine. I also speak of turok singleplayer, multiplayer was not that great and we didn't play it often. (not to mention if 2 or more people fired the Firestorm Cannon the system would lock up :p)
Never played Zero Hour, only watched my brother play it. However the original was great fun with multiplayer, we would sit for hours on end playing it.
Oh and a final comment I have on the mouse/controller FPS debate, I will stand by this argument forever that controllers/joysticks are ten thousand times better at tracking moving targets with sniper rifles or other such things. You just can't steadily track with a mouse.
Intensity you nub :p One of the forum mods noticed we were derailing legion's thread with this discussion, and thusly split the thread.
It's not an accident nor something to be deleted :p
[snapback]35773[/snapback]
Oh. I'm so slow to catch onto things...heh I'm a nub
controller is horrible for FPS. even halo aiming with a sniper or such is a pita and i never do it. and please don't bring up the comment "you just need to pratice with it" its just doesn't flow as well as a mouse. expecialy if your trying to do alot of things at once, like move, aim, fire, jump etc on a controller its just annoying. and i hate those buttons where you have to push down the joystick.
[snapback]35778[/snapback]
I thought the N64 controller was the best for FPS games. I know it worked well in GoldenEye and Turok 2. Turok 2 is a good game, except the 64 can't handle it that well.
controller is horrible for FPS. even halo aiming with a sniper or such is a pita and i never do it. and please don't bring up the comment "you just need to pratice with it" its just doesn't flow as well as a mouse. expecialy if your trying to do alot of things at once, like move, aim, fire, jump etc on a controller its just annoying. and i hate those buttons where you have to push down the joystick.
[snapback]35778[/snapback]
It's not as bad as everyone seems to make it out to be. I think it might just be a person-to-person issue of how their mind works. I can use a controller pretty good and often snipewhored in Halo, even with the pistol when it had the 2x zoom in the first game.
It's not as bad as everyone seems to make it out to be. I think it might just be a person-to-person issue of how their mind works. I can use a controller pretty good and often snipewhored in Halo, even with the pistol when it had the 2x zoom in the first game.
[snapback]35826[/snapback]
Yeah but that's because most people were playing with the same controller. I'm pretty willing to lay down a bet that a mouse and keyboard would own anyone using a N64 pad. Gamepads are getting better but they've still some way to go to compete with a keyboard and 5 button optical mouse with mousewheel.
Wasn't there some SEGA Dreamcast game that got released on PC and then all the guys playing via DC got seriously pwned?
Actually while ago I got some xbox controller drives and fiddled for awhile to get everything setup for using an xbox controller with usb patchcord for HL and mods. I didn't try it very long as I soon forgot about it untill today, but it seemed to make my skulking better. Not sure why, but I think it may have been because I could move more randomly and confuse the marines... maybe I'll have to mess with it some more.
[snapback]35829[/snapback]
Omg, now people will start complaing about people using an Xbox controller for NS. :p
[...]Wasn't there some SEGA Dreamcast game that got released on PC and then all the guys playing via DC got seriously pwned?
[snapback]35828[/snapback]
Iirc, it's the other way around: Q3: Arena got released on DC, and one of the older patches is compatible with the DC version. So people would apply the old patch to a fresh install, then go hunting for compatible servers, which were likely to be filled with DC players, also known as victims. Much carnage ensued.
YOU DARE SPEAK POORLY OF MARIO 64? The game was amazing!
I'm not saying its better or worse then SMB3, but it ruled.
Zelda:OoT may be the best game ever.
[snapback]36139[/snapback]
Now, i'll forgive such blasphemy due to the fact you were only about 2-3 years old when Zelda 3 come out for the SNES.
Zelda: A Link To The Past is the best Zelda game, bar none, if anyone says otherwise, they're most likely mentally handicapped, and you shouldn't be ridiculing them. Also, Mario 3 and Super Mario World are by FAR the best Mario games ever released, Mario 64, Mario Sunshine are cheap knock-offs.
Nintendo went downhill with the N64, it was an apalling console, but in the GC they made up for it, there's some pretty decent games and it's a relatively cheap console too.
goldeneye
[snapback]35758[/snapback]
You've got to be kidding.
The GC is a great console. If we compare it only to the N64 and no other console, it completely obliterates it. Graphics are crisp and clear, the selection of games, if you're a fan of Nintendo, is great and it's actually rather cheap.
[snapback]36274[/snapback]
However, you gotta compare them in their own time using things that don't change with time. Obviously the newer system's graphics will be better, so that is a moot point. They were also priced about the same.
goldeneye
[snapback]35758[/snapback]
The Best Game Ever Made. Ever.
The Cube is good but if you compare how the N64 was back in its day to how the Game Cube is now, the N64 wins hands down.
The N64 was THE console system, there was no other...I sometimes would hear bits and pieces in dark alleyways about something called a "playstaon" or "playsatton" or something like that, but I don't think anything existed that could compete with the N64 back then.
Anyone who disagrees is crazy and on drugs and should be locked up as quickly as possible so they don't spread their odd brain consuming disease to others.
That or they we're beaten severely by a small Japanese man wielding a N64 controller...which is by far the best controller ever made...but that’s another story.
ah we used to play 4 player goldeneye with remote mines or assault weapons for hours at a time.
then we went to perfect dark and the slayer "guide the rocket into their face from across the map" gun. B)
i remember trying to see how many perfect sims i could take all vs me.
damn that was fun ^^.
[snapback]36461[/snapback]
That game was almost perfect save for the rediculously broken farsight.
Shoots through all walls ever with a built in wallhack and enemy-finder. Just plain stupid.
ah we used to play 4 player goldeneye with remote mines or assault weapons for hours at a time.
then we went to perfect dark and the slayer "guide the rocket into their face from across the map" gun. B)
i remember trying to see how many perfect sims i could take all vs me.
damn that was fun ^^.
[snapback]36461[/snapback]
Goldeneye was a great game and perfect dark was an increadible pass of the torch (ask me about chinese breakout). But I need more than two hands to count playstation titles that were absolutly amazing or more. 64 had some increadible material, I mean OoT, Conkers, Goldeneye, Mario, and definatly smash bro's but simply the fact that niether square nor capcom made them a single game instantly cursed the position of that console to infinately below what the SNES had been the generation before. I must have beaten at least 20 golden SNES titles that I would feel less of a person having known they existed but never played them. Playstation is at least an equal share in the goodness of gaming from the middle console period.
Console gaming is in a sickly state this day and age. No doubt there is a few brilliant titles, Halo Series, Gran Tourismo 3, RE: Remake, and a few others. But honestly the best thing about the PS2 is that it can play old playstation games, and the market is being continuously flooded with tech demo style games that forsake story and/or gameplay for the flashy things that can be done graphically, and a continuing stream of fancy looking surface deep sequals that don't hold a candle to thier predicessors that are honestly starting to make me belive that a good section of the game series out there have really outlived thier longevity. It's tragic when it comes to the point that final fantacy feels definitively sold out, or the mario series can't claim innovation, and don't get me started on the pit the RE games have dug themself into with thier newfound gamecube love. Even windwaker couldn't touch the original feel you got from LTTP and later OoT, and the Tekken games have stagnated beyond the point where they are still intersting. This even runs to the depth of the lesser known series... I mean Front Mission Four had greatly improved graphics and some really nice gameplay innovations, but a story that was reminicint of pulling toenails! Tragic to say the least!
The best games of this console generation can be counted on one hand per console, and then after that you are forced to settle for mounds of medicorly good, but certianly not great titles. This is a far cry down from the status the last generation held with each console running close to at least 10 compleatly stellar titles, and a tragidy compared to the generation before, so flooded with quality console material that I literally forget half the absolutly increadible games when I try to list them.
Sorry to burst your bubble Reasa, but the Playstation judiciously applied the SMAQ™ to the N64 with its PIMP HAND. There is simply no question about not only which system was more successful, but which system was, quite objectively, BETTER.
And don't get me started on the N64 controller and its "don't touch me! Don't even LOOK at me! I'll break!" analog stick.
I can only presume that you were kidding. Note: Sarcasm doesn't carry well over the internet.
[snapback]36427[/snapback]
Oh I was being quite serious.
First off it has the better graphics of the two, which wouldn't mean anything if it's games sucked, but fortunately Nintendo wins hands down in the games category.
Sure Playstation wins in the quantity department but if you want quality look no further then the 64.
I could swear Playstation put out 3 games a day, each one more bland and crappy then the last, unlike Nintendo who just so happens to hold all the winning titles from that era of gaming. Where’s Playsation’s Golden eye or Perfect Dark?
Do they have anything that can match Mario 64 or Super Smash Brothers?
Hell even as the Game Cube was coming out they released one of their best games: Paper Mario.
Ack the Playsation controller felt like a dead 3 month old fetus in my hands, with two crappy joysticks stuck in it, not to mention the 17 stupid buttons in the back.
Worst. Controller. Ever. Maybe you had a bargain bin generic N64 controller because I still have my first one and the joystick works fine.
I know it's hard to admit that your favorite system was a miserable mistake that was horriblely schooled by a far superior one, but you must make the effort.
Archi, you missed Wind Waker, another fairly decent offering of Zelda goodness to the GC.
And no Isamil, i hated OoT, it was boring, didn't "feel" like Zelda and it looked like ass. By this time i was already hating my N64. Actually, by the time i was halfway through Mario 64 i was about ready to take the POS back and buy something decent.
I'm a child of the Spectrum, NES and SNES, not these new fangled X-ey Boxeys or Game Squares, and whilst the elitist "Older is better" attitude may seem a bit annoying, it's also very true, well, in the case of the older console franchises like Mario, Zelda, Sonic, Contra, it's very true at least.
[snapback]36323[/snapback]
"OoT looked like ass"
.....Right..sadly I don't think thats a joke
Yes esuna when you add another dimension to a game its going to be differant. I'm not saying one is better then the other, but really, how can you say that OoT sucked when you liked the old ones. It was an amazing game, I played through it twice(played through it once, it was my first time, the made another game and played it again) in one week.
LF for one remember the N64 joystick was new, it hadn't been done before. The only problem I've had with the joystick is it sets its center as somewhere else, but restarting the N64 fixed that.
[...]I know it's hard to admit that your favorite system was a miserable mistake that was horriblely schooled by a far superior one, but you must make the effort.
[snapback]36523[/snapback]
Indeed. So when will you own up and admit that the N64, by any measure that actually COUNTS, not by personal opinion, was a failure? The Playstation was not only the far more popular system of the two, it also sold far better. So much, in fact, that Nintendo had to save themselves from bankruptcy by shamelessly whoring the Pokemon franchise, something that they pulled off with great success. In fact, hadn't it been for "Gotta Catch 'em All!" in one million variants (and remember, you gotta catch all variants!), Nintendo would've either disappeared or been bought out.
In the age and day of increasing filesizes, Nintendo persisted in using the dated cartridge system. Cartridges, while allowing for blindingly fast/non-existant loading times and internal saving, were far more expensive to produce than CDs and had woefully little capacity. Especially the latter one severely hampered developers as they constantly fought against the 256 Mbit size limit (that's a meager 32 megabytes, folks. Compare that to a CD). Case example: FFVII. With I-don't-how-much-time of FMV, not to mention a very long game in full 3D, it would have been not only impossible, but unthinkable to fit it on a single 32 megabyte cartridge. It came on four CDs. You could've split it among several cartridges, but the manufacturing cost of all those cartridges (each far more expensive and substantially smaller than a CD) would have boosted the price of the game to astronomic heights. Try splitting four CDs among 32 MB cartridges. How big were CDs back then? 620 MB? 630 MB? Let's say 600 MB, for the benefit of a doubt. And furthermore, the fourth CD was probably not full. So let's say just three CDs. So, 600 x 3 / 32 = 56.25
Yep. FFVII for the N64 would have come on 56 cartridges. No wonder it was never ported.
The great games of the Playstation, off the top of my head, were definitely FFVII, VIII and IX. A franchise that nintendo, to their everlasting regret, allowed to slip out of their hands, if only for a while. But a few blockbusters a great system do not make, another shortcoming of the N64: It had a few great titles, but that's it. With the literally THOUSANDS of titles that the Playstation had, you were bound to find something that satisfied.
I know a few console enthusiasts myself, although I am not one. Even they agree that the N64 was not a very good system, although they of course all own one. In its time, the Playstation was quite simply the better investment for those that could only afford one console, just like the PS2 today (although it's beginning to show its age).
As a finishing note, I'll briefly touch the Dreamcast, a system that should have schooled both Playstation and N64. It was, quite simply, the next console generation. It was a more powerful system. Chalk it up to bad marketing and the fact that it was the ONLY console of its generation, with the PS2 being one generation above, and severely outperforming it. The Dreamcast, unlike the N64, lost because of bad marketing (something that Sega has never been good at, a game they have ROUTINELY lost against their old arch-nemesis Nintendy), not because the opposition was better.
[...]I know it's hard to admit that your favorite system was a miserable mistake that was horriblely schooled by a far superior one, but you must make the effort.
[snapback]36523[/snapback]
Try splitting four CDs among 32 MB cartridges. How big were CDs back then? 620 MB? 630 MB? Let's say 600 MB, for the benefit of a doubt. And furthermore, the fourth CD was probably not full. So let's say just three CDs. So, 600 x 3 / 32 = 56.25
Yep. FFVII for the N64 would have come on 56 cartridges. No wonder it was never ported.
[snapback]36591[/snapback]
Wewt, it would be 57 cartridges of goodness.
As a finishing note, I'll briefly touch the Dreamcast, a system that should have schooled both Playstation and N64. It was, quite simply, the next console generation. It was a more powerful system. Chalk it up to bad marketing and the fact that it was the ONLY console of its generation, with the PS2 being one generation above, and severely outperforming it. The Dreamcast, unlike the N64, lost because of bad marketing (something that Sega has never been good at, a game they have ROUTINELY lost against their old arch-nemesis Nintendy), not because the opposition was better.
[snapback]36591[/snapback]
Dream cast also was the only system of that generation that looked like one of the consoles of this generation... Lots of eye candy but very few quality titles.
[/quote]
Dream cast also was the only system of that generation that looked like one of the consoles of this generation... Lots of eye candy but very few quality titles.
[snapback]36649[/snapback]
[/quote]
Excuse me?
Sorry but the dreamcast had won many awards for it's "few quality titles" even after they stopped making the system. It put out good (:Ding GREAT) games faster than any of the current systems. Also the first to dabble in online play. While it wasn't great this so called crappy machine pushed microsoft to eventually create xbox live. So lets watch our dreamcast bashing k?
Dream cast also was the only system of that generation that looked like one of the consoles of this generation... Lots of eye candy but very few quality titles.
[snapback]36649[/snapback]
[/quote]
Excuse me?
Sorry but the dreamcast had won many awards for it's "few quality titles" even after they stopped making the system. It put out good (:Ding GREAT) games faster than any of the current systems. Also the first to dabble in online play. While it wasn't great this so called crappy machine pushed microsoft to eventually create xbox live. So lets watch our dreamcast bashing k?
[snapback]36659[/snapback]
[/quote]
When I say 'quality title', I mean one that stands out in your memory for the rest of time... a title that leaves you guessing what will be next the whole way through, not criticizing what the developers could have done better. Titles such as Mario 3, Chrono trigger, Final fantasy 7, or even games like Gran Tourismo, which just provide endless hours of stunning gameplay on a simple concept. I realize my definition may be harsh, but that is where I stand.
Games are still winning awards today, but I haven't seen a game that I would call a quality title in todays console market since Final Fantasy X and RE:Remake generation of games came out, (with the possible exception of Halo2, which I haven't really played enough to judge fairly). Graphics always win awards, but they very VERY rarely rectify bad gameplay or plot when you acctually put time into a game.
Argue that point and I may concede a few titles I have forgotten off the top of my head, but the point still stands, todays market is no where near as saturated as the PS/N64 market was.
I never actually had a Dreamcast... It is all entirely possible that there were several quality titles for it, the point stands however that N64 and PS were both flooded with increadible titles thier entire duration, and it is difficult to compeate in a market that claims dominance like that.
It's the same reason the genisis could never beat out the SNES, the developer roster that Nintendo had at that point was ironclad.
I never actually had a Dreamcast... It is all entirely possible that there were several quality titles for it, the point stands however that N64 and PS were both flooded with increadible titles thier entire duration, and it is difficult to compeate in a market that claims dominance like that.
[snapback]36728[/snapback]
Ahem.
AHAHA*snip*
The PSX was, yes, but to claim that the N64 did is probably one of the funniest jokes i've ever heard. I'm gonna tell that joke to my friends tonight, we'll have a great time laughing about it together!
I would say the N64 died on it's feet, but it didn't, only with titles like Goldeneye, OoT and Mario 64 did it even manage to raise it's head out of the gutter for a brief period. The N64 just stopped selling, the games weren't selling, and they just weren't making quality games that appealled to the market. The PSX offered games for any and all tastes and ages, and the games were bigger, brighter, longer and boasted much higher quality than the N64 could ever offer, due to previously mentioned hardware and media limitations. Stop looking at the console with rose tinted glasses, it was technologically retarded and had a mere handful of half-decent titles.
The Dreamcast, on the other hand, was a pity. It is, without a doubt, one of the best consoles ever created. I'm talking right up there with the SNES. It was cheap, had a wide range of games (similar to the PSX's lineup), it was technically superior to anything else at the time (internet play supported, etc), and it was, on the whole, an excellent console. It just didn't sell. I'm not sure if it was because of the Saturn which came before it, but it really just didn't sell, and that was a massive shame. In all respects, the Dreamcast SHOULD have sold, it just didn't.
And finally, yes, OoT did look like ass. It lost all the style of previous Zelda games, it was also very flat, very boring looking, and was generally a huge let down. It's taken until Wind Waker for them to actually get anywhere near back to where they used to be with Zelda. In regards to both visuals and story, everything between Wind Waker and Link To The Past has been a huge disappointment to me.
And finally finally, if you never played Zelda 1-4 (Zelda 1-2, Link To The Past, Link's Awakening), your opinion on zelda is null and void. To be honest, you don't deserve an opinion on Zelda without playing any of the best games in the series. :)
[...]One of my friends had a lot of pirates and his DC broke before mine admittedly[...]
[snapback]36881[/snapback]
This just REEKS of justice.
Also, I've noticed that Reasa hasn't posted in here since I handed him the proverbial smackdown. Reasa, I'm sorry for shattering your world, but life goes on after N64. Now get out of bed and pull yourself together. Crying into your pillow isn't going to help.
Let's see if such cruel taunts won't beat a little fighting spirit back into that man.
Also, I've noticed that Reasa hasn't posted in here since I handed him the proverbial smackdown. Reasa, I'm sorry for shattering your world, but life goes on after N64. Now get out of bed and pull yourself together. Crying into your pillow isn't going to help.
Let's see if such cruel taunts won't beat a little fighting spirit back into that man.
[snapback]36986[/snapback]
Well I was just going to ignore that lunatic rant you so ignorantly labeled as a "smack down", however I am now forced to show you the error of you ways, although I doubt I can do little to lift the veil of inanity from your eyes.
In the age and day of increasing filesizes, Nintendo persisted in using the dated cartridge system. Cartridges, while allowing for blindingly fast/non-existant loading times and internal saving, were far more expensive to produce than CDs and had woefully little capacity. Especially the latter one severely hampered developers as they constantly fought against the 256 Mbit size limit (that's a meager 32 megabytes, folks. Compare that to a CD). Case example: FFVII. With I-don't-how-much-time of FMV, not to mention a very long game in full 3D, it would have been not only impossible, but unthinkable to fit it on a single 32 megabyte cartridge. It came on four CDs. You could've split it among several cartridges, but the manufacturing cost of all those cartridges (each far more expensive and substantially smaller than a CD) would have boosted the price of the game to astronomic heights. Try splitting four CDs among 32 MB cartridges. How big were CDs back then? 620 MB? 630 MB? Let's say 600 MB, for the benefit of a doubt. And furthermore, the fourth CD was probably not full. So let's say just three CDs. So, 600 x 3 / 32 = 56.25
Yep. FFVII for the N64 would have come on 56 cartridges. No wonder it was never ported.
You should be giving them credit for those cartridges after you finished belittling their capabilities. You seem to forget that all the best console games of the era on crammed onto those outdated cartridges. Maybe if Playstation hadn't been cranking out games quicker then the Bush family makes kids they could put up a few pegs on the winners section. I won't argue that the CD's were certainly more efficient and definitely the wave of the future, but N64 wasn't meant to work into the future it was meant to be retired and replaced by a new system that could compete with all the other new systems, as it was. Makes me wonder, with all this extra space and capabilities, why do so many of the games for Playstation look like they were thrown together in a basement by a crack addict looking for some quick cash?
The great games of the Playstation, off the top of my head, were definitely FFVII, VIII and IX. A franchise that nintendo, to their everlasting regret, allowed to slip out of their hands, if only for a while. But a few blockbusters a great system do not make, another shortcoming of the N64: It had a few great titles, but that's it. With the literally THOUSANDS of titles that the Playstation had, you were bound to find something that satisfied.
Funny how you say that Playstation had thousands of titles but I haven’t seen you mention a game that doesn’t have the words Final or Fantasy and some Roman numerals. Personally I found those games to be not allot of fun and rather boring, and I wish someone would just put a bullet in the damn thing already before they hit XVI. Certainly there are just as many, if not more, of these Final Fantasy games as their are Pokemon, of course because Nintendo also puts the same genius into its advertising as it does into its games, so we know how successful that was.
I'll give you that the Playstation is the better system...on paper, and perhaps a smarter much more creative company could have worked wonders with it, but as things stand it remains nothing more then a small stain on the N64's golden era.
[size=8]You started it. :p [/size]
but as things stand it remains nothing more then a small stain on the N64's 5 minutes of (semi-)fame.
[snapback]37024[/snapback]
Edited for accuracy.
but as things stand it remains nothing more then a small stain on the N64's 5 minutes of (semi-)fame.
[snapback]37024[/snapback]
Edited for accuracy.
[snapback]37025[/snapback]
Provided those 5 minutes encompass from the moment of the N64's release till the announcement of the Game Cube. Also provided that you know very little about the subject and got lost in the forums and accidentally clicked on this topic, therefore making your claim of semi-fame irrelevant, then yes I suppose your information can then be considered accurate.
but as things stand it remains nothing more then a small stain on the N64's 5 minutes of (semi-)fame.
[snapback]37024[/snapback]
Edited for accuracy.
[snapback]37025[/snapback]
Provided those 5 minutes encompass from the moment of the N64's release till the announcement of the Game Cube. Also provided that you know very little about the subject and got lost in the forums and accidentally clicked on this topic, therefore making your claim of semi-fame irrelevant, then yes I suppose your information can then be considered accurate.
[snapback]37027[/snapback]
All the way through to the gamecube? Hah! The N64 was dead long before then. You're kidding nobody but yourself by your repeated claims that the N64 is God's gift to consoles. You have to consider here that Nintendo were following on from 2 of the most highly acclaimed consoles of all gaming history, the NES and SNES, a tough act to follow, and they very nearly ended up in ruins because of it.
Compare this to the PSX, released in 1994 (Japan release), up until the very minute the PS2 was released in 2001, there were still games coming out for it, hell, they even released and sold games AFTER it was made redundant by it's bigger brother. That's 7 years it lasted, how long did the N64 last? Released in 1996 and, yes, they released games until the GC's release (November 2001), although they were mediocre (See: Conker's bad fur day and Madden 2002), only about 4-5 games were released in the entire YEAR of 2001, also, only one game was released in the latter half of 2001. The N64 was essentially dead on it's feet by late 1999. Now i can name 3 PSX releases that happened after the PS2's release (FF Origins, FF Anthology, FFVI), how many games were released after the GC's release? Oh, that's right, none.
In the history of major console disasters, the N64 is right in there, alongside the Jaguar, MegaCD, Sega Saturn and the Lynx.
The playstation was decent, it had the FF games, and it had Metal Gear and it had uh...yeah
But the N64 had stuff such as Mario 64, Zelda OoT and Goldeneye.
[snapback]37028[/snapback]
This pretty much proves you just think the N64 is better because you never played the PSX during it's prime, because it had a LOT MORE good games than just FF and Metal Gear.
Basically what it boils down to is that the style of games on both systems were very different. The PSX's main appeal was RPGs and survival horror games, not counting the slew of other types that were available. If you think the RPG selection stops at Final Fantasy you are HORRIBLY mistaken; just check the list on Gamefaqs. Great games on this system range from classic RPGs to action-fests like Twisted Metal 2. And let's not forget the masterpiece that is Castlevania: Symphony of the Night.
The N64 was platformers, FP/3rd person shooters and party games. Nintendo and Rare were almost the only companies producing decent games for the system, the rest of them were mainly crap. Notable exceptions are Body Harvest (Brought to us by Rockstar) and Space Station: Silicon Valley (Which, after checking just now, turns out to ALSO be by Rockstar).
I hate to bring age in a debate like this, but it's appropriate right now: Isamil, you defend the N64 because it's the system you grew up with. It's no wonder you're biased for it. If anyone tried to take a dump on my precious SNES you can be sure I wouldn't let it fly. Then again, I'd have the advantage of defending a console that really WAS good!
All the way through to the gamecube? Hah! The N64 was dead long before then. You're kidding nobody but yourself by your repeated claims that the N64 is God's gift to consoles. You have to consider here that Nintendo were following on from 2 of the most highly acclaimed consoles of all gaming history, the NES and SNES, a tough act to follow, and they very nearly ended up in ruins because of it.
Compare this to the PSX, released in 1994 (Japan release), up until the very minute the PS2 was released in 2001, there were still games coming out for it, hell, they even released and sold games AFTER it was made redundant by it's bigger brother. That's 7 years it lasted, how long did the N64 last? Released in 1996 and, yes, they released games until the GC's release (November 2001), although they were mediocre (See: Conker's bad fur day and Madden 2002), only about 4-5 games were released in the entire YEAR of 2001, also, only one game was released in the latter half of 2001. The N64 was essentially dead on it's feet by late 1999. Now i can name 3 PSX releases that happened after the PS2's release (FF Origins, FF Anthology, FFVI), how many games were released after the GC's release? Oh, that's right, none.
In the history of major console disasters, the N64 is right in there, alongside the Jaguar, MegaCD, Sega Saturn and the Lynx.
[snapback]37029[/snapback]
Could you please show me how the N64 "nearly put them in ruins"?
Also one of the best games for the N64 was released after the Game Cube: Paper Mario, which I have yet to hear a bad word spoken of.
I'm not quite sure what you’re getting at here, you claim the 64 was a horrible system that nearly ruined Nintendo then you offer nothing to back up your claims other then "They didn't release enough games after their new system came out".
Could you please show me how the N64 "nearly put them in ruins"?
Also one of the best games for the N64 was released after the Game Cube: Paper Mario, which I have yet to hear a bad word spoken of.
I'm not quite sure what you’re getting at here, you claim the 64 was a horrible system that nearly ruined Nintendo then you offer nothing to back up your claims other then "They didn't release enough games after their new system came out".
[snapback]37036[/snapback]
You are coooooooooompletely wrong about Paper Mario. It came out during the N64's lifetime; the end of it, sure, but still part of it. You're confusing it with it's sequel, Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, that was released recently. I won't deny them both being fantastic games, though.
All the way through to the gamecube? Hah! The N64 was dead long before then. You're kidding nobody but yourself by your repeated claims that the N64 is God's gift to consoles. You have to consider here that Nintendo were following on from 2 of the most highly acclaimed consoles of all gaming history, the NES and SNES, a tough act to follow, and they very nearly ended up in ruins because of it.
Compare this to the PSX, released in 1994 (Japan release), up until the very minute the PS2 was released in 2001, there were still games coming out for it, hell, they even released and sold games AFTER it was made redundant by it's bigger brother. That's 7 years it lasted, how long did the N64 last? Released in 1996 and, yes, they released games until the GC's release (November 2001), although they were mediocre (See: Conker's bad fur day and Madden 2002), only about 4-5 games were released in the entire YEAR of 2001, also, only one game was released in the latter half of 2001. The N64 was essentially dead on it's feet by late 1999. Now i can name 3 PSX releases that happened after the PS2's release (FF Origins, FF Anthology, FFVI), how many games were released after the GC's release? Oh, that's right, none.
In the history of major console disasters, the N64 is right in there, alongside the Jaguar, MegaCD, Sega Saturn and the Lynx.
[snapback]37029[/snapback]
Could you please show me how the N64 "nearly put them in ruins"?
Also one of the best games for the N64 was released after the Game Cube: Paper Mario, which I have yet to hear a bad word spoken of.
I'm not quite sure what you’re getting at here, you claim the 64 was a horrible system that nearly ruined Nintendo then you offer nothing to back up your claims other then "They didn't release enough games after their new system came out".
[snapback]37036[/snapback]
:D adobe acrobat. Loading a 50 page financial report from nintendo.com crashed it, time to retype all of this post.
Paper Mario, for a start, was released in February 2001, as you can read in nintendo.com's official N64 release list (http://www.nintendo.com/doc/n64_games.pdf). And the GCN was released in North America on the 18th November 2001, which you can check with gamespy.com's GCN timeline (http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/february04/gcntimeline/index4.shtml).
In 2001, Nintendo announced a 43% drop in profits, partly blamed on the Nintendo 64's poor sales (source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1348698.stm)). In 2000 they announced a 20% drop in profits. (source (http://www.businessweek.com/cgi-bin/register/archiveSearch.cgi?h=01_13/b3725166.htm)), once again pointing to the N64 In this article (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/06/01/nintendo_set_to_delay_dolphin/) it also goes on to claim a 35% profit loss due to poor N64 sales, back in 2000.
Nintendo's saving grace was their domination (~47%) of the hand held market, and their ability to peddle knock-off pokemon games to kids with more money than sense.
EDIT: Also, if memory serves me right, the N64, whilst it officially ceased production around September 2001, was already off of store shelves by late 2000-early 2001.
In the history of major console disasters, the N64 is right in there, alongside the Jaguar, MegaCD, Sega Saturn and the Lynx.
[snapback]37029[/snapback]
You totally discredit yourself by not mentioning the ABOMINATION that was the Virtual Boy.
In the history of major console disasters, the N64 is right in there, alongside the Jaguar, MegaCD, Sega Saturn and the Lynx.
[snapback]37029[/snapback]
You totally discredit yourself by not mentioning the ABOMINATION that was the Virtual Boy.
[snapback]37043[/snapback]
Oh christ, i'd managed to block that piece of ^^ from my mind, it took years of therapy to forget that one, which i'll now have to go through again. Thanks.