I just can’t agree with anybody that calls the Nintendo 64 a failure.......

daTRUballin said:

Something that bothers me is when people claim the N64 was a failure. Compared to the PlayStation, sure. It was a relative failure. The N64's 32 million units sold versus the PlayStation's ~100-105 million units pale in comparison, but I feel like people tend to only look at the numbers when determining whether a console is a failure or a success, including the N64.

There are several reasons why I don't believe the N64 was a failure. Despite not selling nearly as well as the PlayStation, it still sold more than the Saturn and was a very popular console in its heyday (at least in the US). If you wanted to experience local multiplayer on console, the N64 was the console to go to. It was basically the king of console multiplayer during its gen. It was also home to some of the most revolutionary games of all time like Super Mario 64, Goldeneye, and Ocarina of Time. It was definitely a culturally relevant console during its heyday, and I don't think anybody can deny this. Even if it didn't reach the same heights the PlayStation did.

A lot of people are going to point at the console's poor third party support, and yes, it is true that the third party support was pretty abysmal compared to the PlayStation's which is why the library was so small. It did have some great overlooked gems though. A lot of people would say this was the point where Nintendo started falling behind the competition, but I would say the GameCube is when Nintendo started truly falling behind. As I said in another thread before, the N64 was when the cracks first started showing. The GameCube was when the cracks burst open. While I do agree that the N64 was the start of Nintendo's troubles, what with all the consequences of going with cartridges instead of CDs and the loss of third party support, but it was still a very popular console. The GameCube's third party support was better, but I think it was in a far more dire situation than the N64 was in.

I do admit that the N64 is a very nostalgic console for me and it's probably my favorite console ever, so maybe my bias is getting in the way of things a little bit, but I feel like some people don't look at the bigger picture when claiming the console was a failure and only look at its number of units sold compared to the PlayStation. I also have similar thoughts about the original Xbox in regards to when people call it a failure, but that's a different discussion for another day.

Anybody agree with me on this? I'm very interested in reading your thoughts and opinions on this subject.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Its a failure in my eyes because their management decisions for this console not only allowed heavy market share and 3rd party loss, but it gave birth to todays market leader Playstation and Nintendo conitinued to follow the lone wolf path for many years after.

Yes, the N64 had some iconic games but not as many as PS1 had imo. The PS1 (lets not forget Xbox as well) gave new life to games and innovative possibilities for developers and us.

Dont get me wrong, I loved my N64, but loved the PS1 a bit more. Having that said, I am happy all this happened as we gamers got more viarity to choose from today.

Side note, N64 was the last nintendo console i bought untill the Switch arrived this year. The Switch is a awesome piece of hardware and the games are a refresher as well. I get the feeling that nintendo finally is stepping up to what gamers want (still lacking in online features imo).

Peace.

A few outstanding games, a few decent ones, but overall it was a garbage system.

TylersProphecy said:

FIRST party.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Should've said "And" because I meant it as an additional comment.

Wii U's first party wishes it had the N64's first party lineup, especially when you compare games in the same franchise like Mario 64 vs 3D World and Mario Party 1-3 vs Wii U.

Dr. Caroll said:

You disagree that turn-based games were out of place on a console that abandoned many traditional genres in favor of experimental hybrids? As an example, the N64 didn't even have many platformers. Its "platformers" were largely objective-based open world affairs. Traditional platformers didn't really... fit.

There are so many N64 games that defy genre categorization. They're these strange highly experimental hybrids with a focus on realtime combat and 3D control.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

It's absurd to claim that the console didn't have any need for a genre when it was at its most relevant and popular. Especially when the console was, in fact, home to experimental JRPGs like Parasite Eve and Valkyrie Profile. Also, read my edit.

Kyser73 said:

This is incorrect.

Sony's success was in reactivating gamers who'd all but abandoned the hobby as well as widening the age profile (less so gender) of people buying & playing games on a console.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Receipts.gif.

There was never a crash or a serious lull in the 1990s. If anything, Sega prematurely abandoned the successful Genesis as Nintendo was doing good business with Gameboy and SNES (to a lesser extent). It was only ever logical that the audience would widen and grow as time passed as the hobby basically began with children in the 80s. Gaming was always going to expand for this reason. Especially when you also consider PC had also broken out of it's shell around the same time as Playstation launched.

The only time I've ever seen evidence of older gamers or non-gamers being lured into the hobby was with Wii and then later Smartphone gaming. Playstation widely built it's platform on franchises and games that were already, at one point, slated for Nintendo. Square-Enix, Konami and Capcom built Sony Playstation as much as Sony ever did. Sony did a better job at engaging older gamers, I think, but I see no evidence that gamers were lapsing coming out of the SNES/Genesis.

The total consoles on the market don't support that at any rate.

I think that there are many different definitions of failure, and that Nintendo experienced many different kinds of failure throughout their console life.

The NES revived the videogame industry (in Japan and America, Europe was apparently different), and Nintendo tried to hang onto that success with an iron grip. When they rebooted themselves with the SNES, Nintendo lost a lot of ground to the Sega Genesis (in America and Europe, Japan was apparently different). I loved the SNES, but for the life of the Genesis, Nintendo was playing catch-up, and only logged a narrow victory after Sega checked out. I think Nintendo expected that generation to be a lot easier than it was, because in the NES days they got a lot farther with a lot less effort (an iron grip on a monopoly tends to do that for you).

The N64 did better than the Saturn, but that was because Sony went after Sega hard out of the gate, admitting that they had to sink Sega's ship before the 800 pound gorilla known as Nintendo arrived. Sony felt that they couldn't afford to fight a war on two fronts, not when one of those fronts was gaming-giant Nintendo. But Nintendo made an unforced error with carts instead of CDs. Developers flocked away from Nintendo like forum dwellers who just learned that their asshole admin was also a sex-predator. Nintendo tried to put up a fight (analog was revolutionary, and Mario 64 was one of the most influential games of all time), but the much-feared leader of the industry shot themselves in the foot. I think the N64 was the sort of failure that Nintendo was loathe to admit, so they didn't. I think it's also very important to note that NOA (and Rare) fought an incredible game in trying to support the N64, and came up with results nearly matching the SNES. The N64's performance in Japan was dismal. I think it all comes down to the decision to go with carts instead of CDs, and I think that Nintendo made that decision by not paying any attention to reality in the 16-bit era. They didn't see (or willfully ignored) the most obvious industry trends. They didn't hear (or willfully ignored) the loudest complaints from their own allies.

I have strong memories of arguing with friends, pointing out that the N64 had the largest number of "5 star" rated games in Next Gen magazine, but I eventually got a PlayStation, and the quantity and variety of great games on the PSX was downright incredible. Sure, there were loading times, and sure, the polygons wobbled, but the videogame industry was basically not present on N64 (aside from Nintendo themselves), it was on PlayStation. The N64 had a great deal to offer and I loved it, but it was definitely a unique kind of failure.

The GameCube was an exceptionally dire failure, and Nintendo was even willing to later call it a failure. Nintendo apparently saw the dismal performance of the N64 in Japan, and Satoru Iwata's first job with the GameCube was apparently meeting with Japanese developers to try and get them back on board after the N64 exodus. And Iwata had a lot of success there, as the GameCube's Japanese third party support really shined. But in the final tally, the GameCube did about as badly in Japan as the N64 did (which, as noted, was a disaster), while Nintendo's North American numbers were allowed to drop like a stone (edit: simple answer why? Xbox). Because while Nintendo had learned that carts were bad, they were still arrogant enough to play coy and think they could go up against DVDs with mini-DVDs, and even tried to mock the superior ability of PS2 (It can play DVD? Yuck. Who wants that? VHS is plenty fine enough). Memory cards? Nah, those can be a fraction of the size of PS2. And more importantly IMO, Nintendo thought they had the clout to go up against the goddamn PS2 one year late to the party, offering nothing but slightly improved third party support, and expected to win somehow. I love my GameCube, but the console was a big enough failure to end Nintendo's console ambitions, a threat that was realized when Wii U (which has plenty of fantastic games) Dreamcasted itself for a wrong place/wrong time tablet controller that nobody wanted, not even Nintendo's first party development studios.

Encephalon said:

The PS1 era was defined by its JRPGs. In the west, they had never been more popular. In Japan, modern Japanese companies would die for the sales they saw in that era.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

You look at Grand Theft Auto V. You look at The Witcher 3. Then you look at Ocarina of Time, or Body Harvest for the N64 by DMA Design, who would later become Rockstar North. Body Harvest is very much a prototype for GTA 3. That's why Rockstar Games argue that all modern 3D games owe something to N64 titles. The N64 represented an entirely different movement in game design that was mimicked by various developers across the industry but the wellspring of design revolution was on the N64. Traditional RPG mechanics? Out the window. Turn based combat? Out the window. Tank controls? Largely out the window. JRPGs are positively archaic from a general design viewpoint. Most of their mechanics are identical to SNES games. They're just 3D instead. They're not exactly a design dead end, but they represented design ideas the N64 moved away from very quickly, and the modern game industry resembles the N64's output quite fascinatingly.

edit: The era was defined by Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time. They were the landmarks of 3D game design that still influence everything we play today. JRPGs are... not really in the same league.

In retrospect I prefer the kiddy output of Nintendo than Sony's faux targetting at a mature and adult audience.

As if games like Harvester, Phantasmagiria or uncensored erotic visual novels would ever appear on consoles. Even today.Adults were playing on computers, with their sophisticated strategy games and simulators. PSX adult games were teen oriented at best.

As for Sega, America and Europe did lack the factor that would make games like Sakura Taisen popular, combining dating sims, turn based rpg, mecha, pop concerts, musicals, drama cds, OSTs etc One reason Saturn failed.

I disliked the N64 for the kiddy games but respected it as a former NES and GB fan. I just had enough. But I hated the PSX with a passion while gaming on PC back then, though I still liked Capcom and Konami.

Combichristoffersen said:

Haha, I am one of those freaks, yeah. I could never figure out how to hold the N64 controller without it feeling uncomfortable for me.



Shit. Well, normal N64 controller it is then, I guess :/ My wrists will hate me, but Waverace... So good. Worth a little nuisance.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

lol for the love of god, hold the middle and the outer if you're sticking with the stock controller! There's no reason for you to torture yourself. Saw off the leftmost prong if that's what it'll take.

Dr. Caroll said:

You look at Grand Theft Auto V. You look at The Witcher 3. Then you look at Ocarina of Time, or Body Harvest for the N64 by DMA Design, who would later become Rockstar North. Body Harvest is very much a prototype for GTA 3. That's why Rockstar Games argue that all modern 3D games owe something to N64 titles.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I find it somewhat funny just how many people probably have no idea that Body Harvest and Space Station Silicon Valley are pretty much grand prototypes to what would become GTA3. I mean, seriously; it's gaming history a lot of people don't know about because they simply haven't played the games.

Then again... can't really blame them, I guess. I'd be like some bizarro world where the N64 somehow got Metal Gear Solid and the PS1 got Hybrid Heaven instead.

Dr. Caroll said:

You look at Grand Theft Auto V. You look at The Witcher 3. Then you look at Ocarina of Time, or Body Harvest for the N64 by DMA Design, who would later become Rockstar North. Body Harvest is very much a prototype for GTA 3. That's why Rockstar Games argue that all modern 3D games owe something to N64 titles. The N64 represented an entirely different movement in game design that was mimicked by various developers across the industry but the wellspring of design revolution was on the N64. Traditional RPG mechanics? Out the window. Turn based combat? Out the window. Tank controls? Largely out the window. JRPGs are positively archaic from a general design viewpoint. Most of their mechanics are identical to SNES games. They're just 3D instead.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Consoles are not religions. There is no grand ethos for a console. Yes games on the N64 were highly influential and reflected directions the industry was moving in. But JRPGs continued to be highly relevant in the PS2 era as well. It doesn't really matter how similar they were to their iterations in the SNES era - they were more influential after it.

Any attempt to discount them looks like delusion caused by blind fervor for a corporation. Comparing the entire genre of JRPGs to "tank controls" is bizarre.

Nintendo went from having a near monopoly with the NES followed by the best market share, slightly edging out Sega, and the lion's share of 3rd party support with the SNES to the N64 - a console with terrible 3rd party support and ambition. The N64 was a failure on all fronts except 1st party software. Nintendo ceded their domination of the industry with the N64 and they haven't recovered since. It was a console fueled by Nintendo's greed and desire for control.

Meanwhile no one is talking about Body Harvest and Final Fantasy VII is apparently still a big fucking deal.

Encephalon said:

Consoles are not religions. There is no grand ethos for a console.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

The N64 was a console where games would be rejected for publication if they had z-fighting and also everyone used performance-destroying anti-aliasing even though it was supposed to be optional. The N64 had an overarching ethos. It was unspoken but understood. The N64 hardware lended itself to certain kinds of games that obviously mirror what is popular in 2017. N64 devs mimicked other N64 devs. It snowballed. An overarching design direction appeared among developers. Of course there were outliers, but why do you think almost all the "platformers" were essentially open world sandbox games and not, you know, platformers?

Open world games.
Sports games.
First person shooters.
Third person action adventure games.
Multiplayer games.
Co-op games.

If you were making an N64 game, you added multiplayer if you could. If you were porting a game to the N64 that already had multiplayer, you enhanced the MP if possible. If possible, you added co-op because co-op was always popular on N64.

Encephalon said:

Any attempt to discount them looks like delusion caused by blind fervor for a corporation. Comparing the entire genre of JRPGs to "tank controls" is bizarre.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

JRPGs have a number of defining characteristics that were simply not popular on the N64. Things like turn based combat, for example. I said earlier that JRPGs didn't "fit" on the N64. The N64 moved in a very different direction as a platform. JRPGs, and traditional turn-based RPGs for that matter are like apples in a stack of oranges. They're so contrary to the system-wide design trends. That doesn't make them bad. It just makes them like puzzle pieces that don't fit.

.

Dr. Caroll said:

The N64 was a console where games would be rejected for publication if they had z-fighting and also everyone used performance-destroying anti-aliasing even though it was supposed to be optional. The N64 had an overarching ethos. It was unspoken but understood. The N64 hardware lended itself to certain kinds of games that obviously mirror what is popular in 2017. N64 devs mimicked other N64 devs. It snowballed. An overarching design direction appeared among developers. Of course there were outliers, but why do you think almost all the "platformers" were essentially open world sandbox games and not, you know, platformers?

Open world games.
Sports games.
First person shooters.
Third person action adventure games.
Multiplayer games.
Co-op games.

If you were making an N64 game, you added multiplayer if you could. If you were porting a game to the N64 that already had multiplayer, you enhanced the MP if possible. If possible, you added co-op because co-op was always popular on N64.


JRPGs have a number of defining characteristics that were simply not popular on the N64. Things like turn based combat, for example. I said earlier that JRPGs didn't "fit" on the N64. The N64 moved in a very different direction as a platform. JRPGs, and traditional turn-based RPGs for that matter are like apples in a stack of oranges. They're so contrary to the system-wide design trends. That doesn't make them bad. It just makes them like puzzle pieces that don't fit.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

There is no such thing as games not "fitting" on the N64, or any console for that matter. Maybe had the console seen more "ill fitting" games, it wouldn't have ceded second place to the Saturn in the domestic market. You are confusing a lack of Japanese support and trends among western games for a so called ethos.

I have such fond memories of the N64. So many amazing games, I loved it. Wave Race, Mario, Zelda, Body Harvest, Goldeneye, Blast Corps, Banjo, Diddy Kong Racing, Turok etc. It was magical as a kid. Going back though, the framerates and the fog are killing me.

Plenty of people call the n64 a failure based on the fact that Nintendo lost the Top Spot to Sony and lost a bunch of 3rdParty support.

I think the question if the N64 was a success should be asked to the western developers, for some weird reason lots of them just wanted to develop a game for it, i mean Blizzard did that Starcraft game, and DMA design (of course now rockstar north) were screwed by Nintendo on Body Harvest and yet they developed space station silicon valley for the 64 (later ported to other consoles) and Nintendo way of repaying them was stealing the capture mechanic for SMO.

maluma baby! said:

I think the question if the N64 was a success should be asked to the western developers, for some weird reason lots of them just wanted to develop a game for it, i mean Blizzard did that Starcraft game, and DMA design (of course now rockstar north) were screwed by Nintendo on Body Harvest and yet they developed space station silicon valley for the 64 (later ported to other consoles) and Nintendo way of repaying them was stealing the capture mechanic for SMO.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Those evil bastards captured that capture mechanic like some kind of pink monster sucking up and stealing the essence of everything in sight.

Only place the N64 "failed" is Japan.

I think when people refer to the system being a failure, they're primarily talking about it's legacy and how the Playstation brand just dominated the world stage afterwards, largely in part because of Nintendo's awful decisions at the time.

I remember the N64 was the first console I bought with my own money, I wanted it and Mario 64 so goddamn badly that I ended up buying the system before I could afford the bloody game(Cause carts were like $69.99), and 120 Staring the game after, but from there on, a lot of my N64 purchases or rentals were me trying to justify my purchase of the system. The system just had a great deal of garbage, and it started the trend in my mind that the only games worth buying for Nintendo consoles were Nintendo games, 3rd party support was dead. I had Mario 64, Zelda, Star Fox, F-Zero, these were my repeat favorite games. It didn't help that the PSX games were like $39.99 most of the time or even cheaper on sale or in the bargin bin, and I could buy 2-3 PSX games for the price of 1 N64 game, especially if I was ever tempted to buy a 3rd party game which was even more costly. It didn't help that quite literally all the JRPGs I enjoyed on the SNES all ended up on PSX in some form after that one asshole @ Sony got fired and the way for jRPGs was open in the US. There was just a ridiculous amount of content on the PS1 to play compared to Nintendo's offering, and I can't be alone in remembering what it felt like to compare the libraries of the 2 systems.

The N64 had some great games Mario & Zelda alone are some of the best games ever made, and we know Nintendo turned a profit so financially the system was a success, but the damage the N64 did to Nintendo's brand in the console space can't be swept under the rug and ignored, and I think that's what makes the system a failure.

Calling the n64 a failure requires a very flawed idea of what is important to one as a game player.
Calling it a failure means you are acting like you believe the companies profit margins are the most important thing.
The N64 had some of the greatest games of all time. The high end games of the N64 Blew the PS1's best games out of the water IMO. This alone makes it a worthy console in retrospect.

Shroki said:

Receipts.gif.

There was never a crash or a serious lull in the 1990s. If anything, Sega prematurely abandoned the successful Genesis as Nintendo was doing good business with Gameboy and SNES (to a lesser extent). It was only ever logical that the audience would widen and grow as time passed as the hobby basically began with children in the 80s. Gaming was always going to expand for this reason. Especially when you also consider PC had also broken out of it's shell around the same time as Playstation launched.

The only time I've ever seen evidence of older gamers or non-gamers being lured into the hobby was with Wii and then later Smartphone gaming. Playstation widely built it's platform on franchises and games that were already, at one point, slated for Nintendo. Square-Enix, Konami and Capcom built Sony Playstation as much as Sony ever did. Sony did a better job at engaging older gamers, I think, but I see no evidence that gamers were lapsing coming out of the SNES/Genesis.

The total consoles on the market don't support that at any rate.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

You made the original unsupported claim about the audience & you're asking me for receipts?

Smh.

The N64 invented 3D games as they are now so to call it a failure.. heh.

Not a N fan, but the N64 is my favourite N Home Console.
SM64, Conker, Goldeneye, MK64, Smash64, ZeldaMM... all my fav. N titles are born on the N64

You're using the fact that it sold better than the Saturn as a benchmark? Lol. Yes it had great games, but that doesn't mean it's a success.

Dr. Caroll said:

JRPGs have a number of defining characteristics that were simply not popular on the N64. Things like turn based combat, for example. I said earlier that JRPGs didn't "fit" on the N64. The N64 moved in a very different direction as a platform. JRPGs, and traditional turn-based RPGs for that matter are like apples in a stack of oranges. They're so contrary to the system-wide design trends. That doesn't make them bad. It just makes them like puzzle pieces that don't fit.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

According to Wikipedia, the 36th highest selling N64 game was Paper Mario, and that game released 4 years after the system launched, plenty enough time to realize that turn-based combat was somehow unsuitable for the N64.

The first JRPG on N64 was the abysmal Quest 64, released in America 2 years after launch. And despite being a "JRPG", it only made it's way to Japan a year after it released in America.

Pretty much the only other JRPG of note on the N64 was Ogre Battle 64, a well-received ultra-niche sequel to a well-received ultra-niche SNES classic, released 4 years after the console's launch, and 2 years after the game's spiritual cousin (Final Fantasy Tactics) went positively mainstream on the PSX.

The N64 wasn't fundamentally a bad fit for JRPGs, it was the developers and audience that abandoned the console for the sunny shores of PlayStation (and Saturn). Before the system launched, Nintendo designed the 64DD as a half-measure to try and convince the likes of Square and Enix to stay, but it was too little, too late.

It sold significantly less than the SNES and lost Nintendo a huge amount of mindshare and third party support that they're still feeling the effects of, even with successful systems under their belt since then. It wasn't a failure in a total financial sense, but to say the console was a resounding win for Nintendo would be disingenuous. It did okay at best. It certainly wasn't a "success".

Dr. Caroll said:

You look at Grand Theft Auto V. You look at The Witcher 3. Then you look at Ocarina of Time, or Body Harvest for the N64 by DMA Design, who would later become Rockstar North. Body Harvest is very much a prototype for GTA 3. That's why Rockstar Games argue that all modern 3D games owe something to N64 titles. The N64 represented an entirely different movement in game design that was mimicked by various developers across the industry but the wellspring of design revolution was on the N64. Traditional RPG mechanics? Out the window. Turn based combat? Out the window. Tank controls? Largely out the window. JRPGs are positively archaic from a general design viewpoint. Most of their mechanics are identical to SNES games. They're just 3D instead. They're not exactly a design dead end, but they represented design ideas the N64 moved away from very quickly, and the modern game industry resembles the N64's output quite fascinatingly.

edit: The era was defined by Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time. They were the landmarks of 3D game design that still influence everything we play today. JRPGs are... not really in the same league.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

really cos you can make the case that the PC was more important for a lot of Genres especially Shooters and RPGS

At the time, it had it's arse well and truly kicked. I was a big Nintendo fan back then but I had to buy a Playstation (my first non-Nintendo console) as well, because it had so many great games. It may not look like a failure compared to more recent disasters but compared to the contemporaneous expectations of the company and the fans, it absolutely was.

Bishop89 said:

Sorry you lost me at King of local multiplayer.

I mean yeh it had gems like Goldeneye, Mario party, smash, but this pales in comparison to what was available on the PS1.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Not really. N64 owned multiplayer. Smash/Party/Kart/Pod Racer/Perfect Dark and especially Goldeneye were all huge. We all had playstations but no-one brought that shit out when there were more than two people. Can the PSX even do four player?

Geoff said:

Not really. N64 owned multiplayer. Smash/Party/Kart/Pod Racer/Perfect Dark and especially Goldeneye were all huge. We all had playstations but no-one brought that shit out when there were more than two people. Can the PSX even do four player?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

It was hard for N64 to win multiplayer when I never meet anyone who owned one in the UK.

daTRUballin said:

Something that bothers me is when people claim the N64 was a failure. Compared to the PlayStation, sure. It was a relative failure. The N64's 32 million units sold versus the PlayStation's ~100-105 million units pale in comparison, but I feel like people tend to only look at the numbers when determining whether a console is a failure or a success, including the N64.

There are several reasons why I don't believe the N64 was a failure. Despite not selling nearly as well as the PlayStation, it still sold more than the Saturn and was a very popular console in its heyday

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

The Saturn was a super failure. So selling better than it doesn't make it "not a failure". The N64 had a few great games. Still, it failed. Same goes for the Game Cube and the WiiU.

Nintendo rejected CD technology and as a result lost their dominant position on the market. As a console N64 is not a failure but overall for Nintendo it was a bad sum of strategic decisions.

It was an artistic triumph but a business failure. Coming off two dominant generations into an also-ran status is a failure by any shareholder's metric, and it marked the end of Nintendo's status as a leader in setting industry trends until the Wii ten years later.

Hey, could be worse. Could be the Saturn.

N64 was my only current console for the vast majority of its lifespan. The drought between good games (especially early on iirc) was horrible. In comparison to what the Saturn and Playstation and later the Dreamcast were getting at the time, the N64 had a horribly slow start. It was the king of 3d platformers, first person shooters, and possibly party games (Saturn Bomberman nonwithstanding) but seemed to be thoroughly outdone in every other genre.

Geoff said:

Not really. N64 owned multiplayer. Smash/Party/Kart/Pod Racer/Perfect Dark and especially Goldeneye were all huge. We all had playstations but no-one brought that shit out when there were more than two people. Can the PSX even do four player?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

yes, quite a few.



The notion that the ps1 didn't have 4 player games is amusing

Vault said:

It was hard for N64 to win multiplayer when I never meet anyone who owned one in the UK.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

You may not have known anyone but I had one, lots of my friends had one, both at school and Uni. Goldeneye was traditional for pre-club banter. I have never seen a playstation multitap IRL.

A few phenomenal games for the time like Goldeneye and Wave racer. A few games that go down as some of the best ever like the two Zelda games and Mario64. But on the whole it has a weak library, terrible controller and didn't sell very well.

People think they want an N64 mini, but boy, don't think they're ready for how those games hold up. Not as well as SNES games that's for sure. Felt like a generation too early for 3D games. Didn't really nail it until PS2.

Nintendo made more money while the N64 was on the market than anybody else in the games industry at the same time, including Sony.

Did it beat PSone? No. Was it a failure? Lord no.

lowlifelenny said:

Nintendo made more money while the N64 was on the market than anybody else in the games industry at the same time, including Sony.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

This seems like very sly wording lmao

The N64 is probably the only Nintendo "retro" system I have no desire to own. I really can't name many games that I'm "dying" to play outside of the few stellar ones I enjoyed (Mario 64, OoT, Diddy Kong Racing).

It was also a system I don't think I was ever jealous of not owning when I was a kid :D SUPER jealous of people with a NES and SNES though

The PS1 (and PS2) were behemoths that almost single-handedly defined an entire era of gaming, to the point that missing out on both would objectively mean missing out on a significant portion of the industry's history.

What I'm getting at is that you can craft a respectable and highly revered legacy in the PS1's shadow, because it was a big fucking shadow, and belittling any console's impact simply because the PS1 sold more is not a good argument to make.

Besides, this is a Nintendo console, which means games from Mario and friends, so a legacy is always practically built in because of the vocal audience that follows these characters.

Pretty much my sentiments when people say this about the GameCube.

lowlifelenny said:

Nintendo made more money while the N64 was on the market than anybody else in the games industry at the same time, including Sony.

Did it beat PSone? No. Was it a failure? Lord no.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Using that metric do you consider the Virtual boy a success

Objectively it was failure in terms of sales and third parties.
I liked it more than GC and wii though.

Geoff said:

This seems like very sly wording lmao

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

It's pretty straightforward. Nintendo's profits from the mid to late '90s were basically sustained by N64/GB/Pokémon. N64 sold some 30m or so consoles, with some first party games climbing to the 8-10m figure apiece. That's a lot of money. N64 did its part and did it well, even if PlayStation beat it in a strict side-by-side comparison.

Vault said:

Using that metric do you consider the Virtual boy a success

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

yes obviously it was a success

Compared to the success they had with the SNES and the monumental success the Playstation had, you could call it a failure.

But considering how well the Gameboy was doing, and I imagine it was more profitable considering it was based on NES hardware, I can't imagine they were worrying too much about it.

I would like to think the Playstation cost more to produce due to its hardware, and some of the features of the N64 which in hindsight seem like cost cutting measures (expandable memory, having the main processor in charge of audio), but considering the PS1 outsold the N64 5:1 I don't think it really worried them - especially if most of those sales came from the hardware refresh (PSone) which would of been cheaper parts.

Bit controversial, but I'd say there's a lot more PS1 games that hold up just due to the sheer volume of releases - and despite stone cold masterpieces like Super Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time (Banjo-Kazooie, Goldeneye and Smash Brothers could also be argued), Sony had Final Fantasy 7, Metal Gear Solid, Gran Turismo, Tekken, Crash Bandicoot, Spyro the Dragon and Tomb Raider - all critically acclaimed and best sellers and all still preeeetty good.

Hard to say. I had an N64 as a kid but I'd like to think I could seperate myself from playing favourites. But I don't think it was an abject, Virtual Boy style failure. It's not even a Gamecube (despite that console being profitable for Nintendo)