"quality, not quantity"

[Anarchist420]

Why did Nintendo always try to make that excuse back in the day with Nintendo 64? At the end of '97 the N64 only had like 40 games at the most, while the PSX had 300 games plus the fact that quality is subjective.

Sega had more games made per year for the Saturn than Nintendo did for the N64.

Were you ever angry about Nintendo always saying "quality, not quantity" like I was? In late '96 and early '97, everyone knew the Saturn didn't have much life left in America, but it still had better games in that time IMO, or at least less games that totally sucked compared to their arcade counterparts. The n64 version of Cruisn usa had a terrible frame rate, had terribly blurry graphics and Killer Instinct Gold looked worse than the first KI for the arcade.

Pilotwings 64, Super Mario 64, and Wave Race were AAA titles, but Super Mario 64 didn't even look that good from a technical standpoint ... Turok and Shadows of the Empire would later be out on the PC. Wayne Gretzky's 3D Hockey was fun for the whole family and Mario Kart 64 was innovative and also fun for the whole family, but Goldeneye didn't even come out until the N64 had been out for almost one year.

I can conclude that:
the N64 probably had the most lackluster and smallest library of any Nintendo console... the 3DO had a better library than the N64 did IMO.

The N64 aged terribly... probably as bad as the first Xbox did. Most Y2K N64 games looked little better than Super Mario 64. Even the N64 version of Indiana Jones and the Infernal Machine didn't look as good as the PC original did on a VSA 100 (with RGSS and all the in-game settings as high as the VSA 100 supported) or a Matrox G400 (with all the in-game settings at their highest levels with 32 bit z-buffer and trilinear filtering forced in the driver cp).

Then again, maybe I don't know my anus from a hole in the ground.

 

[nextJin]

I can conclude that:
the N64 probably had the most lackluster and smallest library of any Nintendo console... the 3DO had a better library than the N64 did IMO.

This is why no one takes you seriously, I had a 3DO and with the exception of Gex, The Need for Speed and Road Rash it was absolute trash.

 

[purbeast0]

the n64 launch (and months after) did suck. i remember there was like 1 game a month coming out or something. it was painful initially for sure. but they did have some great games on there.

i don't know how i can take anything you say seriously though after you saying mario 64 didn't look good at the time.

 

[Anubis]

This is why no one takes you seriously, I had a 3DO and with the exception of Gex, The Need for Speed and Road Rash it was absolute trash.

you forgot Return Fire which was the best game on the silly 3D0

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I can conclude that:
the N64 probably had the most lackluster and smallest library of any Nintendo console... the 3DO had a better library than the N64 did IMO.

Why would you conclude that? I'm curious which 3DO titles you're thinking of that would surpass some critical consensus N64 games; Legend of Zelda Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask, Super Mario 64, Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Banjo Kazooie and Banjo Tooie, 1080 Snowboarding, Paper Mario and Mario Kart 64. The 3DO had very few AAA titles, which might help explain why it lasted all of two years in the market and is seen by most video game historians as an utter failure.

One of the biggest issues the N64 had was the insistence on sticking with cartridge-based media at a time when competitors were all switching to CD-ROM. Cartridges had less room so the N64 had to settle for lesser textures and obscure its LOD issues with gratuitous fog, something which was frequently lampooned by critics of its technical limitations. So you got that bit right. Everything else in your post is complete BS.

 

[Exophase]

Can you provide an example of where Nintendo directly made that argument? I've seen other people say something like that in defense of Nintendo. But not Nintendo themselves.

In late 1996 I got a PS1 and not an N64. I was mostly playing RPGs on the SNES. Even though few good RPGs were out for PS1 at this time it was a no-brainer, because everyone knew that the system was going to get all the good RPGs while it was unknown if N64 was ever going to get anything.

That said, I can see why N64 still got a lot of hype for its first and second party exclusives. To this day I think people are more interested in playing N64 games in emulators than they are PS1 games.

On SM64 - there was an interesting set of articles from one of the creators of Crash Bandicoot/founders of Naughty Dog. The first Crash Bandicoot came out around the same time and he made some comparisons between it and SM64. No one can deny that N64 could do several things graphically that PS1 simply couldn't (perspective correct texturing, bilinear/trilinear filtering, mip-mapping, multi-texturing, various per-pixel effects, etc etc) but it was kind of diminished when games were under-textured. I think they made a valid point that in some ways Crash Bandicoot had nicer graphics, although I suppose the comparison isn't 100% valid.

Now arguing that 3DO had a better library is just incredibly silly.. I know this is subjective and all but come on, who can seriously sincerely defend this stance?

 

[Anarchist420]

i don't know how i can take anything you say seriously though after you saying mario 64 didn't look good at the time.

It looked good, but it didn't look great; the filtering was nice, the colors were good, the effects were great (particularly metal mario), the artwork was good, but Crash Bandicoot looked better because everything in Super Mario 64 was so damn static; Crash Bandicoot looked better in terms of lighting for sure. The last level in Nights into Dreams looked good too... maybe that's because I'm biased towards the way the Saturn clipped things (i.e., it had more precision far away), but no one can deny that the particle effects when fighting the last boss (Wiseman?) looked amazing for the time.

Why would you conclude that? I'm curious which 3DO titles you're thinking of that would surpass some critical consensus N64 games

Road Rash was excellent, so was Gex, Battlesport was pretty good, it had a good conversion of Super Street Fighter II Turbo for its time. Killing Time was good so were FIFA and Madden (although the N64 did have some pretty good sports games; the PS1 was overrated in that regard IMO). A few other Crystal Dynamics games were good. The 3DO did a lot more before the N64 did. It kind of gave Crystal Dynamics their start. The controller for the N64 sucked because the control stick got all crusty, there was significant input lag, the D-pad was super stiff (so were a lot of 3DO controllers, I'll admit), it used cartridges, it didn't even have a full audio subsystem (the 3DO didn't either, but the N64's predecessor did). The N64 couldn't output 24 bit color. So the 3DO was a lot better hardware wise for its time than the N64 was for '96, there is no denying that (it costed more, but then its games were a lot cheaper). 3DO could even do things in hardware that the Saturn couldn't do in hardware like alpha blending.

Legend of Zelda Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask

Those were good, but they weren't revolutionary considering a Link to the Past.

Super Mario 64,

Excellent, but it didn't have the best graphics when it came out. It's gameplay was better than Crash's for sure, the latter which didn't have any ingenuity in that regard, but I actually like Nights into Dreams' gameplay the best.

Can you provide an example of where Nintendo directly made that argument? I've seen other people say something like that in defense of Nintendo. But not Nintendo themselves.

I believe Howard Lincoln did at least once.

 

[Anarchist420]

Oh yeah, Way of the Warrior (done by Jason Rubin and Andy Gavin) was pretty good.

 

[purbeast0]

i'm not sure why you brought up crash bandicoot when talking about mario 64 in reply to me. i never mentioned crash in general. and crash is a totally different game than mario 64, it's not even an open world 3d game close to the level that mario 64 was. it was more of a left/right up/down platformer, where mario 64 was a true 3d platformer. also, just because one game looks good/better doesn't mean the other game still doesn't look great.

and the fact that you actually think way of the warrior was a good game, after mentioning the sf2 version on 3do, yeah, im gonna have to agree to disagree with your opinion about video games. that game was a quick mk ripoff that failed on every level.

 

[mmntech]

If the 3DO had a better library than the N64, nobody knew about it. There wasn't a single person I knew growing up that had one. Probably because it cost $700 IIRC. Nobody had a Saturn either. It was either PlayStation or N64.

I agree that the N64 did have a small library. However, they must have been on to something with that quality over quantity. Especially when that library includes Mario64, GoldenEye, and Ocarina of Time. Games that are in most people's all time top ten. This seems to be Nintendo's way of doing things. Their first and second party games have always been top notch.

 

[tential]

I had COMPLETEly forgotten about Sega Saturn lol.

I NEVER noticed the N64 had a small library. I don't think any of my friends did either because TO THIS DAY, there were 5 N64s or so when I graduated college in my fraternity house.

I never even knew about N64s library size, the amount of games I had was more than enough for me. Super Smash, Banjo Kazooie, Mario64, Golden Eye, Zelda games, Star Fox, etc.

There is actually a huge article I just read about how having TOO MANY choices can lead the consumer to have buyers remorse no matter what they chose. IMO, I was VERY Happy with the n65 when I bought it. The PS was confusing for me, especially at a young age with that multi disc stuff (more chances to break something).

Maybe if you consider yourself a hardcore gamer who constantly is beating game after game, etc. but I had no clue and was perfectly content with the games I got I didn't even realize it was a small library. I got a lot of play out of Mario Party, Mario Kart, and Super Smash.

The MORE I think about it, the more I realize just how many games I played and REALLY enjoyed, like Cruisin USA, forgot about that one. That Jet Ski Game? Wayne Gretzky, ya I don't even need to read through the Wikipedia page of games to know this thread is silly.

Edit: Jesus Christ, I had a TON of games when I was a little kid. I bought more N64 games than I probably got Xbox and Xbox 360 + PC +Playstation + PS2 combined...
Edit2: I had golden eye at the Age of 8 it seems like... Dunno what to say about that one lol.

 

[Bman123]

The N64 is my favorite childhood console. I remember playing goldeneye and blitz for hours on end with my buddies

 

[Sulaco]

Why did Nintendo always try to make that excuse back in the day with Nintendo 64? At the end of '97 the N64 only had like 40 games at the most, while the PSX had 300 games plus the fact that quality is subjective.

Sega had more games made per year for the Saturn than Nintendo did for the N64.

Were you ever angry about Nintendo always saying "quality, not quantity" like I was?

Uh, no? I was 12-14 at the height of the N64 popularity, and even back then I understood the marketing BS behind it.

It's simple: They had very few games out compared to the competition, for a huge stretch of time. From a marketing standpoint, what else are you going to say? "Yeah, we don't have many games, and many that we do have aren't that great, either. Bummer."

It's the same with the "cartridge vs. CDs" debate that was raging, but was clearly one-sided. Everyone knew CDs were the way of the future and offered innumerable advantages over archaic cartridges, but what did you expect Nintendo marketing to say? "yeah, we screwed up and should have gone with CDs. Sony was right."

You seem to have this idea that marketing lines are supposed to be truthful, honest, and unbiased. They are pure spin. They always have been, always will be. You are painfully naive to think otherwise.

Mario 64 saved Nintendo, and Nintendo's marketing, for months, as the meager N64 library had to subsist with the likes of Cruisn' USA, Killer Instinct, and Shadows of the Empire, all below average even for the time.

I was a huge nerd in the day, and was one of the few people who owned all three of the consoles at release (still have them packed away in the closet).
In my opinion, the N64 had a relatively weak library, and couldn't hold a candle to the PSX, but saying the 3DO had a stronger one is just laughable and destroys your credibility. Mario 64 alone blew the 3DO's library out of the water, and then factoring in other AAA titles like Goldeneye and OoT and it's just silly.

Can you provide an example of where Nintendo directly made that argument? I've seen other people say something like that in defense of Nintendo. But not Nintendo themselves.

The "quality not quantity" tagline was indeed Nintendo's, and was used in the highest levels of marketing, even quoted by Howard Lincoln and others at the time. I don't have the time right now, but I scan plenty of Next Generation game magazine articles from 1996-1997, and interviews with Nintendo reps who use this same line.
It was, indeed, Nintendo's official stance. And it had to be; they had a major numerical disadvantage.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I never did buy an N64. I borrowed it from a friend to play a couple games and gave it back. Probably the very worst game library of a Nintendo console IMO. Only a handfull of games I even consider worthy of a purchase. However I never compare it to the 3DO. The 3DO was like the turbo grafix 16. It did a couple things better than the other systems, had a couple great titles but had poor marketing and high pricing.

 

[zerocool84]

I never did buy an N64. I borrowed it from a friend to play a couple games and gave it back. Probably the very worst game library of a Nintendo console IMO. Only a handfull of games I even consider worthy of a purchase. However I never compare it to the 3DO. The 3DO was like the turbo grafix 16. It did a couple things better than the other systems, had a couple great titles but had poor marketing and high pricing.

The N64 had a ton of great games on it, Zelda, Mario 64, Wave Race, Mario Kart, Shadows of the Empire, others can chime in, even though I never owned it, it had many great exclusives.

 

[Sulaco]

The N64 had a ton of great games on it, Zelda, Mario 64, Wave Race, Mario Kart, Shadows of the Empire, others can chime in, even though I never owned it, it had many great exclusives.

Calling Shadows of the Empire a "great game" is a joke lol. Outside of the cool as heck Hoth flying segment, and some of the later space battles, it was mediocre by 1996 standards.
And I say this as someone who owned it and Mario64 at launch. It was just...blegh.

 

[cmdrdredd]

The N64 had a ton of great games on it, Zelda, Mario 64, Wave Race, Mario Kart, Shadows of the Empire, others can chime in, even though I never owned it, it had many great exclusives.

Unfortunately, only zelda, mario, a couple Rare games (banjo and the like) and conker's bad fur day are on my list. I was never a fan of star wars games outside of Knights of the Old republic and I am a fan of the franchise quite a bit. I don't really know why either, no particular reason. None of them really did it for me. I don't even talk about Goldeneye. People hold it up to some standard or whatever but I was playing FPS games on PC that blew it away in every way before it even released.

 

[smackababy]

Rogue Squadron was decent on 64, but a lot of the games weren't great and the good ones were few and far between. Sadly, it didn't have a Metroid game.

 

[Exophase]

The "quality not quantity" tagline was indeed Nintendo's, and was used in the highest levels of marketing, even quoted by Howard Lincoln and others at the time. I don't have the time right now, but I scan plenty of Next Generation game magazine articles from 1996-1997, and interviews with Nintendo reps who use this same line.
It was, indeed, Nintendo's official stance. And it had to be; they had a major numerical disadvantage.

I guess by the time they were doing it I must have been too disinterested in N64 to notice. I don't remember it in gaming mags, but I read stuff like GamePro and EGM, not Next Generation.. I was about the same age you were at the time.

The whole topic of silly Nintendo marketing reminds me of the top 10 list for Gamecube's superiority that Nintendo Power gave once.

http://www.neoseeker.com/forums/64/t249254-top-10-reasons-gcn-beats-pants-off-ps2-xbox/

Sometimes when people talk about obvious advantages one console has over another I think to myself "yeah, but does it have a handle and the ability to not play DVDs? I didn't think so."

 

[Tweak155]

N64 was by far the better multi player system. Also Mario 64 was an absolute perfect release game. It showed off what the system could do and was a blast to boot.

I had both systems back then, but had way more games for N64.

I can see it being subjective, though. The only good multiplayer games I can remember playing for PS1 were Jet Moto (1 & 2) and Twisted Metal. Whereas Mario Kart 64 was a staple at everyone's house and was played hours on end, not to mention Goldeneye 64 and somewhat it's blood relative Perfect Dark.

Overall the closest thing I've heard Nintendo say is that their first party games don't get resold like most of the games out there (regarding Game Stop impact to developers). And it's true... if you go to Game Stop, Nintendo first party titles are likely to be the most expensive options in the used section outside of games just released that month.

 

[slag]

I don't consider the first xbox as aging horribly. There are many games I still play on it. It's a great setup!

 

[slag]

If the 3DO had a better library than the N64, nobody knew about it. There wasn't a single person I knew growing up that had one. Probably because it cost $700 IIRC. Nobody had a Saturn either. It was either PlayStation or N64.

I agree that the N64 did have a small library. However, they must have been on to something with that quality over quantity. Especially when that library includes Mario64, GoldenEye, and Ocarina of Time. Games that are in most people's all time top ten. This seems to be Nintendo's way of doing things. Their first and second party games have always been top notch.

I had a turbografx 16. It was pretty cool.

 

[rga]

My father bought us a 3D0. I remember playing Street Fighter and Need For Speed and FIFA. I never new it cost $700 though. Whoa.

I ended up buying a Nintendo 64 closer to the end of its generation. Like one poster said, I played GoldenEye and Blitz for hours with friends. Ocarina of Time was a favourite of mine too. I never really thought about the lack of games that were available. I had a lot of funs with the games I was playing. I also had a blast with Ocarina Of Time and Super Mario 64 and Mario Kart 64.

 

[smackababy]

It wasn't until I was older that I realzied the library for the N64 was small. I always figured my parents just didn't want to buy me more games for it. I had tons of NES games and a good amount of SNES and Genesis games. Strangely, I only had a few Master System games and maybe 3 or 4 Sega CD games (although, it was terrible so I was okay with that).

I did have a PS1 about a year before I had an N64 though, so I accumulated a large library for that, which worked great because it translated over to the PS2 as well. >_>

 

[Lil Frier]

Are we REALLY calling the Nintendo 64 library bad? What? Just to cover the off-the-top-of-my-head games I can remember that I loved when I played it as a kid (some of which I still like and have played semi-recently, as my sister has a Nintendo 64 at her house):

--Super Mario 64
--Super Smash Bros.
--Yoshi's Story (don't care what anyone says, I liked it)
--Snowboard Kids/Snowboard Kids 2
--Diddy Kong Racing
--Mario Kart 64
--Pokemon Stadium/Pokemon Stadium 2
--Pokemon Snap! (yep, liked that as well)
--NFL Blitz Games
--Banjo-Kazooie/Banjo-Tooie

Again, that's just what I could pull off without actually trying or thinking.