"quality, not quantity"

[Arkaign]

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.

Almost all of those are 1st party games, which were pretty good. However, there were far far far more good games on PS1. Most 3rd party games on N64 were pretty terrible, or at best merely average.

That said, comparing N64 to 3DO is crazy talk. The 3DO is nearly worthless, and was the most overpriced thing ever. Maybe 4-5 'okay' games, nothing great honestly. The TG16 mentioned somewhere actually had a LOT more good games. For an expensive console of similar era, Neo Geo was way way better than 3DO. Tons of great sports titles, Metal Slug series, Fatal Fury series, Samurai Shodown, King of Fighters, Aero Fighters 2, just all kinds of great stuff.

 

[Oyeve]

Wow. As I was an adult (30) at the time that i bought my 3DO, I can honestly say that system had the worse library ever. IMO its only redeeming quality is that it brought out the first NFS game and that is all. I still, to this day, cant believe I paid 699 for it. But then again, I did buy the Atari Jaguar too!

 

[Lil Frier]

Almost all of those are 1st party games, which were pretty good. However, there were far far far more good games on PS1. Most 3rd party games on N64 were pretty terrible, or at best merely average.

That said, comparing N64 to 3DO is crazy talk. The 3DO is nearly worthless, and was the most overpriced thing ever. Maybe 4-5 'okay' games, nothing great honestly. The TG16 mentioned somewhere actually had a LOT more good games. For an expensive console of similar era, Neo Geo was way way better than 3DO. Tons of great sports titles, Metal Slug series, Fatal Fury series, Samurai Shodown, King of Fighters, Aero Fighters 2, just all kinds of great stuff.

When has Nintendo had a console not carried by its own games, though? To discredit the Nintendo 64's deep first-party offerings because of the low-quality third-party offerings makes no sense. Especially today, third-party quality isn't usually a big deal.

Sony and Microsoft basically get every third-party game the other gets. What that leads to is a comparison of first-party titles. Now, Nintendo's shooting itself in the foot repeatedly because of weaker, strange console hardware, because if it could bet quality support from titles like CoD, Battlefield, and the general sports game market, Nintendo would have a chance to clean up in the console wars, just because it has such a deep library of entertaining first-party titles.

I wouldn't have traded my Nintendo 64 for a PlayStation on any given day as a kid. I wasn't huge on Sony's stuff, with the only exclusive I ever loved being Kingdom Hearts. Sony had a deeper overall library, but I still think I'd prefer a shallower N64 library every time.

 

[cmdrdredd]

When has Nintendo had a console not carried by its own games, though? To discredit the Nintendo 64's deep first-party offerings because of the low-quality third-party offerings makes no sense. Especially today, third-party quality isn't usually a big deal.

Sony and Microsoft basically get every third-party game the other gets. What that leads to is a comparison of first-party titles. Now, Nintendo's shooting itself in the foot repeatedly because of weaker, strange console hardware, because if it could bet quality support from titles like CoD, Battlefield, and the general sports game market, Nintendo would have a chance to clean up in the console wars, just because it has such a deep library of entertaining first-party titles.

I wouldn't have traded my Nintendo 64 for a PlayStation on any given day as a kid. I wasn't huge on Sony's stuff, with the only exclusive I ever loved being Kingdom Hearts. Sony had a deeper overall library, but I still think I'd prefer a shallower N64 library every time.

Since the snes , Nintendo has made mistake after mistake with their consoles. Even the Wii had barely anything for games.

 

[slag]

I don't see it listed, but really, the sega dreamcast was where it was at. Super easy to mod, great fun games to play. I don't know why it failed honestly.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I don't see it listed, but really, the sega dreamcast was where it was at. Super easy to mod, great fun games to play. I don't know why it failed honestly.

First reason you pointed out is probably the main reason it failed. The second is the PS2 had more money behind it.

 

[Arkaign]

First reason you pointed out is probably the main reason it failed. The second is the PS2 had more money behind it.

That and I think after the pricing debacle with the Saturn (amongst many other problems the Saturn had) that they went TOO far undercutting the price. $199 was crazy talk when the competition was $299, even though it was missing the DVD drive. Too much of a loss leader imho, which I have never said about any other console ever.

And definitely needed more 3rd party support as you say.

 

[Arkaign]

When has Nintendo had a console not carried by its own games, though? To discredit the Nintendo 64's deep first-party offerings because of the low-quality third-party offerings makes no sense. Especially today, third-party quality isn't usually a big deal.

Sony and Microsoft basically get every third-party game the other gets. What that leads to is a comparison of first-party titles. Now, Nintendo's shooting itself in the foot repeatedly because of weaker, strange console hardware, because if it could bet quality support from titles like CoD, Battlefield, and the general sports game market, Nintendo would have a chance to clean up in the console wars, just because it has such a deep library of entertaining first-party titles.

I wouldn't have traded my Nintendo 64 for a PlayStation on any given day as a kid. I wasn't huge on Sony's stuff, with the only exclusive I ever loved being Kingdom Hearts. Sony had a deeper overall library, but I still think I'd prefer a shallower N64 library every time.

NES, SNES, Gameboy, GBC, GBA, DS, 3DS all had/have very solid 3rd party support.

Look, I'm not dissing the N64 totally, it was a solid entry. But I don't think many would agree beyond personal preferences which vary that the PS1 had a dramatically more diverse library with probably 10 times the number of solid games (8/10s and above). That doesn't take away from the handful of gems on N64.

 

[Exophase]

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.

I haven't met a lot of people who actually think N64 was a bad console or a total failure, and almost everyone recognizes there were a fair number of good games. Even if they didn't enjoy all of them themselves, they can at least understand why they're highly acclaimed.

But N64 seriously lacked genre diversity. The system had a ton of racing, sports, 3D platformer, and FPS games but was seriously lacking in quality RPGs, shmups, and 2D games of any sort. I'd even consider the lineup of fighters pretty flimsy compared to PS1 and especially Saturn.

When has Nintendo had a console not carried by its own games, though? To discredit the Nintendo 64's deep first-party offerings because of the low-quality third-party offerings makes no sense. Especially today, third-party quality isn't usually a big deal.

Expanding on what other people have said, let's just say there were a lot of franchises and genres that were well represented on SNES that got moved to PS1 or even Saturn over N64.

 

[Sulaco]

When has Nintendo had a console not carried by its own games, though?

Since the SNES. Which, ironically, next to the fad-of-the-moment Wii and its motion gimmick in '06, was the last Nintendo console that "won" a generational war.
The SNES library was arguably THE greatest of all time. More fantastic games, across so many genres, then practically any other console in history. And a HUGE portion of those were quality 3rd party titles.

Then the N64 came around, and while a success financially, it couldn't really compete with the PSX, and Sony easily won that round.
The Gamecube, sadly, largely flopped compared to the competition, again, with little in the way of 3rd party support rivaling Xbox and PS2.
The Wii was a smash success because of its ultra-low price and motion gimmick, and let's be clear, not on the strength of its library. I think even die-hard Nintendo fans will concede that point. Just look at the lackluster software attachment rates.
And now the WiiU, which has struggled for a year now, even with NO current gen competition whatsoever. Of course, the WiiU suffers from both a weak first party AND 3rd party line-up.

I wouldn't have traded my Nintendo 64 for a PlayStation on any given day as a kid. I wasn't huge on Sony's stuff, with the only exclusive I ever loved being Kingdom Hearts. Sony had a deeper overall library, but I still think I'd prefer a shallower N64 library every time.

The N64 had a few great strengths, but was extremely shallow, nowhere NEAR as diverse as the PSX. It had excellent (local, obviously) multiplayer support because of the 4 controller ports, strong FPS with GoldenEye, Perfect Dark, Turok, and of course, unbeatable platform hoppers.
But it was far behind in fighting games, sports games, survival horror/mature-themed games, and dreadful for RPGs.

 

[Lil Frier]

I can't help but wonder the degree to which the horrendous input methods have affected Nintendo. The N64 was passably-bad. The GameCube was a clunky monstrosity. The Wii worked for casual gaming and simple games, but there was NO WAY it would be functionally-sound for shooters or RPGs, really. That, and the Wii bar was finicky after about 20 feet, so getting a consistently-strong connection for pointing at things with the Wiimote was a nightmare from a couch. Then you get to the Wii U, which is the biggest disaster of them all. The purpose of that tablet? I do not know.

 

[Anarchist420]

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."

I don't think Sony managed it right either, only Sega did... I hated the PS1 loading times every bit as much as I hated the lack of content in N64 games.

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.

Not really, because I've always believed the Genesis and Super NES were equal in terms of tech, overall. They traded blows, the same number of times in terms of tech. But then the Genesis only had one (as far as I know) game that used an additional processor and it did just as much with programming as the Super NES did... Nintendo's programming vs. power ad in '95 (I read game players and Gamepro mostly since 93 and then in 96 I started a subscription to EGM and Next Generation) was dishonest because it said that Sega should've eased up on peoples' wallets (about the 32X and the Neptune that never came out) when they were charging much higher royalty fees and making several games with what the one-time buy of a 32X could do.

I've never thought that the PS1 was inferior to the Sega Saturn either. At the same time, I realize the N64 was more powerful than the PS1 and the Saturn.

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.

My friends and I played GoldenEye hours every day for like a year and half (pistols, license to kill, paintball, archives, no kill limit, no time limit, no being doodoojob or any of the other midgets, and no radar/screenwatching), and Mario Kart 64 quite frequently. I played Blitz for 6 hours a week for like a year with one of my friends.

As for NFL Blitz games, the N64 version of the 2000 one wasn't as good as the DC and glide versions were. Some would also say that the first was better in glide with Microsoft Sidewinder gamepads and even on the PS1 since it didn't have such a stiff- ass d-pad.

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.

So did I. I didn't like Ocarina of Time that much.

N64 was by far the better multi player system.

No disagreement from me there.

And I say this as someone who owned it and Mario64 at launch. It was just...blegh.

Shadows of the Empire was neither available at launch nor was 100% exclusive to the N64. Sorry about that.

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

I did the same.

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.

Shadows of the Empire was only temporarily N64-exclusive... it came out for the PC in mid-'97.

 

[Sulaco]

I don't think Sony managed it right either, only Sega did... I hated the PS1 loading times every bit as much as I hated the lack of content in N64 games.
Not really, because I've always believed the Genesis and Super NES were equal in terms of tech, overall. They traded blows, the same number of times in terms of tech. But then the Genesis only had one (as far as I know) game that used an additional processor and it did just as much with programming as the Super NES did... Nintendo's programming vs. power ad in '95 (I read game players and Gamepro mostly since 93 and then in 96 I started a subscription to EGM and Next Generation) was dishonest because it said that Sega should've eased up on peoples' wallets (about the 32X and the Neptune that never came out) when they were charging much higher royalty fees and making several games with what the one-time buy of a 32X could do.

Ok, you're typing a lot, but you're not actually saying anything. You're all over the map.
The Saturn did not have discernibly better load times than the PS1. Regardless, no one cares about your personal views. We're arguing from an industry and sales perspective. You also stated that you think the 3DO library was superior to the N64s. Your entitled to your view, but it was irrelevant then and irrelevant now.

Shadows of the Empire was neither available at launch nor was 100% exclusive to the N64. Sorry about that.

Jackass, The N64 was released in late September. SotE was released in early November, barely a month later.
I got both for Christmas of '96. The Holiday Launch Season. I didn't mean 12 midnight on launch day. -.-

What its (non) exclusivity to the N64 has to do with ANYTHING is irrelevant, as it was one of only a literal handful of games available that crucial Christmas season.
Oh, and it sucked. It was mediocre at the time, and aged terribly, and most reviewers and magazines admitted it, but it sold so well because of the total lack of software available at the time.

 

[Anarchist420]

The Saturn did not have discernibly better load times than the PS1.

In rare cases it didn't (MK2, Nocturne in the Moonlight, Croc), but overall it was faster than PS1.

Regardless, no one cares about your personal views.

You're probably right.

 

[diesbudt]

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.

Don't forget the ORIGINAL Super Smash brothers.

 

[Lil Frier]

My friends and I played GoldenEye hours every day for like a year and half (pistols, license to kill, paintball, archives, no kill limit, no time limit, no being doodoojob or any of the other midgets, and no radar/screenwatching), and Mario Kart 64 quite frequently. I played Blitz for 6 hours a week for like a year with one of my friends.

As for NFL Blitz games, the N64 version of the 2000 one wasn't as good as the DC and glide versions were. Some would also say that the first was better in glide with Microsoft Sidewinder gamepads and even on the PS1 since it didn't have such a stiff- ass d-pad.

I never played GoldenEye. I think that the version of Blitz that I played was the 2001 version, mostly. When I was in 5th grade, I got pneumonia, and the hospital I stayed in had Nintendo 64s available. Of course, the games weren't that great, so I had my parents bring the ones we had/rented. I played plenty of Blitz and Pokemon Stadium.

 

[diesbudt]

NES, SNES, Gameboy, GBC, GBA, DS, 3DS all had/have very solid 3rd party support.

Look, I'm not dissing the N64 totally, it was a solid entry. But I don't think many would agree beyond personal preferences which vary that the PS1 had a dramatically more diverse library with probably 10 times the number of solid games (8/10s and above). That doesn't take away from the handful of gems on N64.

True, however because of how "good" those gems were, and how most of them find themselves on the top 10 list of all games with a lot of people (Along with FF # and Kingdom Hearts).

This helps define they did a decent job fighting the quality vs quantity.

In a straight up comparison, I would give the edge to the N64. The thing I liked about it more, was except for a few games, it had internal memory in the cartridge. Playstation at the time didn't have much of a hard drive, and thus required memory cards, and until bigger and better and PS2 sized cards, I needed 3-4 just for my games... and then losing them.... and blah blah blah

One of my favorite games for the PS however was Monster Rancher 1/2. Oh god I spent so much time on that game.

 

[exdeath]

No mention of Conker's Bad Fur Day in any of the N64 must have games lists here.

You all disappoint me.

Ok it was mentioned once on the previous page.

 

[Exophase]

The thing I liked about it more, was except for a few games, it had internal memory in the cartridge. Playstation at the time didn't have much of a hard drive, and thus required memory cards, and until bigger and better and PS2 sized cards, I needed 3-4 just for my games... and then losing them.... and blah blah blah

Playstation had no internal storage. But having storage on the games themselves just meant you paid extra for storage every time you bought a game that could save. That price was less extreme since they weren't marked up like crazy like memory cards were, and you'd just include as much space as the game needed, but it's still less efficient in the long run. Especially if you didn't feel you needed to fill up the whole save data on a cart.

Another nicer thing about having storage not coupled to the game itself was that you could rent games without worrying about losing your saves when you returned them. I remember when that happened to me with Phantasy Star 4 when I couldn't keep renting it anymore, that was the last I played the game until I could emulate it years later. You could also transfer saves to other people and between games, that enabled some features that on-cart saves didn't give you.

 

[exdeath]

Playstation had no internal storage. But having storage on the games themselves just meant you paid extra for storage every time you bought a game that could save. That price was less extreme since they weren't marked up like crazy like memory cards were, and you'd just include as much space as the game needed, but it's still less efficient in the long run. Especially if you didn't feel you needed to fill up the whole save data on a cart.

Another nicer thing about having storage not coupled to the game itself was that you could rent games without worrying about losing your saves when you returned them. I remember when that happened to me with Phantasy Star 4 when I couldn't keep renting it anymore, that was the last I played the game until I could emulate it years later. You could also transfer saves to other people and between games, that enabled some features that on-cart saves didn't give you.

Everdrive. /fixed

Play my games on real hardware, keep my saves on SD card.