Well name a game which had the true analogue character control prior to Mario 64 and also that had a free camera system which was controlled by the player.

However, Open World games existed on the PS1. http://www.vgchartz.com/game/591/driver-2/ actually shifted a fair quantity in unit sales too.

GTA 3 just happened to be in the right place at the right time as far as gaming culture goes. It was an early PS2 title, and the PS2 was the first console to truly be powerful enough to run a full open 3D world. They taxed the previous systems to their limits and Dremcast didn't really get any beyond PS1 ports.

GTA 3 didn't actually influence them, it was just one of the first to market. Meanwhile many mechanics for 3D games were borrowed from Mario 64. GTA 3 actually has some incredibly poor control mechanics and an awful targeting system. Hell they could have at least used Ocarina of Time's Z lock system for a decent aiming system. And don't get me started on how awful the frame rate was. Single digits are never acceptable.

I think you're getting things a bit skewed in your perspective. So-called "open world" games have been around for a hell of a long time, dating back to The Legend of Zelda on NES and old school PC rpgs and adventure games. "Open World" is nothing new, and GTA certainly did not invent it whatsoever. What GTA did make popular (but didn't invent), was so-called "sandbox" gameplay, wherein you have a game world with a bunch of non-important stuff that you can dick around doing.

Furthermore, while you're certainly correct that GTAIII was popular and many people have tried to emulate it since, including Rockstar themselves, let's not get it twisted. Mario 64 didn't just influence one type of 3D polygonal game. It influenced most types. There is a very clear shift in 3D development before, and then after Mario 64 released. That game wasn't just a blueprint for 3D platformers, as you suggest, which, by the way, went on to influence Crash Bandicoot, Jak & Daxter, Ratchet & Clank, Banjo-Kazooie, Sly Cooper, etc. (if we're just talking about platformers). It literally influenced almost every single genre of 3D gaming, because it showed developers how to do so many things the right way (as opposed to the, let's say, Bubsy 3D way), such as lighting, "camera" work, "camera" control, physics, how polygonal game elements should appropriately interact with each other so as to provide smooth gameplay and not look shitty, tight controls, depth of field design, how to handle air/flying, how to handle underwater action, how to account for things like emulated gravity and inertia in a 3D polygonal game world, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Mario 64 was, I know it's been said before but bears repeating, the Super Mario Bros. of 3D gaming. As much as SMB set the groundwork for all future side-scrolling games, Mario 64 did the same for 3D gaming. Not just platformers, but action games, sports games, fighters, arguably racers, etc. Ocarina of Time also deserves some serious credit, of course, for further illustrating what could/should be done in a 3D game environment. But M64 was the granddaddy.

GTAIII deserves all the props and accollades people want to give it, but I'm sorry, when we're talking about which game actually hd the bigger, wider, more far reaching impact/influence on future 3D game design, it's Mario 64. End of story.

It depends on your definition of "influential" - from a videogame development perspective, it's got to be Mario 64.

Very good points but not exactly my arguements but I'll bite.

1. Mario 64 was the pinnacle of controls, I've never argued that. I'm arguing influence, not how good a game is. I'll agree with you that Mario 64 did it first on consoles.

2. I've already stated before that open world games have existed before GTA 3, look at my previous posts. That was never my point. Again, my point is influence.

3. Wasn't Mario 64 the only game to launch on N64? Talk about opportunity but that's not my point. So what about PC? PC's were more powerful than PS2's yet development of open world games still weren't nearly as prominent as when GTA 3 released. Power had nothing to do with it. Your right to say that GTA 3 was an early PS2 title and previous consoles werent powerful enough but there was still a lucrative platform called the PC that was much more powerful than PS2 and ahead of consoles. Many games on PC also used the z-axis, would you like me to list those as well? A developer is a developer and a game is a game wether it be on PS2, N64 or PC, it is what it is so please don't list PC as an excuse

4. Mario 64's controls technology was invented in 1961 and has been used in gaming since the 80's. Mario 64 was one of the first to do it on consoles and did it the best but Mario 64 did not invent it. Having said that Mario 64 had a huge effect with how well it performed, like someone said before me, Nintendo showed how to do it properly. GTA 3 having a bad aiming system has nothing to do with how it influenced the consumer. Horrible this and horrible that does not change GTA 3's influence status what-so-ever.

The best way I can describe how I see it is Mario 64 was the first to do 3D gaming properly on consoles but GTA 3 is what pushed 3D gaming more than any other title. Fanbase, sales, console increase at time of release, controversy surrounding the title. The fact that it was not based on a very recognizable franchise also speaks wonders about how fast it changed the industry but of course I can't hold Mario's recognition against Mario 64 because the gameplay speaks for itself, Mario 64 was practically perfect.

You guys are very convincing. I can see now how Mario 64 would be more influential but I still believe that Mario 64 did it correctly but GTA 3 really pushed the industry.

It's pretty much equal, but I'd say Super Mario 64 for making 3D games what they are.

Gta 3, open world gameplay and guns are more popular than platformers now.

the comparison itself should be a joke... Mario 64 mastered in one try what dozens of other games failed to do even years after its release. GTA 3 is just a natural progression of violent video games. I don't think it takes a genius to come up with violent video game ideas, and I think it takes even less effort to make them sell.

That's why developers love making COD and GTA clones, no thought required just throw in some eye catching violence and you have a million seller.

I played GTA 3 and its successors, but what specifically makes it so groundbreaking?  Extreme violence, I can name a dozen games that preceeded it.  Open world?  Again, as others have pointed out, a dozen games preceeded it.  What was groundbreaking is that it took existing elements across a dozen different other games and put them together in a really really attractive package. 

@DarkD i dont think thats true of GTA cause if it was that easy the clones would have been successful. now cod is another story. it has milked and below average writen all over it. now thats easy to make.

Mario 64 was an innovative game and all what you want, but platforms it was an already popular genre. That's the difference with GTAIII, which practically was the boom of sandbox games until now... GTAV with the best launch in the history of gaming. So Gta wins for that.