Yeah, but everything you just said can also be applied to the Wii U.  This description basically paints the N64 as a niche console with some very vocal fans.  If that is your assertion, then I can agree with that.  N64 is a lot like the Dreamcast or the Wii U.

Possibly, but it wouldn't be too far off now either. I suspect PS4 Pro sales are around 7-10M by now (around a third of the PS4 consoles in the US right now are Pros, for instance), so if the base consoles haven't passed the bar yet, they will do so very soon.

Yeah, but everything you just said can also be applied to the Wii U.  This description basically paints the N64 as a niche console with some very vocal fans.  If that is your assertion, then I can agree with that.  N64 is a lot like the Dreamcast or the Wii U.

Yeah, but everything you just said can also be applied to the Wii U.  This description basically paints the N64 as a niche console with some very vocal fans.  If that is your assertion, then I can agree with that.  N64 is a lot like the Dreamcast or the Wii U.

I would argue that the N64 has had much more of an impact than the Wii U ever will. At least on the software front. We got genre defining games with Super Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time. Without those games who knows how 3D Mario and Zelda would be today. That's not to mention that it started the Mario Party, Paper Mario, Banjo Kazooie and countless other game series regarded as classics. So I'd refrain from calling the N64 "niche". At least for me, it's impacts are still seen. 

Nintendo never posted any losses during the N64 era.  It wasn't until the Wii U development cycle and release that happened.  The N64 sold 3.6 million units alone in the US in it's first year which is about what the Wii U managed globally.  Also:  "During its first four months, the console yielded 500,000 unit sales in North America.[74] Nintendo successfully outsold Sony and Sega early in 1997 in the United States."  The Wii U didn't even outsell the much older Xbox 360 and PS3 on a week to week basis (even in holiday weeks) during its first year prior to having contend with the PS4 or Xbox One.  So no, not the same situation at all.

Not even close. 33 million in the 90s is a significantly bigger deal than selling 13.5 million in the 2010s because of the size of the markets at time. N64 had close to 25% marketshare while Wii U is under 10%.

As for influential software, games like Mario 64, Ocarina of Time and Goldeneye set the trend for those genres going forward and you can still see their influences 20+ years later. Wii U had so really high quality games but high quality and influential are not the same thing.

One other thing to consider is that most of the N64 love comes from America where N64 actually did pretty well and was competitive with PS1 for a few years.

Age plays a big role in the perception of a console. The vocal N64 fans usually had that certain age where just about anything leaves the biggest impressions. You can also find vocal GC fans who are unsurprisingly on average five years younger than the N64 fans.

While such people tend to give too much credit to those consoles, it needs to be said that those consoles weren't without great games and the introduced standard of four controller ports shouldn't be brushed off. Since it was much less of a hassle to play multiplayer with three or four people simultaneously, such multiplayer sessions became more widespread and that has an impact when a console manufacturer's games are famous for local multiplayer.

That is just about the worst follow-up post I've ever seen. Initially you cited the business perspective, then you proceed to toss it out of the window in the next post.

Wii U wasn't profitable and it does not have a legacy of laying the groundwork for future game development. When you compare Super Mario 64 from summer 1996 to Tomb Raider from fall 1996, it becomes quickly apparent that there was a world of difference in the game quality of actual 3D games at the time. The Nintendo 64 solved multiple problems of the new era of 3D games with its launch title, proceeded to establish the FPS genre on consoles and in 1998 tackled the problem of combat in Ocarina of Time. The lock-on of that Zelda title made 3D games a lot more playable, be it in manual, semi-automatic or automatic lock-on form in later games in a variety of genres.

Of all the non-winning consoles in video game history, the Nintendo 64 is the most important one that has existed. While it's common that the love for a console can be unreasonably high, the Nintendo 64 has legitimately something going for it. The fandom for the initially mentioned GC is much, much more perplexing than the love for the N64 could ever be.

Ocarina of Time mostly influenced the Zelda series and little else.  Zelda was actually more influential when it was 2D, because it inspired a lot more direct competitors than Ocarina ever did.  Goldeneye is not nearly as important to FPS as Doom or Call of Duty. 

Mario 64 is more well known for it's negative influence on platformers than anything else.  The 8/16 bit eras are known for having tons of platformers.  All of these games were imitating 2D Mario.  How many 3D platformers are made nowadays?  Not many.  3D platformers are now a niche genre.  2D platformers used to be the primary genre.  That is the legacy of Mario 64.

Really, you left out the best game: Smash Bros.  It's funny what people think are the "influential games"

Nintendo never posted any losses during the N64 era.  It wasn't until the Wii U development cycle and release that happened.  The N64 sold 3.6 million units alone in the US in it's first year which is about what the Wii U managed globally.  Also:  "During its first four months, the console yielded 500,000 unit sales in North America.[74] Nintendo successfully outsold Sony and Sega early in 1997 in the United States."  The Wii U didn't even outsell the much older Xbox 360 and PS3 on a week to week basis (even in holiday weeks) during its first year prior to having contend with the PS4 or Xbox One.  So no, not the same situation at all.

Your whole post is a crazy defense of the Wii U. You've taken it to a new level.

1. Splatoon and Super Mario Maker aren't influential games. You won't be seeing other companies make games like those.

All the Wii U's hardware showed was how not to do it. Using your logic, the Virtual Boy is one of the most influential consoles of all times. That's not how it works.

2. The Wii U, along with the Virtual Boy, are the only Nintendo consoles that were not profitable over their lifetime. While the 3DS accounted for losses at first, it at least made it all back. On the other hand, the Wii U was sold at a loss from the start and Nintendo could only explain the continued bleeding to investors by pointing to the lack of massproduction as the culprit for the absence of reductions to the manufacturing costs. There's a reason why the Wii U never got a second price cut.

3. You deny Ocarina of Time's importance in your third response of the quote stack, but acknowledge its importance in the fourth response by twisting it into something negative. You are applying massive double standards by saying that Wii U games still have to be given time to prove their influence whereas the influence of Nintendo 64 games was already omnipresent during the generation they released in.

4. If the Nintendo 64 was so bad in your eyes, then how come that you are championing the Wii U in comparison where everything was worse? Nintendo's momentum going into the Wii U era was better than their momentum going into the N64 era. Wii U is Nintendo's worst generation and it came right after Nintendo's most successful generation.

I’ve never held a N64 controller, is it really that bad?