Quantcast
N64 vs Wii U

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - N64 vs Wii U

I choose...

Wii U 32 28.83%
 
N64 79 71.17%
 
Total:111
curl-6 said:
bigtakilla said:

Xenosaga and Xenogears seem to be doing pretty well for itself, as far as staying in peoples minds.

Now will it be talked about in the same light as Mario or Zelda, of course not. We are talking about 35+ years (and Mario I think is creeping on 40 years) of history. Now if there were only a generation where we could play practically all home console LoZ's, and heck why not update the old 3D games graphics, that would be amazing woudn't it? Oh wait.

I'm not talking about those games, I'm talking about Xenoblade Chronicles X. Don't get me wrong, it's a good game, but it's hardly talked about now even 4 years after its release, by the time it's as old as the N64 is now it'll be little more than a footnote.

siebensus4 said:

Nintendo had lost their ambition during Wii era. This console was a massive success and they thought Wii U would be fast-selling as well. Within the first year Nintendo realized that this wouldn't be the case and from that point on I have the impression they got their ambition back. 3D World was the first proof – a perfect game with full of love designed and without gameplay bugs. Splatoon, Mario Kart 8 and Mario Maker really showed that they wanted to make good games for this specific console. All games got updates for about a year and got better and better, though they were not rated as high as some N64 titles, which is in case of Mario Kart 8 and Splatoon actually a shame.

I actually found Nintendo more ambitious on Wii than Wii U; the only first party Wii U games with real ambition were XCX and BOTW, while Wii had Mario Galaxy 1 & 2, Xenoblade, Metroid Prime 3, Twilight Princess...

Wii Sports, Nintendogs, Brain Age, Wii fit is ambition. Bold.

Nintendo picked up the best teams to create the games for the expanded audience. Not to mention getting back to the roots, Virtual Console, ignoring the competition for the red ocean. If this has not been bold, risky and ambitious, I don't know what it can be.
Then the thirds party saw the success of Wii and Ds and decided to create games with low-budget teams with a poor budget and wanted to have the same success as nintendo?  

Around the Network
bigtakilla said:

I'd say the N64 did 3d polygons better sure, WAY better though... Eh. But that is to take out all aspects of story telling, which is what put gaming in the eye of mass audiences and made it what it is today. You really can't argue that. Now if you want to say Nintendo changed how games are played, I'm with you. But you wanna know who changed the way games are made? 

On to the Wii U. It uses its own proprietary disks, so it's not really CD's it used. It doesn't play blu rays, but now we are kind of going outside of gaming. Memory was less, but you can also hook up external storage, so this wasn't really an issue. And yeah, not as strong as it's competitors, but could do (though granted to a lesser extent) everything the other consoles could do. 

As for asymmetrical gaming, the reality is it was just too hard to develop. Nintendo bit off more than they could chew, and i can accept that when they not only had to dive in to HD gaming, but also have games playable across two screens, and it is a shame it never took off because it was awesome. 

Oh I definitely would say the 3D polygon capabilities are way better. 

Take a look at Coolboarders 3 vs 1080 Snowboarding. It ALMOST looks like a generational leap ahead. First you have actual shadows, the polygonal models are better, the resolution is much better. The only thing that the N64 didn't do as well was textures, but that was due to it's medium more than anything. 

Regarding the Wii U, I meant optical discs when I said CD's, but my point is the same. The console wasn't nearly as innovative as the N64, neither on a hardware level or software level. The Wii U's big gimmick was never taken full advantage of, meanwhile the N64's helped propel gaming forward in a way that probably accelerated gaming a whole generation (By my estimates, analog sticks would have been implemented at the PS2 generation if Nintendo hadn't done it already with the N64). The N64 was the most innovative that propelled gaming forward, the most powerful, and had some of the highest rated games of the generation (Ocarina of Time at 99, THPS2 at 98, Perfect Dark at 97, Goldeneye at 96, Majoras Mask at 95, and Super Mario 64 at 94). The Wii U might have been the most innovative, but it wasn't the most powerful, it doesn't have nearly same highly lauded games (BotW at 97, Super Mario 3D World at 93, Smash Bros at 92...and that's it), and even it's innovations haven't propelled gaming forward in any significant way. 

This is why the Wii U isn't as great as the N64.



Doctor_MG said:
bigtakilla said:

I'd say the N64 did 3d polygons better sure, WAY better though... Eh. But that is to take out all aspects of story telling, which is what put gaming in the eye of mass audiences and made it what it is today. You really can't argue that. Now if you want to say Nintendo changed how games are played, I'm with you. But you wanna know who changed the way games are made? 

On to the Wii U. It uses its own proprietary disks, so it's not really CD's it used. It doesn't play blu rays, but now we are kind of going outside of gaming. Memory was less, but you can also hook up external storage, so this wasn't really an issue. And yeah, not as strong as it's competitors, but could do (though granted to a lesser extent) everything the other consoles could do. 

As for asymmetrical gaming, the reality is it was just too hard to develop. Nintendo bit off more than they could chew, and i can accept that when they not only had to dive in to HD gaming, but also have games playable across two screens, and it is a shame it never took off because it was awesome. 

Oh I definitely would say the 3D polygon capabilities are way better. 

Take a look at Coolboarders 3 vs 1080 Snowboarding. It ALMOST looks like a generational leap ahead. First you have actual shadows, the polygonal models are better, the resolution is much better. The only thing that the N64 didn't do as well was textures, but that was due to it's medium more than anything. 

Regarding the Wii U, I meant optical discs when I said CD's, but my point is the same. The console wasn't nearly as innovative as the N64, neither on a hardware level or software level. The Wii U's big gimmick was never taken full advantage of, meanwhile the N64's helped propel gaming forward in a way that probably accelerated gaming a whole generation (By my estimates, analog sticks would have been implemented at the PS2 generation if Nintendo hadn't done it already with the N64). The N64 was the most innovative that propelled gaming forward, the most powerful, and had some of the highest rated games of the generation (Ocarina of Time at 99, THPS2 at 98, Perfect Dark at 97, Goldeneye at 96, Majoras Mask at 95, and Super Mario 64 at 94). The Wii U might have been the most innovative, but it wasn't the most powerful, it doesn't have nearly same highly lauded games (BotW at 97, Super Mario 3D World at 93, Smash Bros at 92...and that's it), and even it's innovations haven't propelled gaming forward in any significant way. 

This is why the Wii U isn't as great as the N64.