By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Still don't understand why the N64 wasn't the #1 console of that gen?

Cypher1980 said:
Some of The Reasons

- Cartridges were historically used by Nintendo to keep an iron grip over third party Devs. Licensing costs to be Nintendo Seal Approved cost a lot.

- Sony attracted third party Devs away with attractive deals

- Cartirdges were expensive, CD's cheap

In the end, PSX had more games with a broader appeal

Nintendo as usual got left with the best games of the generation and a lot of industry recognition but not the generations winning machine.

Also PSX was the first machine to be sold at less than cost. This practice is now standard in the industry for everyone except Nintendo.

The N64 although not selling well ironically made Nintendo a healthy profit due to its high sticker price.

That's 100 percent opinionated. I disagree completely.

 



Check out my game about moles ^

Around the Network

$60 or $70 for a game. that's crazy I'm not paying that much when in the future their this thing called virtual console. Its games cost $10. 1/6 of what I was going to pay.



Tag:I'm not bias towards Nintendo. You just think that way (Admin note - it's "biased".  Not "bias")
(killeryoshis note - Who put that there ?)
Switch is 9th generation. Everyone else is playing on last gen systems! UPDATE: This is no longer true

Biggest pikmin fan on VGchartz I won from a voting poll
I am not a nerd. I am enthusiast.  EN-THU-SI-AST!
Do Not Click here or else I will call on the eye of shinning justice on you. 

RolStoppable said:
BTFeather55 said:
The reason it didn't become the number one console of its time was because Square cancelled Final Fantasy VI Remake for the N64 and made Final Fantasy VII for PS1 instead.

There was never a FF VI remake announced, Squaresoft only showed a tech demo using FF VI characters. But anyway, I dare to say that the N64 wouldn't have won even if it got Final Fantasy VII exclusively.

 

       Well, FFVII led to FFVIII, and IX, and a truckload of Square games coming to the PS1 and that had some effect on MGS coming to the systems, and that led to the unbeatable lineups of 1999 and 2000 coming to the system.  Of course it could be retrodated to say Ridge Racer, Tomb Raider, and Tekken led to FFVII coming to the system.

     If the N64 had the game lineup that the PS1 had, then it would have won that gen (especially if it had it in addition to Mario and Zelda)..



Heavens to Murgatoids.

Staude said:
warioswoods said:

Agreed, to argue that the PS1's 3D graphics were even in the same league as the N64 is absolute nonsense.  Take any big flagship N64 game and you can be certain it simply couldn't be reproduced on PS1 hardware, not even close.  Sure, the texture detail on the N64 was low, but overall the 3D rendering was far more advanced.

Also, the N64 wasn't some sort of mistake by Nintendo due to arrogance or however it was badly argued by someone above -- they decided to throw all their weight behind true 3D gaming with zero load times and analog control, so, while the system couldn't do a lot of things that the PS1 could in terms of cutscenes or 2D work, it pretty well ushered in the 3D era with its transformation of classic games like Mario and Zelda into the first fully realized 3D platformers and action-adventure titles.  What PS1 was producing in this area isn't even close; their 3D platforming games were either horribly rendered and awkward or actually only 2.5D like Bandicoot.

So sure, they lost the RPG genre and they started to lose the attention of the adolescent gamers who want more of what they often mistakenly deem 'mature' games, but it was a remarkable achievement in terms of reinventing classic 2D gameplay elements for the new 3D era, and we wouldn't have a hell of a lot of what we have now in gaming if not for this system. Let's not forget other important moves like the i nclusion of 4 controller ports standard -- I remember how much that meant to social gaming all those years ago.

 

They didn't invent 3d gaming. Infact they probably only went 3d because sony promoted their console to do the same. I'm not claiming it was better at rendering 3d but if you notice, most ps1 games are 3d. Simply because sony promoted this to the developers.. and they did this even prior to ps1's release.

Of course didn't invent the hardware for 3D gaming, or the basic software concepts of polygons, etc.  What I'm talking about is the fact that it was really only Nintendo who was able to successfully take classic gameplay (series like Mario which, if you jump back before the N64 release, were thought unanimously to be impossible to transition to 3D) and re-envision it for 3D, but not in a cheap way (ie Bandicoot and other 3D platformers that essentially shoved 2D gameplay into 3D graphics) -- Mario 64 and OOT truly ushered in the 3D era for the first time, since they showed with tremendous success how various genres should function in a 3D world.  If you look at any successful 3D platforming or action-adventure title to this day, you'll see remnants of the ideas laid out in the N64 era.

It was really only Nintendo and their then-close allies Rare who made this happen, though, as there were plenty of awful examples of 3D on the N64 as well (Castlevania for instance, which still hasn't figured out how to make the difficult transition to 3D without losing its core gameplay elements).

Anyhow, Sony' console certainly helped bring about some incredible changes in gaming as well (epic RPGs with cinematic cutscenes, for one), but I just don't think you can ignore the impact of Nintendo's first-party titles on the history of 3D gaming, and it's quite a legacy for the otherwise limited N64.



Man I wish I was asked questions like this in my exams-

 

  • N64 came out a year late
  • Used dated catridge technology (apparently to fight piracy)
  • Had crap sound (compared to CD quality PSOne)
  • No FMV/CG (or at least not like the PSOne)
  • Didn't have as much third party support
  • Catridge was more expensive to manufacture so less profit
  • A controller designed for Nintendo games like Mario 64 thus alienting third party support further
  • Relied on Nintento branded characters again while Sony (which gave lot's of third party support) reached out to the masses with the likes of Tekken, Ridge Racer, Wipeout and Final Fantasy all of which looked and sounded way cooler than cutesy N64 characters and games to the new casual gaming audience.
  • Thought they were going to be battling Sega more not newbie Sony
  • PSOne has loads of games coming out all the time. N64 owners kept going on about the same games over and over again while Sony has loads of good games coming out to be topped by an even better game later on and the cycle kept repeating. Didn't really happen with the N64 as much. Mario 64 topped by? Mario Kart topped by? Legend of Zelda topped by? You get the picture.


Around the Network

we still arguing this??? The main big reason of its failure is the use of cartridge and if anyone trying to argue with history need to have their head examined.
Dont even bring out the argument DSI vs PSP these are two completely different market. What work on handheld does not apply to console. Also bought out the the N64 Vs Saturn argument why cartridge wasnt the main reason for n64 is another stupid example. comparing a failure to another failure does not mean a win, I'm pretty sure we need to compare it to psx and what makes the psx so successful while the n64 failed to deliver.



radha said:
FF7

 

agree. no good rpg on n64.



I don't care why the PS1 won that gen, the N64 was still better.
(>'.')>