By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
archbrix on 01 February 2014
Edit Thread
artur-fernand said:
archbrix said:

I agree with Cobretti @bolded.

I will concede that if you were to rank the 100 best games of that generation there would be more PS games in that list than N64 games.  But if we just rank the top 20 games of the generation - the best of the best - then the N64 would have far more games present IMO.


Of course top 10/20's etc are entirely subjective but... no, just no.

N64 was basically a Nintendo/Rare console, and that was it. Like rpgs? Too bad, you're not getting any. In fact, I think that if you take Square's whole library from that generation, you're getting pretty close to the number of must-have games on the N64.

All the games that defined the generation were released on the PS1. I can think of 3 exceptions: Mario 64, Ocarina of Time and Goldeneye. But that's beyond the topic.

Of course it's subjective; nobody can be wrong in such a discussion... but I steadfastly disagree.

I'm not a big fan of RPGs, particularly the FFs from that generation, so I don't sympathize with your point about the N64's lack of them being detrimental.

Yes, the N64 was absolutely just a Nintendo/Rare console.  In fact, I think that it has possibly the worst 3rd party games/support of any of Nintendo's consoles.  However, that doesn't change the fact that most of my favorite games from that era were from Ninty and Rare.

If you're speaking toward variety then I would concede that the PS definitely takes it, which is likely why I think there were a larger number of "good" games on the console.  When I think of "great" games, there's the Resident Evil series, the Street Fighter Alpha games, and I thought MGS was really good as well.  But to me the N64 has the edge when it comes to "great" games and when we get into the truly "outstanding" games, the PS has only one, Castlevania: SOTN, that can hold its own against the N64 Zeldas and Mario 64.

Again, just my opinion.