I'm not putting anything in your mouth (unless you ask me...*winks*).  I was just speaking in general.  You're not the only one that said something along those lines.  I said "People".  The same people that say Mario 64 is a mess of a game--yet it got 10/10 scores in its day.

I never played a Saturn.

I really liked Daitona USA on Saturn.

And Call of Duty 2 was a launch tittle too.

I tend to use 4Bone, I've seen a few people use it but not many. Chances are one version or another will catch on most and that'll become the standard

PSBone?

PS360 was really good... fits perfectlly.

Maybe, could be any PlayStation though. I know people here would know what you were saying but I'd rather be specific. I agree about PS360, shame there isn't something so obvious this gen

I think you missed one very important point:  Super Mario 64 was done by Nintendo, and Nintendo bucks all trends.  They're not the status quo, they're the outlier.  They're not the norm, they're the exception.  

Super Mario 64 being such a great, well-loved classic is not something that can be expected of most launch titles, because most launch titles are not Mario.  

I honestly can't think of many other launch titles that were classics.  (I said many, not any) 

One thing I've noticed, however, is that critics have been particularly harsh this gen.  I honestly think most reviewers and gamers have caught onto the idea that we all know that later in the generation, we will get better games, so we have to start over. 

When Mario 64 came out, it was new and exciting because it was a 3D game, after decades of games that were in 2D.  It was something revolutionary, new, and interesting.  In retrospect, I don't think it was all that good (much like pretty much any N64 of PS1 game), but at the time, hooooly shit, THIS IS A 3D WORLD! 

This generation doesn't have that wow factor.  there's not a lot of 'new' left to be had.  To get the exceptional launch titles, we need games with something new and exciting, not just prettier versions of games we already have.  

ethomaz, name another console released between June 1996 and September 1999. The PS1 was already out and doing great on its own, they were alone in releasing a console, and it was set to be the most powerful one available, they had the time needed to get Mario 64 as good as possible as it was the flagship title for demonstrating the systems power.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtLPrazftds

Only two titles were playable as of november 1995, indeed the only two titles available at launch were pilotwings and mario 64, so they had their entire team developing a successor to the snes, and working on the game.

These days we expect dozens of titles available at launch where multiple systems are vying for the consumers attention, using mario 64 as "proof" that "its a launch title what do you expect" is critically flawed.

I agree that its bullshit that "its a launch game" should be used as an excuse, but using mario 64 is going the wrong way about bringing up the point.

don't forget new super Mario bros U!

"The development of Super Mario 64 took less than two years, but it was reported that producer and director Shigeru Miyamoto had conceived of a 3D Mario game concept over five years before, while working on Star Fox."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_mario_64#Concept

Plus, Mario is not as detail determinant game like Forza that every car needs to be true to its real life self.