Maybe if he would smoke crack he would say something that isn't BS

 He just shared his opinion on something that the rest of us have not had the chance to play.

Take it as: If you liked Galaxy more than Super Mario 64, then you will like SSBB more than Smash for 64.

@Krik,  were there any other cool games you had a chance to play? 

I love how ppl are so close minded.

I understand where krik is coming from. When the 64 came on the market those were some pretty heady days. We hadn't seen games like that before for us they were a quantum leap. We were used to side scrolling platformers. Now we have Mario going every which way bouncing off walls, and he controls flawlessly. We have Starfox shaking our hands numb, and did you see what you can do in Mariokart 64.

I suppose its hard to imagine its like playing Kangaroo on Atari and then suddenly getting to play Super Mario Bros. Your used to being crammed into this little box and suddenly your allowed to do all these new things that you hadn't really thought about before. Imagine a level so big it can't fit on your screen. Suddenly there was room for all these new genres. Thats what the 64 was at the time.

You know I think I still have an original 64 launch guide somewhere I will have to dig it out and give you guys some choice quotes, but yeah he isn't smoking crack I thought the same thing about the Wii. Yes its another Nintendo but it was no 64. The 64 was a truly revolutionary machine in every part of execution from the controls, the peripherals, the library, hell the machine was designed for hardware upgrades.

Dodece how old are you?

How old were you when playing Mario 64 for the first time?

Obviously now you have gotten older and now are JADED, you wouldnt like SMG as much as Mario 64.

Trust me... if we were 12 year olds trying out Mario galaxy for the first time we wouldnt give mario 64 a chance.


some ppl need to get it straight ..

Dodece - surely that's the main differentiator between the Wii and the PS3/360?

They are the machines with the improved graphics engines (same games and gameplay) while Wii is the leap from joystick control to motion sensing (new games - new ways to play)

Single screen
I think you're right that the 64 was revolutionary but I also think the Wii is revolutionary - the difference is the catalytic factor isn't the processing speed and what it allowed Nintendo to do, but the input device. Maybe more akin to the mouse or the joystick.

Just out of curiosity, how do you reconcile this notion with the fact that the Wii has a higher attach rate in both of the regions where we get solid software tracking, Japan and the US? In both territories, not only does the Wii have more hardware sold by large amounts (which actually tends to depress attach rates, historically speaking) but also has more software sold per system. In Japan, it's by a huge amount -- nearly 3.0 games to 2.0 games, or 50 percent higher for the Wii (sources: NPD, Media Create).

This is an honest question. If Wii's are all sitting idly unplayed, why are people buying games for the system at higher rates than the PS3, on average? Because that seems illlogical.  

Regardless, this isn't a bad statement, guys. As far as I can tell, it isn't even PR: it's a direct statement from a Sony Exec to an Exec at a major third party.

Sony Exec tries to convince third parties that development on rival platforms may not return investments and/or produce worthy profit margins? Shocking I say! 

So Nintendos biggest problem is that they make better games?

The fact that the statement was made as a business move hardly disqualifies it as being a bad statemtent.  If he said Shigeru Miyamoto was the devil to the EA exec right after that would that be a good statement, just because it was said under a business circumstance?  I'm not saying the statement is unexpected.  Just saying that it's still subject to criticism.