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

Forums - Nintendo - N64 Was A Sales Beast And Should Have Won Its Generation

Conina on 14 April 2017
Soundwave said:

Nintendo is really terrible at in-generation adjustments too, ever notice that? 

Gameboy Color, GBA SP, DS Lite and 3DS XL were quite good in-generation adjustments.



Around the Network
Soundwave on 14 April 2017
Conina said:
Soundwave said:

Nintendo is really terrible at in-generation adjustments too, ever notice that? 

Gameboy Color, GBA SP, DS Lite and 3DS XL were quite good in-generation adjustments.

I mean more in terms of in generation product strategy, if they make a mistake (like say making a giant Fisher Price tablet controller console), they basically just ride out the mistake for an entire 5 years rather than trying to correct it the way say Microsoft has been very aggressive in trying to fix the XBox One. 

3DS is probably the only time I've seen them really swallow their pride and make drastic changes within the same generational window. 

They still probably had a chance even as late as early 1998 to really salvage the N64, but still refused to make a CD add-on even when the evidence was so plainly staring them in the face, lol.



Conina on 14 April 2017
Soundwave said:

They still probably had a chance even as late as early 1998 to really salvage the N64, but still refused to make a CD add-on even when the evidence was so plainly staring them in the face, lol.

They tried to make a CD add-on, but due to a typing error, they produced the 64DD instead. ;)



archbrix on 14 April 2017
Conina said:
Soundwave said:

They still probably had a chance even as late as early 1998 to really salvage the N64, but still refused to make a CD add-on even when the evidence was so plainly staring them in the face, lol.

They tried to make a CD add-on, but due to a typing error, they produced the 64DD instead. ;)

Oh what a difference one consonant can make.  xD



pokoko on 14 April 2017
RolStoppable said:
pokoko said:

I'm guessing you're just pulling those excuses out of thin air--unless you have sources?  

Here is a simple fact:  Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony all use dual analog, not c-buttons.  Simple as that.  You can down-play that with all the invented speculation you want but it's still true.  The c-button design failed to catch on and became a footnote.  It's not even like it matters, of course, since it's a different technology.  That you differentiate button placement but do not credit the difference between buttons and analog sticks shows your true intentions here.

If c-buttons were as good, Nintendo would still be using them instead of switching to dual analog. 

As for the point of contention, my original reply to you was to call you out for your hypocrisy and double standard where you claimed "more of the same" cannot be revolutionary while citing "more of the same" as revolutionary.  

Let's be perfectly honest what this is about.  You want to down-play anything from Sony while painting anything from Nintendo as important--even when history and your own words ("more of the same") sound hypocritical.  Reverse these features and I have zero doubt that your position would flip flop.

Now, I'm sure you're going to go back to the pedantic well with "evolutionary vs. revolutionary" because it's your last bastion but, really, most people don't care.  All that matters is the overall impact on gaming.  That you keep trying to pretend dual analog isn't important to modern gaming only makes you seem bitter.

I am saying that dual analog is an evolution of the N64 setup that had a stick and C-buttons. You have had plenty of opportunities to state how dual analog was revolutionary (that was your original claim in response to someone else) and changed the way games were played. You have yet to mention a single game.

The dual analog controller, which was first shown to the public in November of 1996, was an evolution of the button scheme of the N64?  Seriously?  Even if you're really stuck on the "evolution" route, that makes no sense.  Why?

Revealed in August of 1995:

Dual analog pre-dates the c-button scheme.  The idea that it evolved from the N64 controller is laughable.

As far as listing games that use dual analog ... uh.  I honestly don't know what to say to that.  There are literally thousands of games that use it.  Halo?  Far Cry?  Devil May Cry?  Bayonetta?  Seriously, throw a stick.



Around the Network
snyps on 14 April 2017
TheBlackNaruto said:
snyps said:
OP is correct.


In sales, the N64 would have won with CDs. Maybe it was a technology issue where nintendo invested in 3D so hard that it failed to invest in discs. Nintendo likes to do everything propietary.... so I think we would have had only one or the other.

Wait why would have it have one in sales JUST by choosing CDs? That literally makes no sense.....having a CD drive was not the determining factor as to why the N64 bomed....NNTNEDO was by making idiotic decisions and treating 3rd parties like crap....having a CD drive or not would not have made a difference.

becaues reasons and spelling



VGPolyglot on 14 April 2017
RolStoppable said:
pokoko said:

The dual analog controller, which was first shown to the public in November of 1996, was an evolution of the button scheme of the N64?  Seriously?  Even if you're really stuck on the "evolution" route, that makes no sense.  Why?

Revealed in August of 1995:

Dual analog pre-dates the c-button scheme.  The idea that it evolved from the N64 controller is laughable.

As far as listing games that use dual analog ... uh.  I honestly don't know what to say to that.  There are literally thousands of games that use it.  Halo?  Far Cry?  Devil May Cry?  Bayonetta?  Seriously, throw a stick.

That's one hell of a leap in logic.

Well, I don't know what else to say to you.



zealen on 14 April 2017

N64 was great, it had only one problem: Playstation



pokoko on 14 April 2017
RolStoppable said:
pokoko said:

The dual analog controller, which was first shown to the public in November of 1996, was an evolution of the button scheme of the N64?  Seriously?  Even if you're really stuck on the "evolution" route, that makes no sense.  Why?

Revealed in August of 1995:

Dual analog pre-dates the c-button scheme.  The idea that it evolved from the N64 controller is laughable.

As far as listing games that use dual analog ... uh.  I honestly don't know what to say to that.  There are literally thousands of games that use it.  Halo?  Far Cry?  Devil May Cry?  Bayonetta?  Seriously, throw a stick.

That's one hell of a leap in logic.

I know.  I said the same thing when I read that dual analog evolved from four buttons that came after dual analog.

 



VGPolyglot on 14 April 2017
RolStoppable said:
VGPolyglot said:

Well, I don't know what else to say to you.

You could tell me what the second stick was used for in Devil May Cry. I don't remember. The game had a fixed camera.

Bayonetta uses the second stick for camera control, but camera control was already a thing in Super Mario 64 over a decade earlier. Halo's and Far Cry's controls evolved from Turok, Goldeneye etc. on the Nintendo 64. Nobody who played Halo on Xbox, Timesplitters 2 on GC or Medal of Honor Frontline on PS2 was going "wow, this is really new", but rather perceived those games' controls as refinement of what the N64 already achieved a generation earlier.

I don't remember either, that wasn't me that mentioned those games. Though, Alien: Resurrection came out in 2000 for the PS1, and look at one quote from the Gamespot review:

"The game's control setup is its most terrifying element. The left analog stick moves you forward, back, and strafes right and left, while the right analog stick turns you and can be used to look up and down."

So, even in 2000, 4 years after the N64, it was not compared to it.