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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Nintendo 64 Lost to PlayStation Because Japanese Gamers Prefer “Depressing Games”

Zkuq said:
I imagine what he considered 'depressing' differs greatly from what most consumers consider depressing. That, or he has no idea what he's talking about, I can't imagine him not having any idea, so it's probably his idea of depressing that differs.

Probably, he was implying that Japanese RPG fans who migrated to PS1 en masse were a bunch of hikikomori.

Nintendo's PR was notoriously salty during 5th gen. Nintendo of America wasn't much better, they were just quieter about it. I remember them trying to pass off games like MACE or Fighter's Destiny as being just as good as Virtua Fighter, Tekken, and Soul Blade.

But that was nothing compared to their salt over Final Fantasy VII, which pushed the PS1 into the lead in the US as it had in Japan (up until then the N64 was actually catching up in install base in the US). Quest 64, a thoroughly mediocre, bare-bones game in every way, was proudly touted as, "hey, we've got RPGs too!" Mother 3/Earthbound 64 was the great RPG hope of the N64, until it went deep into development hell and never escaped from it. They took a few swipes at FFVII itself as well in Nintendo Power, though they didn't have quite the same audience reach as the big boss in Japan did.

Last edited by SanAndreasX - on 06 February 2020

Around the Network

US Saturn owners were pretty lonely and depressed. :(

Us American Saturn owners were the bee girl until we found one another.



Bite my shiny metal cockpit!

Darashiva said:

And it sold three times as many units, so what's your point? That the N64 underperformed? Many of the best games ever created came from the PS1 as well, which are still looked up to today, so that's no different from the N64. Again, I never said the N64 wasn't a success, but arguing that it didn't lose against the PS1 is kinda pointless when the numbers tell the opposite story. It lost to the PS1 on every metric, from sold consoles, to number of sold games, to number of critically acclaimed games. That doesn't mean it's not a great console, but you're arguing against obvious facts here.

Nintendo lost the home console war that generation, just as it won the previous two with the NES and SNES. Or if the N64 didn't lose are you saying that the Sega Genesis, the original Xbox, or the PS3 didn't lose their respective generations either because they did what they needed to do as well?

Ill never understand this metric you people use to justify a products success with what wins and losers. This is a business not a sport, there is nothing set in place for coming last in this so called sales race, in fact the sales race doesn't even exist. First to 100m, who sells more at the end of the generation etc, its all made up.

Sorry to bust your bubble here, companies make products with estimate sales goals etc not based on there competitors. If its that important about beating the other in sales than these consoles wouldn't stop being manufactured and will continue to sell way beyond there life spans just to win or to hit that 100m mark or whatever metric you use to justify winners and losers.

The Sega Genesis was a success, it definitely was no loser, it just didn't sell as good as the SNES. The N64 fits that same bill. It didn't outsell the PS1 but it was still a successful console and is not a loser. Consoles don't need to win a imaginary race to be justified as not losing. Honestly when I was 10 I use to say these things about Nintendo beating Sega.. today I look back and see the industry for what it is and not what we think its about. 

There is no gold trophy at the end of these races, there isn't even a finish line, hence some consoles stay on the market longer than others etc. They are products with sales expectations and targets, like anything else in the world. Look at Car brands, Lets say BMW sold less cars than Mercedes in the past 5 years, does that make them losers? No.

The terminology of these winners and losers need to change. 

Last edited by Azzanation - on 07 February 2020

I want to say yes, he's right, but I haven't played most of the acclaimed RPGs of the 90s. At the very least, I'll give him that one of the bigger successes of the decade, Final Fantasy VII, has an emo template written all over it. The other Final Fantasy entries also have passages that deal with depression, especially IX... And Xenogears is just pure sadness.



My bet with The_Liquid_Laser: I think the Switch won't surpass the PS2 as the best selling system of all time. If it does, I'll play a game of a list that The_Liquid_Laser will provide, I will have to play it for 50 hours or complete it, whatever comes first. 

Good 'ol Yamauchi. He was always something of a cold and blunt, give no shits type of dude who loved to bust out controversial statements. He was like the Trump of the games industry haha.

I wouldn't quite call them "depressing" as much as dark. And there's nothing wrong with that. Dark is rad. I'm a big metal fan after all ha. 

Also that comes across as an excuse.

N64 lost because of:
- Carts vs the more versatile and flashy CDs
- Lack of software
- Weird controller
- Strict adherence to full 3D games rather than the more diverse PS lineup.

I was never a Sony fan and obviously prefered the N64 but even I can see its immense flaws and weaknesses compared to the PlayStation.



 

"We hold these truths t-be self-ful evident. All men and women created by the.. Go-you know the.. you know the thing!" - Joe Biden

Around the Network
Azzanation said:

N64 lost to the PS1? Guess you must mean sales. N64 was on the market for 6 years, PS1 was sold for 12 years.
N64 had the better games overall PS1 had more games but not better.
I own and still do both machines and i enjoyed both systems alot but the N64 was miles ahead when it came to quality.

Are you seriously asking if the N64 lost for the PS1?

Then you proceed to give the PS1 successful life cycle as an excuse because the 64 died a lot faster? lol

Never change.



Azzanation said:

Being on the market for at least double the time should sell by default twice as much units. Being a cheaper console world wide also means you are intended to sell more by default. Quality has nothing to do with it.

I'm aware that you really dislike PlayStation for some reason but even still you gotta take a step back once in awhile and question your logic.

Why do you think PS1 had a longer life? Do you think N64's life would've been cut short if it sold as well as PS1 worldwide through its first 5 years?



BraLoD said:

Are you seriously asking if the N64 lost for the PS1?

Then you proceed to give the PS1 successful life cycle as an excuse because the 64 died a lot faster? lol

Never change.

Is this some kind of play school where we have to have a winner and loser? what if Nintendo's N64 sales target was 20m consoles sold? Do you know what there target was? Does something have to lose? How does two successful products win and lose?

Not sure how long you been around gaming however ill help you out and say Nintendo are well known for mid life spans. They move on quicker to there next platform compared to Sony who likes to keep platforms on the market for 10+ years. Thats by company choice, it can depend when they decide to shift focus for there next product.

N64 was far from a flop which means it'ssuccessful, its just Sony opened up the doors for more gamers and sold incredibly well. No one knew, probably not even Nintendo or Sony knew how big the audience was back than.

Gamecube to PS2 is a different story, Gamecube failed to meet expectations so thats where i will agree on.

Replicant said:

I'm aware that you really dislike PlayStation for some reason but even still you gotta take a step back once in awhile and question your logic.

Why do you think PS1 had a longer life? Do you think N64's life would've been cut short if it sold as well as PS1 worldwide through its first 5 years?

As mentioned above, Nintendo tends to aim to cut there consoles short or aim for a 5 year life span. Has nothing to do weather i like a brand or not. 

Someone mention before that the Sega Genesis lost.. im far from a Sega fan but comments like that make me facepalm. It's a buisness about profits and money not a 1st place and last place sport tournament.

Last edited by Azzanation - on 07 February 2020

BraLoD said:
Azzanation said:

N64 lost to the PS1? Guess you must mean sales. N64 was on the market for 6 years, PS1 was sold for 12 years.
N64 had the better games overall PS1 had more games but not better.
I own and still do both machines and i enjoyed both systems alot but the N64 was miles ahead when it came to quality.

Are you seriously asking if the N64 lost for the PS1?

Then you proceed to give the PS1 successful life cycle as an excuse because the 64 died a lot faster? lol

Never change.

Well we can say that Azz is :

Denial

Salty

Over 9000 !



Azzanation said:
DonFerrari said:

Yes, people bought 5x more PS1 than N64 because N64 was the best system and they thought it had the better games.

Gamers really are masochists.

People also buy more Volkswagons than Bentleys.. not because there better cars..

What was your point again?

PS1 was sold on the market for twice aslong so dont forget that part.

In the same time space it wouldnt be 5 times the sales. And just look up the best criticality acclaimed games, majority are on the N64 which stands my point.

That's Nintendo's mistake to release it like a year late and let it die before the PS1 died.

Nintendo loved to brag that the N64 sold out of it's 500K shipment in NA in one day while it took PS1 90 days to reach 500k sales in NA. It was a fact but consumers don't care.

critically acclaimed doesn't mean much for consumers.