The "Nintendo Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
How do you judge a console? By it's games?
Well, personally, I think there's a bit more to it than that. After all, the Neo Geo may have boasted perfect arcade games, but at obver £200 per game(!) you could hardly say that the console was that great! So pricing is also an important factor.
Another is treating customers well- a console with good games, but erratic release dates, massive price variations and no structure to sales can't be considered a great console... the Saturn is just one example of this.
So, when taking all these points into account, and some more, how does the N64 sum up?
Well, on the games front, the console has mixed success. There were some completely revolutionary games- Mario 64, Goldeneye and Zelda must feature as some of the best consoles games ever. For that reason alone, the N64 will be a must have for any serious console enthusiast.
However, during the life of the consoles, quality game releases were erratic. There could be months at a time without a really good game being released. Month between revolutionary games is fine and pretty normal, but months between quality games is just disapointing.
There was also the serious problem of missing support meaning that genres like Realistic Racers and Realistic Fighters were completely missing from the console. Even big genres like RPGs had games few and far between.
Well, moving away from that games, what about the pricing of the console?
I think anyone will agree that games were far too expensive. The only reason for this being that Ninty had decided to use a medium that stored less data but cost more to make.
OK, so there's more to it than that- no loading times vs higher price. Piracy vs more FMV sequences.
But when the other consoles are offering £35 for a new game, and £20 for a platinum game, £50 is far too much for anyone to afford regular games (although by the time a good game came out, you'd probably have saved enough!).
However, one big problem with the console was the marketting- releasing it at £250 and then dropping it to £150 within 2 weeks destroyed customer confidence. In fact, the console only released with 1 game in Japan anyway (with only 4 games 3 months later), and only 3 games in the UK!
So, my views on the console?
In the long term, it is certainly a classic all time must have. Games like Zelda and Mario just say it all!
However, during the console's life itself, the console wasn't anywhere near as great as people made out. Releases alwasy on the horizon and months of waiting just made it unbearable!
Sonic
Well, personally, I think there's a bit more to it than that. After all, the Neo Geo may have boasted perfect arcade games, but at obver £200 per game(!) you could hardly say that the console was that great! So pricing is also an important factor.
Another is treating customers well- a console with good games, but erratic release dates, massive price variations and no structure to sales can't be considered a great console... the Saturn is just one example of this.
So, when taking all these points into account, and some more, how does the N64 sum up?
Well, on the games front, the console has mixed success. There were some completely revolutionary games- Mario 64, Goldeneye and Zelda must feature as some of the best consoles games ever. For that reason alone, the N64 will be a must have for any serious console enthusiast.
However, during the life of the consoles, quality game releases were erratic. There could be months at a time without a really good game being released. Month between revolutionary games is fine and pretty normal, but months between quality games is just disapointing.
There was also the serious problem of missing support meaning that genres like Realistic Racers and Realistic Fighters were completely missing from the console. Even big genres like RPGs had games few and far between.
Well, moving away from that games, what about the pricing of the console?
I think anyone will agree that games were far too expensive. The only reason for this being that Ninty had decided to use a medium that stored less data but cost more to make.
OK, so there's more to it than that- no loading times vs higher price. Piracy vs more FMV sequences.
But when the other consoles are offering £35 for a new game, and £20 for a platinum game, £50 is far too much for anyone to afford regular games (although by the time a good game came out, you'd probably have saved enough!).
However, one big problem with the console was the marketting- releasing it at £250 and then dropping it to £150 within 2 weeks destroyed customer confidence. In fact, the console only released with 1 game in Japan anyway (with only 4 games 3 months later), and only 3 games in the UK!
So, my views on the console?
In the long term, it is certainly a classic all time must have. Games like Zelda and Mario just say it all!
However, during the console's life itself, the console wasn't anywhere near as great as people made out. Releases alwasy on the horizon and months of waiting just made it unbearable!
Sonic
Page:
Ah, the great times of the Nintendo 64. I have spent (and still do spend) many hours on Goldeneye, killing my friends and just basically causing hell. Perfect Dark was also excellent, but I was expecting more out of it than just an updated version of Goldeneye. I found it lacking what Goldeneye had, and the menus were difficult to navigate about, but apart from that, it ruled mightily. I also had a good time on some of the wrestling games, like No Mercy, knocking my brother off of the ladder to the floor, and then taking advantage by climbing the ladder myself and winning. Being a guest referee also rules, acting biased, and then screwing my brother over. Zelda is also superb, but I was expecting more from it. It is engrossing, don't get me wrong, but I found it slightly limited. I'll be looking out for the Gamecube, and will definately consider getting it, but my support is currently with the X Box.
So I say yes, the N64 is that good.
So I say yes, the N64 is that good.
LOL :D
Enjoy your time here BenKaye.
Enjoy your time here BenKaye.
Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with the others about the n64's inconsistency, but I disagree with them, so that would be stupid. What wasn't stupid (ho-ho) was the decision made by Ciggy Mitsubishi (I know it's not his REAL name) to use the analogue pad, which I often went to bed cradling it was that good. And don't even get me started on the rumble pak. Anyway, where's this going, oh yeah, I liked the N64 because it had -let me put this simply- lots of really good games, which I like in a machine that plays games. The Banjo brace, Zelda Ocarina, Goldeneye and PD, F1, pod racer was niiice, mario (kart), donkey kongy and diddy et al. By the way, do you think Diddy had an inferiority complex next to Donkey? And what did the Kong family do to resolve that? I can imagine Diddy going to seminar groups with Luigi bemoaning their misfortune. And, more importantly, can Diddy fill in England's problematic left side?
well, I'm new to the specialreserve chatroom, so expect plenty more meaningless bullpoo from my burgeoning gob in the near future(I'm being serious, I don't sleep).
well, I'm new to the specialreserve chatroom, so expect plenty more meaningless bullpoo from my burgeoning gob in the near future(I'm being serious, I don't sleep).
==SHADOWRAV--> wrote:
> Strafex, I have to disagree with most of your points.
Although the N64 did
> standardise the analogue stick in home gaming, the forst console to have one was
> the Saturn- the second incarnation of its pad (for NiGHTS!) had an analogue
> stick and d-pad as standard- well before Ninty came up with their design.
So a special NiGHT's pad for the most fanatical Sega fans was around, barely any games bar NiGHT's used it properly. And Nintendo had decided to use the analogue stick long before Sega's came out, only they implemented it an a way that made the D-Pad obselete, not a simple gimmick.
All the NiGHT's pad proves is that Shigsy and Naka were thinking along similar lines at the same time only Naka designed for one particular game, while Shigsy set it as a standard for all games.
I also
> agree that the console did have great revolutions in multiplayer console
> gaming.
Yep. The N64's best bit by far.
However, you fail to argue any of the points in the original post.
> There were classics like you say, but these were surrounded by voids with no
> games.
For the first year things were bleak, but after that, there was a string of plenty of "above average" games to last between releases. And when the classic DID come, it blew EVERYTHING away.
The games themselves cost a lot- FAR too much by the competition's
> standards.
Roughly 10 pounds more than competitors. A little bit more, but they did tend to last twice as long as most Playstation games, especially with the Multiplayer.
Goldeneye lasted me 5 months on it's own, and that was daily play, not the odd bash at weekends.
The combination of a challenging replayable single player and a fourplayer mode meant it had the lifespan of 4 average Playstation titles.
You go on to talk about the Xbox launch not being
> revolutionary...
So, tell me, which would you prefer:
*A console that
> drops £100 in price in 2 weeks, launches with one game (at £50-60),
> has only 4 games after 3 months of launch. ie the N64
Well I didn't buy the N64 at launch. :-)
Blastcorps, Mario 64 and Mario Kart would be all I needed until Goldeneye... but I see your point.
The post-launch was fairly bleak but if you'd waited 6 months before buying one, you'd have more than enough games to choose from.
*A console with a set
> of games in each genre that are good (but not revolutionary), a steady flow of
> games, and good pricing on those games?
Fair point, but launch standards weren't so high back then.
Mario 64 was all that was needed (as every games fan liked Mairo back then) for the actual launch and although Nintendo didn't get a huge list of follow-ups, it was only a temporary mess up.
Now, if you reply, please talk about
> some of the original points made in the thread... and not just sidestep around
> them
I was giving good reasons why the N64 was that great!
Isn't that what the topic was about?
If you want a direct answer to the topic, although the launch was a bit messed up with a games drought and high prices, if you'd bought one after 6 months or even better, 2 years (like I did), when the RRP's went down, you'd have a list of all time classic games that other devellopers were still trying to match two years on, and although there were long waits and delays for really MAJOR games like Zelda and Perfect Dark, there were hundreds of reasonable quality games inbetween.
And although the games were pricy, if you picked the right games, you'd more than get your money's worth!
> Strafex, I have to disagree with most of your points.
Although the N64 did
> standardise the analogue stick in home gaming, the forst console to have one was
> the Saturn- the second incarnation of its pad (for NiGHTS!) had an analogue
> stick and d-pad as standard- well before Ninty came up with their design.
So a special NiGHT's pad for the most fanatical Sega fans was around, barely any games bar NiGHT's used it properly. And Nintendo had decided to use the analogue stick long before Sega's came out, only they implemented it an a way that made the D-Pad obselete, not a simple gimmick.
All the NiGHT's pad proves is that Shigsy and Naka were thinking along similar lines at the same time only Naka designed for one particular game, while Shigsy set it as a standard for all games.
I also
> agree that the console did have great revolutions in multiplayer console
> gaming.
Yep. The N64's best bit by far.
However, you fail to argue any of the points in the original post.
> There were classics like you say, but these were surrounded by voids with no
> games.
For the first year things were bleak, but after that, there was a string of plenty of "above average" games to last between releases. And when the classic DID come, it blew EVERYTHING away.
The games themselves cost a lot- FAR too much by the competition's
> standards.
Roughly 10 pounds more than competitors. A little bit more, but they did tend to last twice as long as most Playstation games, especially with the Multiplayer.
Goldeneye lasted me 5 months on it's own, and that was daily play, not the odd bash at weekends.
The combination of a challenging replayable single player and a fourplayer mode meant it had the lifespan of 4 average Playstation titles.
You go on to talk about the Xbox launch not being
> revolutionary...
So, tell me, which would you prefer:
*A console that
> drops £100 in price in 2 weeks, launches with one game (at £50-60),
> has only 4 games after 3 months of launch. ie the N64
Well I didn't buy the N64 at launch. :-)
Blastcorps, Mario 64 and Mario Kart would be all I needed until Goldeneye... but I see your point.
The post-launch was fairly bleak but if you'd waited 6 months before buying one, you'd have more than enough games to choose from.
*A console with a set
> of games in each genre that are good (but not revolutionary), a steady flow of
> games, and good pricing on those games?
Fair point, but launch standards weren't so high back then.
Mario 64 was all that was needed (as every games fan liked Mairo back then) for the actual launch and although Nintendo didn't get a huge list of follow-ups, it was only a temporary mess up.
Now, if you reply, please talk about
> some of the original points made in the thread... and not just sidestep around
> them
I was giving good reasons why the N64 was that great!
Isn't that what the topic was about?
If you want a direct answer to the topic, although the launch was a bit messed up with a games drought and high prices, if you'd bought one after 6 months or even better, 2 years (like I did), when the RRP's went down, you'd have a list of all time classic games that other devellopers were still trying to match two years on, and although there were long waits and delays for really MAJOR games like Zelda and Perfect Dark, there were hundreds of reasonable quality games inbetween.
And although the games were pricy, if you picked the right games, you'd more than get your money's worth!
Um, was someone just comparing the playstation with the n64? With all due respect (wow, I sound sicilian), the ps1 was not a proper games console. Disregarding the n64 termporarily (don't worry, this is going somewhere), the ps1 was an after-pub thingy that attracted a lot of 1st time console owners, lairy old divorced men looking for a quick-fix way to make them feel younger, and of course the obligatory mid-20s. To actually play the games was akin to watching extremely boring paint, that had just won Most Boring Paint Competition on a very boring planet, teach in a very slow and methodical way, how to bore paint-enthusiasts to very small pots of boring paint. Blackadderly. They were completed in little over a day if sober; obviously sony was relying on p*****-out-of-their-face soberly-challenged bar rats not noticing this illuminating fact. Oh and by the way, if I hear one more person talk about the ps1's ability to play cds or the ps2's to play dvds, I will not be held accountable for my actions. For [insert relevant deity]'s sake, did people not use cd/dvd players beforehand? Did it take this to get people to actually think about buying cds? Were people just twiddling their thumbs waiting for the playstation to come around to do a p***-poor job of playing cds or dvds? At any rate, they're expensive if that's all they're good for. I don't know about the rest of you, but I was onto the dvd thing about 2 years ago, well before the ps2, and it still can't play them properly. And then special reserve has the cheek to put them alongside bonafide dvd players in their catalogue.
So to return to my initial argument, whatever the hell it was, it doesn't matter about the minutiae of the n64's foibles, because a clockwork paint-stripper with a dicky timing belt (you'll have to excuse me, my ford fiesta has had more work done to it than michael jackson's face, and I'm semi-fluent in mechanic) is better than that overblown cd player (and crap at that too!).
By the way, I'm new to special reserve's chatroom, so you'll be sure to hear plenty from my gob about utter crap. So get used to it.
So to return to my initial argument, whatever the hell it was, it doesn't matter about the minutiae of the n64's foibles, because a clockwork paint-stripper with a dicky timing belt (you'll have to excuse me, my ford fiesta has had more work done to it than michael jackson's face, and I'm semi-fluent in mechanic) is better than that overblown cd player (and crap at that too!).
By the way, I'm new to special reserve's chatroom, so you'll be sure to hear plenty from my gob about utter crap. So get used to it.
Um, was someone just comparing the playstation with the n64? With all due respect (wow, I sound sicilian), the ps1 was not a proper games console. Disregarding the n64 termporarily (don't worry, this is going somewhere), the ps1 was an after-pub thingy that attracted a lot of 1st time console owners, lairy old divorced men looking for a quick-fix way to make them feel younger, and of course the obligatory mid-20s. To actually play the games was akin to watching extremely boring paint, that had just won Most Boring Paint Competition on a very boring planet, teach in a very slow and methodical way, how to bore paint-enthusiasts to very small pots of boring paint. Blackadderly. They were completed in little over a day if sober; obviously sony was relying on p*****-up soberly-challenged people not noticing this illuminating fact. Oh and by the way, if I hear one more person talk about the ps1's ability to play cds or the ps2's to play dvds, I will not be held accountable for my actions. For [insert relevant deity]'s sake, did people not use cd/dvd players beforehand? Did it take this to get people to actually think about buying cds? Were people just twiddling their thumbs waiting for the playstation to come around to do a p***-poor job of playing cds or dvds? At any rate, they're expensive if that's all they're good for. I don't know about the rest of you, but I was onto the dvd thing about 2 years ago, well before the ps2, and it still can't play them properly. And then special reserve has the cheek to put them alongside bonafide dvd players in their catalogue.
So to return to my initial argument, whatever the hell it was, it doesn't matter about the minutiae of the n64's foibles, because a clockwork paint-stripper with a dicky timing belt (you'll have to excuse me, my ford fiesta has had more work done to it than michael jackson's face, and I'm semi-fluent in mechanic) is better than that overblown cd player (and crap at that too!).
By the way, I'm new to special reserve's chatroom, so you'll be sure to hear plenty from my gob about utter crap. So get used to it.
So to return to my initial argument, whatever the hell it was, it doesn't matter about the minutiae of the n64's foibles, because a clockwork paint-stripper with a dicky timing belt (you'll have to excuse me, my ford fiesta has had more work done to it than michael jackson's face, and I'm semi-fluent in mechanic) is better than that overblown cd player (and crap at that too!).
By the way, I'm new to special reserve's chatroom, so you'll be sure to hear plenty from my gob about utter crap. So get used to it.
What i mean to say is that when the Playstation came out it was the best console on the market (it didn't have much competion) but when i played and later got the N64 i found that it was better than the playstation (alright the PS could play music cd's but that's what a cd player is for.) Now i hope that i have explained myself!
errrrr.... okkkkk....
So why exactly did you say the Playstation was crap to begin with???
So why exactly did you say the Playstation was crap to begin with???
Hey Sonicrav, i'm sorry, i'll take bake the PS was crap and say that it was quite good. I do remember playing the Palystation when it first came out and it was a lot better than the Mega Drive. I remember Porsche Challange as a quailty little game at the time. I did also get addicted to GTA and Driver which were funny games(i don't what to fall out on my second day of using the chatroom). I also can't really say anything about PS2 or Xbox as I nver have relly played them. Ok, no hard feelings ! :)
Page: