Viewing Thread:
"Was the N64 really THAT great?"

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

Bigman, do you know you just completely agreed with everything the original topic said? Did you even read the thing?

Like both our posts say, there are some great games (like Zelda and Mario) that will make the N64 a must-have classic console.

However- this is not at all what the topic is about! In fact, the topic is about how great the 64 was DURING its lifetime.

Concerning this, you seem to back up every point made in the original post:

*Long waits between good games (taking you pd as an example)
*Expensive games (£80 to play pd??!?!)

Oh, and as a final note, why exactly was the PS "crap"????

Sonicrav wrote:
>Was the N64 really THAT great?

no, I bought one a while back so I could play most of it's "best" games for next to nothing but they're not very good. Zelda:Ocarina of Time scored a perfect 10 over on gamespot and was classed as flawless, hmmm the whole thing feels a bit kiddy, it's plainly ripped off ideas from MGS and Tomb Raider and overall it's just above average and starting miles from where you left off everytime is painfully irratating.

Mario 64 is great don't get me wrong but Ninty's say it's the best game ever,lol I could ramp on for ages about the games but they don't come close to the PS's vast selection of platnium titles. Even the console itself is quite poor, The lack of speech in most games spoils the experience, nearly all the n64 games I've seen have swarms of text and keen N64 owners all complain about the PS1's loading times (never ps owners) yet every single N64 games have fade outs and opertunity's for quick loads. The controller is pants and the analog stick is badly designed with NO GRIP and as for the battery operated rumble pack lol i'll let you decide whether that compares to Sony's dual shock powered directly from the CONSOLE.

So the N64 wasn't that great in fact i wouldn't call it great at all, I have one with quite a selection of games but playing a PS1 game after hours of fuzzy visuals and sore fingers is a relief, sound included, Zelda has inapropite sound effects like someone winning on a slot machine lol talk about a botch, I'd choose a full PS1 CD soundtrack over that anytime. I like Nintendo as many people on here will tell you but I think they're capable of much more than this so they better get their act together if they don't want the Gamecube to follow in the N64's footsteps and get swept under the carpet as one might put it :-)

I bought my N64 three yers ago with Goldeneye and F1 World Grand Prix. Goldeneye was brillant and I spent most of my free time playing the single palyer game. I also started playing the multiplayer games with my mates. As time went on I bought a few more games (Mario Kart 64, Mario 64 etc)and these games went down as classics for me. A year later I bought the game that made the N64 really worth it, Zelda 64, this game was amazing (I spent 5 hrs straight playing it one morning) and is still one of the best games on the N64. I then stopped buying any new games for a while until I heard about Perfect Dark (sought of sequel to Goledeneye), it cost me £80 with the expansion pack but it was worth it. I honestly still regard this as one of the best games of all time. I bought a few more games after that like Majora's mask and the really funny Conker's Bad Fur Day. Now I am waiting for the Gamecube ( most of my 'mates'have the PS2)but I still play my dear 64 (even my sister does) and regard it as a truely great console (certainly better than the PS1 which I thought was crap).

Even if prices were high, games weren't plentirul and there was no good realistics racers, RPGs etc they had Zelda and Mario and thats good enough for me

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. I also agree that the console did have great revolutions in multiplayer console gaming.

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.

The games themselves cost a lot- FAR too much by the competition's standards.

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

*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?

Now, if you reply, please talk about some of the original points made in the thread... and not just sidestep around them

I class myself as a loyal gamer to Nintendo owning every console they have ever brought out, yes I will be getting a Gamecube, and in my opinion the N64 was disappointing.
Why? I'll tell you why. Yes there were classics like Mario 64, Goldeneye, Zelda etc but these were few and far between. The N64 seemed to be a test console with many new things being tried, rumble paks, analogue joypad. And so I feel it was not taking as serious as Sony took the Playstation. Nintendo did not promote it enough and when they made an advert for the Zelda game they caused more of a negative reaction, "save the girl or play like a girl", than the reaction I'm sure they were aiming for. Stereotyping will cause more problems than treasures.
Pricing of games were ridiculous. £50 for a game caused many stores to not even sell Nintendo 64 games.
One issue with the games is that a lot seemed to cause gamers to feel sick after a while. An N64 game a day won't keep the doctor away.
Hopefully Nintendo have learnt from its mistakes and what I have seen of the Gamecube is that it is looking like the games console to own, well the other two are admittedly entertainment machines.

The N64 was that great.

It introduced full 3D gaming, standardised use of the analogue stick (proved that it was practical, not just a gimmick), and brought in 4 player splitscreen gaming.

Mario Kart and Goldeneye started it and became super classics as a result.

Look at the Xbox's top launch title Halo, its best feature is combining the 4 player splitscreen with a link cable.
Although it deserves Kudos for expanding the idea so well, it still owes credit to the original's that gave it the core idea.

Wip3out isn't that bad, good value for money, it cost me a tenner!!

I guess what kept the N64 going was the the games all had great replay value.

Mario 64 you could play over and again. Mario Kart and Goldeneye had great multiplayer.

As the years passed, Rare started to stick Multiplayer in all of their games, as I guess they knew it would be a while before the next great game - but multiplayer will always last longer than a single player quest.

Can you imagine if Mario 64 had been a finish once and throw away title? Imagine if Mario Kart and Goldeneye had no multiplayer. Would people have stuck with it for so long? Probably not.

DavidJ wrote:
> I thought the N64 was great (and still is), it was better than the PS1 anyway.


errr... sure...