The N64 Mythology

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barone

Well, let's not forget about Jumping Flash's father from 1994; it had some platforming already:

---

Yep I just found out about this game while looking up info on Jumping Flash. Although I'm sure that neither of these games will count according to Nintendo fanboys since they don't have any Fat Plumber/Mushroom/Princess/Lizard Bashing action in them. :rofl:

If we're going to trace ancestors of 3D platforming, then surely Alpha Waves (1990) and -- to a lesser extent -- I, Robot (1983) should be in the mix?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrOY0b_2zyM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmvWxG2zvs8

That said, neither of these games were particularly influential.

I've never seen Alpha Waves (1990) before. Awesome!

I, Robot (1983) reminds me of Bug! on the Saturn. It seems like it doesn't rotate the scenario.

I-Robot pretty much had a behind the player view. I don't recall seeing any rotating levels in the arcade game.

Yeah, the camera on I, Robot doesn't rotate. But you can manually zoom it in and out IIRC, so it's a very early example (the first?) of a user-controllable camera in a polygonal 3D environment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barone

Dude, never go full retard.
Especially when you're judging a game based on a 5-minute lame footage you just saw for the first time in your life.

---

Did you even understand the point of my post?

Anyway, IMO Jumping Flash is a much better example to use against the "Mario did it first" argument. Looks more complex and free roaming than that floating runner turd. You don't have to lower your standards so much. But yeah if "3D platform" for you is just polygon graphics and a character that moves around, then yes, that thing would probably win the argument in a court room.

Also:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j_factor

It would be perfectly valid to say that the game implemented a targeting system better than any game before it. Why isn't that good enough praise? Why does it have to have "invented" (and/or "popularized") something?

---

What jfactor said. Because i, personally, never claimed Mario was the first 3D platformer, in the strict sense. The first good/successful one? Sure. So i don't care about your babbling about me and Mario and his friends. I'm not even a Mario fan. But if you think that Floating Runner is good or important enough to be compared to Mario 64 and downplay it as the influential 3D platform game then that's your problem. Raise your standards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stu

Its kinda funny how you get your feathers ruffled at people suggesting that Mario 64 copied its moveset from Tomb Raider (a perfectly reasonable thing to suggest since they were both in development roughly at the same time) but have no issue with seemingly accepting the Nintendo fanboy notion that Mario 64 "created the 3d Platformer genre".

---

But i didn't see anyone in this thread claiming that. And if he would, there are enough people here to burn him in the stake already. Now when the opposite happens (downplaying a popular Nintendo game for instance, especially on N64) there is no "quality control". As long as it's "bashing Mario", its ok in this forum. And no, im not a Mario fan, i used to root for Sonic in the 16 bit days.

@Barone You could also be less contentious and provocative in your posts. You make it very annoying when someone tries to discuss with you. I thought Sega-16 is not Gamefaqs but then again, i made wrong assumptions about Sega-16 in the past.

Why does the camera need to rotate to make a game a 3d platformer? Bug's absolutely a 3d platformer in my book...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goldenband

I'll make a gentle counterargument to some of the threads here and say: sometimes it really does matter more who popularized something vs. who did it first.

Take music. There are tons of techniques that were used by Bach, Mozart, Beethoven et al. that seem to predict things seen in 20th-century music. But none of them committed to those techniques in a long-term, meaningful way; they simply used them once and moved on, so their actions had no long-term consequence or resonance. It's the composers who actually made those techniques a core part of their work who are now known for using them.

That's the way it should be, really; sometimes doing something "first" is trivial compared to doing it well, or doing it with complete commitment, or simply lucking into being the first one to do it and get a lot of attention for it. I know our sense of justice demands that pioneers get the credit and co-opters get called out, but eh, the world isn't a patent office -- it's more complicated than that.

---

This is a very good point. I don't remember offhand if this has been brought up before, but Nintendo's skill at improving on ideas is something they have always been extremely good at. It's something absolutely central to the success of their games, and this thread entirely ignores that.

Quote:

---

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the counterexamples and research in the OP. But I think the premise of it is a losing battle at heart, because for a lot of American gamers (where the N64 was strongest & people are most sentimental about it), they don't really care what was "first" to do something, but rather what was first to do it and be popular, or the first to do it and be part of their own personal experience. To them, that is first.

So if you tell them a game on the 3DO did something before the N64 did it, they'll basically say "So what, who cares about a loser console like the 3DO?" It's a hardwired impulse based on tribalism.

And in fairness, all of us might do the same thing too in certain situations. Who among us wouldn't feel a flash of irritation and resentment at finding out that our beliefs were wrong? Who wouldn't want to shoot the messenger, rather than have to revise our stance? Most people get angry at that sort of thing, not grateful to have better information.

---

[/quote]
This is true as well, I'm sure, though it's a somewhat different point from the previous quote. But who did something first, did it first; games count even if they're on a platform you dislike. :p

This does make me think, though, that one other issue this raises is the question of when something is evolutionary versus revolutionary. Is OoT's better kind of lock-on a revolutionary new idea, or just evolution of previous forms of lock-on? I'm not sure if there's a right answer there... but really, what matters more is that each step is important. Coming up with an entirely new idea is perhaps the most important step, but as we often see, inventors who create new things often aren't also the person who will go on to improve on and popularize the idea they created. All of those steps were necessary and worth remembering. And nobody is better at making ideas better and working with developers to improve their games and make them more fun than they otherwise would be than Nintendo. For some proof of that, just look at how almost any studio who works closely with Nintendo makes better games with Nintendo than after leaving them... there's a reason for that.

Of course who did things first matters too though, and tracking such things down is worthwhile and valuable. But it isn't as much of a hit against Nintendo as the list in the OP would suggest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j_factor

It'd be one thing if statements were phrased that way from the beginning. In my experience, "well they popularized it!" is a way of backtracking after having claimed they did something first and being shown to be wrong.

But I think a lot of times, what game "popularized" something is difficult to pinpoint, and in any case I don't find it particularly relevant.

I don't particularly understand the need to make these kind of claims and cling to them in the face of contradicting examples, tbh. For example, take the Zelda z-targeting thing. It would be perfectly valid to say that the game implemented a targeting system better than any game before it. Why isn't that good enough praise? Why does it have to have "invented" (and/or "popularized") something?

---

It may be a backup position, but it really is true that whether or not Nintendo first came up with an idea, they have always been very good at improving on ideas. Your point here about targeting in 3d is a perfect example of this. I'm not surprised that OoT isn't the first game with targeting in 3d -- I mean, thinking about it, if you expand the definition of 'targeting' of course that kind of thing does back to the '80s, if you consider things such as targeting various planes or ships in space or flight combat games -- but what it did do, as you say, it come up with a new way to have better targeting in a 3d action game than had been done before.

Or for another example, Super Mario Bros. is of course not the first scrolling 2d platformer. There's Pitfall, of course, though it uses screen-flipping, but also other games such as not only Pitfall II but also Pac-Land predate Super Mario Bros. What SMB did is be a better scrolling platformer than anything that came before it.

Even beyond the factual issues with this list, this has always been one of the biggest problems with this thread. While who did something first absolutely matters, the complete focus on that ignores Nintendo's skill at making ideas better. That is every bit as important as doing something first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulis

Probably yes. But what exactly? And how much? Do you know which idea about Mario 64 was original and which was not? And does it matter? Does it mean that because of this we have to justify random assumptions (like the Tomb Raider moveset) and take them seriously? Isn't that the same reason this thread was created for in the first place? To put a stop to such assumptions?

---

Right, we have no way of knowing because Nintendo and NCL people don't talk about such things.

Quote:

---

Again, i'm not claiming that Mario was the first ever in this and that, but this PS1 game seems like desperate reaching to counter a popular argument, just for the sake of countering it.

---

That's pretty much why this thread exists, of course.

I see this thread as an attempt to address facts, which have been skewed and twisted to shape a more popular form (I forget what this is called). Anyway, it seems that gaming history over the years has taken on what anthropology would refer to as Nintendocentrism. The view of gaming history from a Nintendo centric point view and comparison. I personally believe Nintendo contributed a lot to the gaming evolution and history, but they aren't the only ones. I think gaming history needs a more holistic approach.

I able to judge for myself whether the facts presented, here in thread, are representative and true, or not. Past experience influences the future, whether it's a conscious act or not. Rarely is anything ever clear cut and dry.

That said, I totally expected some people to be defensive about this thread. ABF for one. Soulis too. Everyone is defensive about something. If you really are multi-console gamers, why not examine and challenge those perceptions we carry - instead of blindly agreeing or defending them? Yes, Sega-16 tends to have more of a anti-nintendo bias. But I would say that level doesn't even compare to the pro-nintendo bias that I see in the majority of retro gaming related sites. I think one would get closer to the truth here, than any site that's pro-Nintendo. Sega-16 is closer to a more neutral position simply because it isn't drinking Nintendo's kool-aid. In my opinion, Atari-age is very anti-nintendo (8bit at least). Their view is too Ataricentric. I find Sega-16 to be more reasonable.

Anyway, I like this thread. Because when people in authority working in, attributing to, or influencing history make absolute statements, they have every right to be challenged or checked. It's one thing to say Mario 64 one of the earliest 3D platforming games, and totally another to say it's thee first 3D platforming game. I definitely feel Mario 64 was big leap in 3D platform design and probably influenced a lot of games that came after it (directly or indirectly). But that doesn't qualify any statement saying it was the first in its genre. I recognize Mario 64 as a very polished game, even if I don't really care for it. And Tomb Raider is also an important game in history, even if it doesn't quite have the same level of polish that Mario 64 (again, my opinion). And it's pretty obvious that both were being developed, by separate companies, at the same time. Mario 64 might have a technicality by its commercial release date, but games exist before their release dates. I think addressing both commercial release dates AND development phase are important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulis

RARE used a different technique in Banjo Kazooie (not sure about their other games) that improved the textures in that game. I think it goes like this. Instead of using 1 stretched texture to cover a surface, they used many smaller textures instead. These textures combined (like puzzle pieces), formed a new texture that had more detail. They probably made one detailed texture originally and broke it apart, then combined it's parts on the surface. I think that's how they got past the small texture cache or something. And because the cart is so much faster than a CD, it loads all those different little textures immediately.

That's why in this game, you can see some large surfaces having very good textures, some of the best examples is in the room where the Treasure Trove Cove entrance is located.

Attachment 10815

Attachment 10814

Like i said, i think this was the method. Maybe i'm wrong so someone could correct me. Either way, B-K had some amazing texturing in the whole game and it's probably the best looking N64 game because it hits the nail in all aspects, textures, frame rate, geometry, view distance, sharpness, lack of fog, etc. Unfortunately, very few games come close to this and even RARE missed the mark with later entries, messing with the frame rate mostly.

Also yeah, B-K was a 16 MB cart, not even a 32 one that became a standard in later N64 big releases and still has better textures than most of them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barone

I had already addressed it in another thread: http://www.sega-16.com/forum/showthr...l=1#post711453

If you compare Tomb Raider: The Last Revelation (PS1) to Indiana Jones and the Infernal Machine (N64) you'll see how much simpler and more repetitive are the textures used in the N64 game.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulis

Maybe it's not the same method. because Banjo-Kazooie definitely has better and more varied textures than Indiana Jones as you can see in the pictures i posted. (also Indiana Jones doesn't have fog/pop-up like Tomb Raider so maybe it was too much for the system already?) So, it's not about the system being able or not, it's mostly about developers using it properly.

---

The N64's texturing hardware is really limited and flawed, don't blame the game developers for that.

Two main tricks are used in that game:
- Texture "decals" (I think it's a multi-texturing technique) on the rocky walls.
- Small texture pieces combined and re-combined on some floors instead of big blurry texture blocks.

And none of them are applicable or useful in all kinds of scenes and games; the decal one probably costs some extra fillrate.

This is from an interview with Rare guys which developed the game (Retro Gamer, issue 36):
http://i.imgur.com/JRGLTdH.png


When the camera zooms out on Banjo-Kazooie you usually have some great looking scenes. IMO thanks to the great artistic job they made for each level and the amount of 3D objects they managed to push for each scene with their 3D engine. Even the special effects (usually in the form of small rounded particles) are designed in a way that the lack of additive blending doesn't look so apparent:

http://i.imgur.com/oSUTyo1.png

http://i.imgur.com/YIfeK1a.png



But there are still several moments, especially on close-ups, when you can see noticeably poor-quality textures:

http://i.imgur.com/F7lvrne.png

http://i.imgur.com/E58tFAc.png

http://i.imgur.com/kYuugbe.png

http://i.imgur.com/rKxs1Am.png

http://i.imgur.com/sgfOcYm.png

http://i.imgur.com/eX1l5p4.png

http://i.imgur.com/vlkKIAO.png

http://i.imgur.com/17oK35L.png




In terms of texture quality and definition there's still a huge gap between that and this:

http://i.imgur.com/Wja0c4s.png

I always wondered about the whole tiny texture overlay trick/thingy. So it's a multi-layered textured surface? Doesn't that eat up fill rate (multi-pass textures)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomaitheous

I always wondered about the whole tiny texture overlay trick/thingy. So it's a multi-layered textured surface? Doesn't that eat up fill rate (multi-pass textures)?

---

I'm sure it does mean more polygon use, yes. Something similar is extremely common on the Playstation as well, of course -- the only real technique for hiding the PS1's awful polygon seams is to overlay polygons on top of eachother, covering the seams with more polygons. PS1 games which don't have as bad popping-polygon-seam problems do it that way, with overlapping polygons. The 5th-gen consoles have drawbacks in 3d because of how early 3d tech was in the mid '90s, and these are examples of some of the ways developers tried to get around those limitations. Clever stuff. In both cases the benefit is certainly greater than the potential performance hit -- the N64 games with the most effective use of small tiled textures have some of the system's best graphics, and PS1 games with overlapping textures fix the system's usual distracting polygon-seams issue, which is nice.

I just wanted to say thanks @Barone for this awesome OP.

This further confirms that Nintendo don't deserve half the credits they receive. A legacy made of cheap moves (the way they prevented third-party developers to do games on competiting hardwares during the 3rd gen), lies (when they damaged control against the Blast Processing campaign or when they lied all throughout in magazines around the DKC release), underpowered hardwares in a mass sales attempt (almost all their handhelds but also the Wii, Wii U and Switch :yuck:) and some cheap cash cows such as their own IPs to begin with but also that Pokemon crap fest... This is so lame! How some of these things even happened is beyond me...

I still think that Nintendo have their place, they're the only ones who do gaming aimed at childs after all, but not the way some things happened and still do. This is just pathetic.

I think the blast processing campaign was the reason they made the N64 clock speed so high (93 Mhz)

How is Switch underpowered? It's using the top mobile hardware on the consumer market for that price. It's a device that is a tablet smaller than a DVD case. You cannot expect PS4 power in such a small form factor. Also the whole only aimed at kids thing is a fallacy and that ignorance is over 20 years old and needs to die. Esp this generation.