Is It Me, or Does the Nintendo 64 SUCK?!

[Zoltor]

Power is quite important when the majority of games by developers that actually matter will miss Nintendo consoles because they keep making souped-up Gamecubes, Wii only owners really got shafted after 2010 when every single important game missed their console entirely and Nintendo didn't even bother throwing them any bones because they focused on shitting out their newest gimmick.

More like a handful of games that support Classic Controller, even fucking Metroid Prime forces you to use the stupid waggle stick.

What Ubisorf, EA, and Square? The fact they might not want to develop for a Nintendo console, is the best news in the world. Gameplay beats graphics any day.

[A Black Falcon]

I'll begin with this affirmation that you do not actually read before blindly responding. If you did, then you'd know that my post was the fourth that day and the eighth since Bones Justice bumped this thread a couple days before that.

You were the first one since the thread was bumped to make a post attacking the N64. That's why I said that.

Go back and actually read what I posted. I was talking about how nearly everything at the time and ever since had RGB color and how the NES' messed up palette made it look unusual and obviously compromised, especially for the ridiculous period that Nintendo insisted on waiting before entering the 16-bit generation halfway through. Just like the Nintendo 64, NES games were very recognizable and did not look like anything else at the time. You can go ahead and spin that into a compliment for the N64, because for consoles, arcades and portables, it's true, whether any of us think it's good or bad.

I've never had any problems with the NES palette... yeah, it's limited, but so what? Most systems back then had limited palettes.

And Nintendo waited so long because the NES was successful. Why replace a popular console until you need to? It did result in them entering the 4th generation very late, but it worked out in the end.

3D PC games of the late 90's had detailed 2D games, detailed and smooth Duke Nukem 3D-style games, or 3D games with much more polygons at once, smooth framerates and most importantly for this topic: they had proper quality texturing, not NES tile-style repetitive swatches or small textures stretched impossibly far, they were detailed and there was a lot of variety per scene and overall.

PC games eventually had that, but they also had lots of games with perspective issues in the early years of 3d, lots of games with horrendously pixelated textures, etc etc. Don't sugarcoat PC gaming 3d just because by the late '90s games were looking pretty good; it wasn't always like that. 3d games on the PC from '95, '96, even '97... many didn't exactly look great.

When I got an N64 in fall '99, as I've said plenty of times before I thought it had weaker graphics than the Voodoo2 card in my PC, so sure, PC game graphics were better by that point... but early on? Or for years after that, for the million who didn't get 3DFX cards right when they released (I didn't get mine until late '98, for example)? N64 graphics absolutely wiped the floor with the PC "3d" graphics card that 3DFX card replaced in the PC we had then, the S3 ViRGE! That thing was so horrendous... single-digit framerates in Wipeout XL (PC version demo), for example.

These texturing attributes contrast against the signature look of almost all N64 games, but are proportionately in line with Saturn/PSX games (scaled down appropriately). Texture filtering was intended as part of a final polish on solid visuals, as designers continued to find was to push 3D graphics further. The N64 does the opposite and blurs texturing which was noticeably inferior to existing consoles and only drew more attention to it. There were a few exceptions after the ram pak came out, but that was already overlapping into the next generation.

For that last point, since when do later titles not count? Since never, that's when. All games released for a platform count. Going by that silly standard, Vectorman shouldn't count as an example of Genesis graphics because it released after the Saturn, for example, (or Kirby's Adventure for the NES), and that's ridiculous.

As for the rest of this, the point of N64 texture filtering is to make it look better. Yeah, the base textures are low-resolution, but I think Nintendo really did think that smoothed textures look better than blocky pixelated ones, and I agree on that point, even though I certainly wish the N64 had a larger texture cache.

The Saturn & PSX are in line with the natural evolution of 3D graphics, but the N64 took one step back on one foot and then one step forward with the other.

The N64 isn't just in line with the evolution of 3d graphics, in console 3d it took some important steps forward that every console since has also done, of course (Z-buffer, perspective correction, etc etc.). And the filtered textures were a step forward too in some respects -- getting rid of pixelization IS an advance, even if the textures themselves are quite low-rez due to that too-small texture cache.

So it's straddling two ends of the spectrum at the same time. This made it very unique looking in the history of 3D graphics and console games in general.

The fact that there was so little variety of graphic types (almost everything was 3D), and it all the more stands out in console history as having a generic "oh, that's a N64 game" appearance. The Genesis has way more 3D games than N64 does 2D. Hell, even the SNES probably does.

The N64 was at the beginning of the 'most games should be 3d' phase. This phase lasted until at least the late '00s. The Dreamcast, for example, has NO 2d or 2.5d platformers, excepting only a few modern homebrew titles and a classic collection. Not one. It does have a lot of 2d fighting games and puzzle games and a handful of 2d shmups, but most games are 3d. And because fighting games faded in popularity after the Dreamcast, the PS2, Xbox, and Gamecube are even worse in this regard -- all of those systems have a VERY small proportion of 2d games compared to 3d. This trend only changed with the rise of digital distribution and the retro-styled game boom of the last generation, but still 2d or 2.5d games rarely release in physical form, they're mostly cheaper download-only titles.

My point is, you're looking at an entire era which thought 3d was better and 2d less good, and then claiming that the N64 is different from other platforms in that regard when in fact it is not. The N64 does have fewer 2d games than the PS1 or Saturn, but that's only because of its later release date, higher prices to release games on the system (carts vs. CDs), and much smaller number of titles released for the platform (mostly because of those two reasons). The N64 has mostly 3d games because that's what the market wanted from the mid '90s to late '00s.

We all know that your personal opinion is that N64 filters > actual detail and variety, but most people disagree with you and wouldn't think that PC games of the time look the same.

Most people don't disagree with me any more than they disagree with you. Today, most people would say that the PS1, Saturn, and N64 ALL have bad-looking 3d, just in different ways. It's only on a very anti-N64 forum like this one where you'll see anything different.

You're also once again blindly judging hardware overall and claiming that the N64 is "more powerful".

Triple the processor speed, lots more RAM, lots more polygons per second potential (remember that the various required features drop polygon counts by at least two thirds versus theoretical potential with PS1-style 3d), etc etc. Saying that the N64 is more powerful is not a statement of opinion. It is. The most powerful system is the one that is overall most powerful, maybe not in every single category but when you look at the system as a whole, and it's no contest that the N64 is of course more powerful than the other 5th gen systems. The opinion part is about which system people prefer -- hardware power and how much someone is going to like a system have absolutely nothing in common, of course! I'd never say "the most powerful system of the generation is always the best" because it is rarely true.

Even if we had a magical empirical formula which tallied the pros and cons of that generation's consoles and it proved that the N64 visuals are overall superior to a robot's mind, it wouldn't change the natural emotional and intellectual reaction that humans have upon experiencing these games. No one at the time ever fired up a N64 game and exclaimed positively, "Wow! So blurry!"

No, but I'm sure there are plenty of people who exclaimed 'Wow! No visible pixelization!".

Whether or not the N64 is indeed more powerful, is still irrelevant to the topic you have jumped into. The diluted detail and blurriness, especially contrasted by the sharp stable edges of the polygons, makes the N64 look unique and recognizable. The absence of non-3D games and variations in-between then takes it infinitely further.

This whole discussion here is about hardware power, so saying that it doesn't matter if the N64 is more powerful is quite silly. But that last sentence is, of course, even sillier, and gets to something I deeply disagree with you about, that systems need to represent all kinds of games to be great; as I have always said, they do not. But more on that below.

I don't expect you to be capable of or letting yourself understand the variety of visuals in Saturn/PSX games which are not completely 2D.

Obviously false trolling insults won't help you make your case. I have hundreds of games for the PS1 and Saturn and know quite well what the games look like.

I don't have the energy to list dozens of examples and then have you just ignore the actual topic altogether and talk about the N64 being "more powerful". Bottomline: PSX/Saturn have untextured polygonal games, 2D Doom or Duke Nukem 3D style games, Mode 7 style games, fully detailed 3D backgrounds with sprites, fully 2D backgrounds with 3D elements, various combination of 3D and 2D high res detailed visuals... so many different balances of 3D elements and so many with high framerates and/or resolutions. Plus there's the Saturn's own signature elements like the VDP2 floors and layer-based transparencies. It's not just a sliding scale of generic 3D and it isn't confined to such a narrow spectrum either. Then there's the massive variety of mostly 2D games. This alone sets the N64 as the odd duck between the 16-bit to current generation. CPS1 games look different from CPS2 games. Neo Geo games look different. SNES games look different. 2D PC games look different. There's such a huge variety of console, arcade and computer ports on Saturn/PSX... and that's before you get into the massive library of 2D games made for that generation. These extremely contrast against the N64 library.

I covered most of this above.

First, the claim that the N64 stands out is wrong; see what I said about all of the 6th-gen consoles also having a VERY low proportion of 2d games compared to 3d. The N64 isn't much different here from the systems that follow it, Capcom's massive library of 2d Dreamcast fighting games excepted.

Second, the idea that having a wider selection of games makes a system better isn't something I agree with, and a lot of people agree with me on this point -- think of anyone who likes the NES over newer systems, even though as far as game and graphical design goes the system is much more limited than even the SNES, for one of many examples. Having a wider selection of game types is nice, but what matters the most is how much someone likes the kinds of games that a system does have.

And third, some of the "different balances of 3d" you talk about are because of games struggling to cope with systems that don't have the built-in features that the N64 does. Are you seriously trying to say that not having perspective correction makes the PS1 better than the N64, for example? That's complete nonsense. Of course, you justify this by slighting N64 3d, but that's to be expected even if it is, of course, wrong; N64 3d is in no way "generic", different games do indeed look different. Do Dreamcast, PS2, Xbox, GC, or any newer system's 3d games look "generic" because they also all have basic 3d featuresets which all games are expected to have? I think not! And you CANNOT single out the N64 here, because all systems that follow it do the same thing. Of course the Dreamcast also made some major advances -- high-res textures, the power to have lots of games with 60fps framerates, and progressive-scan support, to name the three most obvious ones -- but the N64 was the first system which set a standard for 3d featuresets, and all systems since do the same.

Make videos with 4-screens at once, each running footage from a consoles' games, each set balanced with different visual styles. The N64 screen will cycle through the same type of similar looking visuals 99% of the time, while the Saturn and PSX screens could have 4 radically different looking games at a time and then continue cycling sets of 4 different looking games, yet sets which themselves look unique compared to the previous set and the next and the next... for a long time. It's just common sense. Go ahead and say that all Saturn/PSX games are ugly and variety is bad, but you won't find many people outside of certain Nintendo forums agreeing with you.

Covered this already, other than that of course I don't think something stupid like "all PS1/Saturn games are ugly". Why would you think I'd think that?

[quote]I covered this above. If you honestly believe that the Nintendo 64 has anywhere near the variety of visuals found in PSX/Saturn games, then everyone here will agree that you are the one who needs to start playing anything but Nintendo 64 games. I'm not talking about N64 games improving on the system's weaknesses. You are trying to say that all three console libraries have a few traits seen across many 3D games. For Nintendo 64, it's almost all of the games, yet the variety found in every aspect of Saturn/PSX 3D is massive. And again, only the N64 is almost all 3D. That alone makes it stick out like a sore thumb. Filtering on top of that only makes it stand out all the more.

You always try to make out any one who criticizes the Nintendo 64 as obsessed "haters",

This thread continues to prove that point sadly accurate. I don't think I hate any console as much as you people do the N64... I don't quite get it, honestly. I mean, sure I greatly dislike Sony, but when actually looking at the games and graphics I try to be objective.

when the reality is that it is not a highly regarded console/library by most people, at least not in the grand scheme of things (there's a reason that it damaged Nintendo so dearly). Whether or not they're all mistaken is separate issue.

"Most people" where, on this forum? That would be true. In the gaming public at large? Nope.

As for the N64 damaging Nintendo, the system damaged them by causing Japanese third parties to abandon Nintendo. That hurt. But for Western third parties, it's the Gamecube that was the disaster, not the N64; the N64 had good Western first, second, and third-party support, but then the Gamecube's failure -- remember, the SNES and N64 sold similarly in the Americas (the SNES just barely edges out the N64), but then the Gamecube sold far worse -- is what doomed them here. But I covered that in my long post in the thread about Iwata's sad death, so I won't repeat myself.

So yeah, you exaggerate how much the N64 hurt Nintendo. It damaged Nintendo in Japan, sure, but not really in the US. Here that came later, in the Gamecube and Wii eras.

It's too bad that we didn't get more games like that. I'm not a fan of Yoshi's Story or Yoshi's World, but YS would have been so much better without pre-rendered cgi and as such, doesn't look as nice as the SNES game. Bomberman 64 could've been something special like Saturn Bomberman, instead it's a downgrade after the Super Bomberman series. I'm not a Mortal Kombat fan and can't be bothered to nitpick the details of all the versions, but I was impressed by the existence MKT for N64 bitd. I don't like the look of most Bust-A-Move sequels, but '99 is pretty cool. I don't like the Worms games, but the visuals are a step backward in Armageddon. Pokemon Puzzle League has very disappointing visuals. I hate the designs of Killer Instinct in general and the N64 backgrounds were a real letdown. I really don't like Dr Mario in general, but I appreciate how they did the N64 game. I don't like the 90's cgi-craze visuals of Rampage 2 and felt like it was such a waste of a 2D game for N64. Pretty much the same deal for Mischief Makers. Wonder Project J2 has some of the nicest visuals of the N64 library (same for the SFC game). Too bad they mixed it up with boring 3D sections.

I mentioned this earlier, and plenty of times before, but I just don't agree with the idea that a system needs great games in every genre in order to be great. The best system isn't the one with the most games in every genre, it's the one with the games I like the most. And other platforms exist; play games on the platform they are best on! Strategy games are best on the PC, shmups on Turbografx, etc. Every system has its strengths, and I like having lots of systems so I can experience them. I don't need one system to do everything. (And anyway, the PC is of course that platform, for anyone keeping track. Anyone who wants one platform which can do everything should get a PC, for sure.)

So sure, the N64's 2d/2.5d library is limited in size, but that doesn't bother me much. What it does is amazing, and some of the 2d or sprites-in-polygonal-environments 2.5d games are good too -- Mischief Makers (in gameplay if not so much graphics), Paper Mario, the puzzle games, Yoshi's Story (great graphics, okay if flawed gameplay), etc. Sure, it would be nice if the N64 had had a lot of 2sd games, but it probably never was going to happen anyway because of the direction of the industry, and anyway, other platforms have those games.

[gamevet]

This thread continues to prove that point sadly accurate. I don't think I hate any console as much as you people do the N64... I don't quite get it, honestly. I mean, sure I greatly dislike Sony, but when actually looking at the games and graphics I try to be objective.

It's not that they hate the N64. It's that they hate the ridiculous praise that some people (cough: A Black Falcon) bestow upon a console that many consider to be one of Nintendo's worst.

I've had my N64 since launch. It's okay, but I don't think that the console comes anywhere close to being as great of a gaming experience as the Playstation and Saturn. There's a lot of issues with the hardware that you just try to brush under the rug, yet you try to flip it around by making absurd comments towards the other consoles. The Quake video is a perfect example.

[A Black Falcon]

It's not that they hate the N64. It's that they hate the ridiculous praise that some people (cough: A Black Falcon) bestow upon a console that many consider to be one of Nintendo's worst.

On this forum people surely think it's one of Nintendo's worst, but it isn't thought of nearly as negatively elsewhere, or at least not any more so than anything from that generation, which certainly has aged as far as 3d graphics goes.

There's a lot of issues with the hardware that you just try to brush under the rug,

That's not true, I admit the hardware's major issues -- that is, primarily the small texture cache. I guess the absence of a dedicated audio chip is also an issue, but I think N64 audio is good enough so I don't mind that one as much. Of course I have always defended Nintendo's choice to stick with cartridges, because the positives -- shorter load times, faster access to all the data, etc -- was worth the drawbacks. Still, there was of course a downside there in all the developers who left Nintendo in part because of it... though I really do think a lot would have left anyway, because getting away from a platform with that strong a first-party library had obvious benefits. The Gamecube, Wii, and Wii U all use discs and have much lower publishing costs than the N64 but also have poor third party support compared to the other consoles of their generations, after all.

yet you try to flip it around by making absurd comments towards the other consoles. The Quake video is a perfect example.

I did not say anything remotely "absurd" about Quake on any platform. Unless saying that that article I linked is pretty good and I believe it (though I haven't played either console version myself) is somehow "absurd"? That would be kind of odd for you though, considering that in the end the guy says he likes the Saturn version more.

[j_factor]

... What? N64 games look much closer to PC games of the late '90s than anything you'll see on the PS1 or Saturn, certainly. By '98 none of the consoles could match what PCs could do, I certainly noticed the downgrade when I got my N64 in '99 and compared the graphics to the better visuals of the Voodoo2 card in my PC, but the N64 was closer than the others because it's a more powerful system.

I just can't get over this amazing statement.

[o.pwuaioc]

Of course I have always defended Nintendo's choice to stick with cartridges, because the positives -- shorter load times, faster access to all the data, etc -- was worth the drawbacks.

No pinholes in discs.

[gamevet]

On this forum people surely think it's one of Nintendo's worst, but it isn't thought of nearly as negatively elsewhere, or at least not any more so than anything from that generation, which certainly has aged as far as 3d graphics goes.

It is. I know another site that rarely, if ever, talks about the N64. They aren't a console specific site, but they sure loved talking about the Saturn back then.

I think the Gamecube was a hell of a lot better system than the N64. It not only had better 3rd party support, it also had better 3rd party games. Your typical answer for this will be the stupid exclusive 3rd party games that the N64 has, which doesn't change anyone's opinion of the console, outside of N64 fanatics that lived in a bubble of denial.

That's not true, I admit the hardware's major issues -- that is, primarily the small texture cache. I guess the absence of a dedicated audio chip is also an issue, but I think N64 audio is good enough so I don't mind that one as much. Of course I have always defended Nintendo's choice to stick with cartridges, because the positives -- shorter load times, faster access to all the data, etc -- was worth the drawbacks. Still, there was of course a downside there in all the developers who left Nintendo in part because of it... though I really do think a lot would have left anyway, because getting away from a platform with that strong a first-party library had obvious benefits. The Gamecube, Wii, and Wii U all use discs and have much lower publishing costs than the N64 but also have poor third party support compared to the other consoles of their generations, after all.

See. You defend the poor 3rd party support of the N64, by trying to portray that the Gamecube and Wii had it just as bad. There was nothing positive about the N64 having games on carts ($70 launch games!), other than being the most kid friendly system you could buy. The lack of a sound chip in the N64 just blew. You have these beautiful sound chips on the Playstation and Saturn pumping out every tune imaginable, while the N64's sound was just very dated in comparison.

It was very disappointing going from the outstanding libraries that the NES and SNES had, to going to the poor selection that the N64 had. There are hands down, about a half dozen games on the N64 that I consider the best of the generation, while it's several dozen for the NES and SNES for me.

I did not say anything remotely "absurd" about Quake on any platform. Unless saying that that article I linked is pretty good and I believe it (though I haven't played either console version myself) is somehow "absurd"? That would be kind of odd for you though, considering that in the end the guy says he likes the Saturn version more.

Yes you did. You do it all of the time and everyone rolls their eyes.

You downplay how bad Quake looks on the N64, by trying to dog on the (pixelated...yeah right) quality of the Saturn textures in the game. Seriously, without the blurring of the textures on the N64 version of Quake, the textures for that version would be truly pixelated. You make excuses for the game, instead of just admitting that it's not as good as the Saturn version.

If you told me today that Sega Touring Car sucked on the Saturn. I'd agree with it. I think the game runs so horrible, that it's not an enjoyable experience. I'll even tell you that I like Street Fighter 2 Turbo on the SNES, better than the SF2 SCE on the Genesis. I don't let console loyalty sway my opinion of games.

[A Black Falcon]

It is. I know another site that rarely, if ever, talks about the N64. They aren't a console specific site, but they sure loved talking about the Saturn back then.

I think the Gamecube was a hell of a lot better system than the N64. It not only had better 3rd party support, it also had better 3rd party games. Your typical answer for this will be the stupid exclusive 3rd party games that the N64 has, which doesn't change anyone's opinion of the console, outside of N64 fanatics that lived in a bubble of denial.

"N64 fantatics who lived in a bubble of denial" and you're trying to convince anyone that I am the biased one? Look at yourself.

Also, the N64 is a better console than the Gamecube in almost every single possible way. The one and only thing the GC is better at are JRPGs, pretty much. The N64 has better first-party games, better second-party games, better third-party games, a better and more durable hardware design, and a better controller.

See. You defend the poor 3rd party support of the N64, by trying to portray that the Gamecube and Wii had it just as bad.

They did. I have all three, and all three were the first TV consoles I got of their generations (gotten years before any others), so I should know. Do note that I said 'comparative to the size of the library', though, and also I'm sure the Wii has far more third-party games than other Nintnedo systems in pure numbers, but if you look for stuff beyond the innumerable minigame collections and music games and such, it's a more limited library.

For the Gamecube, the first couple of years had good third-party support, but after '02 third parties started to SERIOUSLY scale it back, and in the later years of the generation Nintendo got almost nothing, less than we'd seen on N64. And then on Wii, it got that mountain of casual games I mentioned, but very few ones for core gamers, and those we did get are mostly lower-budget stuff. The N64, in comparison, got relatively few games, but the ones it did get included major, big-budget (for the time) games. And of course there's the first-party library, which is better on N64 than on any of its successors.

other than being the most kid friendly system you could buy.

So basically "Nintendo is kiddy", then? Sigh...

The lack of a sound chip in the N64 just blew. You have these beautiful sound chips on the Playstation and Saturn pumping out every tune imaginable, while the N64's sound was just very dated in comparison.

Sure, CD audio is nice, but it's not necessary, and N64 music is good enough. I'm not an audiophile, it's plenty good. (I do disagree with anyone who says that the SNES has better music than the N64; it doesn't.)

It was very disappointing going from the outstanding libraries that the NES and SNES had, to going to the poor selection that the N64 had. There are hands down, about a half dozen games on the N64 that I consider the best of the generation, while it's several dozen for the NES and SNES for me.

There are more than that, but regardless, the argument for the N64 has, of course, always been about quality over quantity.

Yes you did. You do it all of the time and everyone rolls their eyes.

Sure, anything which challenges the echo chamber of N64 hate here does get widespread disagreement.

You downplay how bad Quake looks on the N64, by trying to dog on the (pixelated...yeah right) quality of the Saturn textures in the game.

Whether it's because of the textures (in cases where they're overly pixelated) or if it's caused by the low screen resolutions that cause blockier graphics in so many Saturn games when you compare them to their PS1 (or N64) counterparts, this is an accurate point about Saturn games. Of course the PS1 has similar issues, just often with slightly higher-res visuals than the Saturn. I know that hating on the N64 for its filtering while not caring about the low-rez, pixelated textures that abound in PS1 and Saturn games is the rule here, but that's a bias you share that has no objective basis. The CONSTANT bashing of the N64 for its filtered textures you see in this argument here from your side, while never admitting that PS1/Saturn low-rez blocky textures [that N64 filtering was created to reduce] are even possibly an issue, is wrong. Liking either style is an opinion which there isn't an "objectively right" answer to. They're both flawed styles, showing how 3d graphics had not yet fully matured that generation on consoles.

Seriously, without the blurring of the textures on the N64 version of Quake, the textures for that version would be truly pixelated.

What you're saying here is about as relevant as saying that without the color, videogame graphics would be in black and white. It's an obvious, and irrelevant, statement of fact. The filtering exists, by design. If they hadn't had that filtering, for some reason (though they clearly wanted it), I'm sure they would have changed other things in the design too (maybe for higher-res textures?).

You make excuses for the game,

Explaining some of the basic ways N64 graphics work is not "making excuses for the game".

instead of just admitting that it's not as good as the Saturn version.

I would never, and did not, say that one version is better than the other when I have played neither of them. That would be quite irresponsible. I cited a SOURCE that made those claims you apparently hate. Don't blame me for what that article says, though I certainly think it sounds more right than what you say about the game.

If you told me today that Sega Touring Car sucked on the Saturn. I'd agree with it. I think the game runs so horrible, that it's not an enjoyable experience. I'll even tell you that I like Street Fighter 2 Turbo on the SNES, better than the SF2 SCE on the Genesis. I don't let console loyalty sway my opinion of games.

I try not to either, for games that I have actually played of course.

I just can't get over this amazing statement.

More power = better graphics, it's not rocket science. There's nothing remotely "amazing" there.

No pinholes in discs.

Good point! That's a definite advantage of the N64. All of my N64 games work perfectly, something not true for the PS1 or Saturn. And as masked ROM cartridges, they will continue to work for a long, long time, batteries aside.

[Zoltor]

"I would never, and did not, say that one version is better than the other when I have played neither of them."

WTF, did I miss something here or are you trying to defend a system you have not played?

"There are more than that, but regardless, the argument for the N64 has, of course, always been about quality over quantity."

Also I found that funny, especially when it was a reply to the NES, and omg even more so, the SNES. THE NES has just as much POS games, as it had awesome games granted, but that alone adds up to quite a lot of quality titles(a insane amount of quality titles), if the majority of N64 games were awesome, you might've had a point, but that's not the case. Now this is where your whole argument goes to hell, the SNES is the console with the single best ratio of quality vs crap, in the history of the industry, you have to look pretty damn hard to find actual bad games on the system, yet the SNES library is still very big.

The N64 was about nothing, but forcing 3D on things that should've never went to 3D in the first place. Nevermind the fact, making true 3D games for a cart based system is the dumbest idea ever(Someone at Nintendo: I have an idea, I know we have less memory to work with then everyone else, but hey screw it, lets waste what little space we have, on pointless 3D). If Nintendo used the N64 for 2D, I have no doubt, there would've been a hell of a lot more awesome games, then there were, but they didn't.

[j_factor]

Whether it's because of the textures (in cases where they're overly pixelated) or if it's caused by the low screen resolutions that cause blockier graphics in so many Saturn games when you compare them to their PS1 (or N64) counterparts, this is an accurate point about Saturn games. Of course the PS1 has similar issues, just often with slightly higher-res visuals than the Saturn. I know that hating on the N64 for its filtering while not caring about the low-rez, pixelated textures that abound in PS1 and Saturn games is the rule here, but that's a bias you share that has no objective basis. The CONSTANT bashing of the N64 for its filtered textures you see in this argument here from your side, while never admitting that PS1/Saturn low-rez blocky textures [that N64 filtering was created to reduce] are even possibly an issue, is wrong. Liking either style is an opinion which there isn't an "objectively right" answer to. They're both flawed styles, showing how 3d graphics had not yet fully matured that generation on consoles.

Filtering doesn't make N64 textures any less "low-rez". Appearing less pixelated doesn't indicate a higher resolution.

More power = better graphics, it's not rocket science. There's nothing remotely "amazing" there.

That is neither accurate nor relevant. If A is better than C and B is better than C, that doesn't necessarily mean A is more similar to B than it is to C. Graphics aren't measured on a linear scale.

[Gogogadget]

What Ubisorf, EA, and Square? The fact they might not want to develop for a Nintendo console, is the best news in the world. Gameplay beats graphics any day.

Okay, I guess i'll just go back to waiting for Fallout 4 and MGS5.

[NeoZeedeater]

Also, the N64 is a better console than the Gamecube in almost every single possible way. The one and only thing the GC is better at are JRPGs, pretty much. The N64 has better first-party games, better second-party games, better third-party games, a better and more durable hardware design, and a better controller.

This is far too much of a blanket statement.

- There are plenty of praised GC games that don't have equivalents on N64: Pikmin, Super Monkey Ball, killer7, Viewtiful Joe, Prince of Persia, Metroid Prime, Luigi's Mansion, Splinter Cell, Cubivore, etc..

- For fighting games, GC has the superior Smash Bros. plus Capcom vs. SNK 2 and Soul Calibur 2. I don't see arguing for the N64 for this genre.

- For survival horror, Resident Evil 4 was a big deal, especially when it was exclusive. I wasn't into Eternal Darkness but many people are.

- Even if you prefer N64 Zeldas, the GC also had quality action-adventures like Beyond Good & Evil and Chibi Robo.

- The GC is better for 2d platformers: DK Jungle Beat, Bonk's Adventure remake. And I think Billy Hatcher's underrated and beats Rare's 3d platformers.

- Do ports from DC count? Games like Ikaruga, Sonic Adventure, and Crazy Taxi add to the GC's lineup.

[Jump Space]

If you told me today that Sega Touring Car sucked on the Saturn. I'd agree with it. I think the game runs so horrible, that it's not an enjoyable experience.

I enjoy the knife edge analog controls and the way that drafting, tire wear and pit strategies are implemented into the game. The grand prix mode is excellent. While it does not have as much content as TOCA, it's gameplay is about as deep, just in different areas. Both are better representations of motor sports than say Gran Turismo. Sega Touring Car is definitely more sim than arcade though and I understand why many do not like it.

[Black_Tiger]

I don't hate the N64 library, it's aesthetics or any other console's. But I was an early adopter of the Saturn, Playstation and Nintendo 64 and was also playing 32X, Jaguar and 3DO at the time. I didn't have a slanted point of view from only having the single console my parents bought me. The Nintendo 64 was disappointing early on, but hyped as having a generational leap in potential that would be unleashed any day now. I just took it one game at a time, but the games and aesthetics trailed the Saturn and Playstation library. During the launched window, the Saturn and PSX had Virtua Fighter, Street Fighter Alpha and Darkstalkers. It was a big deal as during that generation fighting games were as popular as they would ever be. The N64 never came close to anything like that. It was also the generation that RPGs went full mainstream, thanks mainly to the impact of FFVII, which was canceled as a Nintendo exclusive because the Nintendo 64 is what it is. I played a lot of Lucienne's Quest furing the early days of the N64 and was optimistic that we'd get more games that generation which are setup like that, hopefully with even better graphics. The Nintendo 64 never received any ROGs that came close to that.

I was an early adopter of the Turbo CD and started buying PC Engine CD games beforehand. I played most Sega-CD games at friend's houses until I got my own. CD music, voice acting and cinemas were old news and felt standard going into the 32-bit gen. I was disappoibted by how many games Saturn/PSX like FFVII didn't feature CD music and/or voice acting. The Nintendo 64 of course was beyond disappointing in this major yet standard aspect of that generation.

None of this is opinion.

I live in an area with lots of Asian importing. I got to play Japanese N64 games as soon as they released in Japan. I remember hoping that Ganbare Goemon or Doraemon 64 would come close to the experience of Mario 64. Unfortunately, the more time passed, the less optimistic I became about the N64 library. If it was the only console on the market, then my opinion would be completely skewed and I would think that it was the best thing at the time. But I got to experience everything for Saturn and Playstation at the same time. Waiting for better N64 games while the competing consoles release a steady stream of great games was pretty brutal. I imported Tengai Makyou The Apocalypse IV, Grandia, Lunar SS, SF VS X-Men and ither games as soon as they came out. All amazing games with nothing like it on N64.

I also remember how almost everyone I knew of and saw at stores, flea Markets etc, who played Nintendo 64 at the time were kids and young women. This is just my personal experience though, but I was thr anomaly who actually played the N64.

I love arcade and condole games and play everything I can. The Nintendo 64 is part of that, only near the bottom end of the spectrum of enjoyable or well aging libraries.

[NeoZeedeater]

Black_Tiger's situation reminds me a lot of my own (and we're close in age and location). It's almost always the younger gamers that had the N64 as their first or second console that elevate the system's status to legendary levels. Those of us that experienced all the major 16-bit and 32-bit era systems while they were current really noticed the gaps of the N64's library. I love the N64 for the stuff it did well but the droughts were big.