Nintendo 64 Vs Playstation (& Saturn): Nostalgia Bias & Commenter misconceptions!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 июн 2024
- I've seen various misconceptions in the comments of my previous videos covering the 5th console generation. This is part 4. Today, I'll not only be covering some misconceptions but I'll also go over some games we all agree are "good", to explain how no game is perfect, especially when that game is nearly 30 years old, in order to show how skewed your personal experience with "jank" may be.
Игры
All of your N64 points hit the nail on the head honestly. I love the N64, but it's not even a close competition between it and ps1 lmao
Yeah, I feel the only "bad" 5th gen consoles are:
The Atari Jaguar: It was so undercooked and rushed it ended up having serious hardware bugs and limitations that killed what it could do (though it also had other dumb things like no texture cache).
The Virtual Boy: I mean this is a joke system, DOA, but if they just made it a normal handheld with a colour display, it would've probably been decent, as while the 3D gimmick clearly killed it, the NEC CPU was pretty capable.
The GAME.COM: I mean it was outsold by the VB and Jaguar, it was so awful people try their hardest to forget it existed.
I don't count the 3DO as bad, as most of its "bad" parts were just how it was overpriced due to 3rd party manufacturing, while the system itself was quite solid.
Yep. The N64 was great and all but its hard to make a serious case for it "winning" that generation. Especially looking at it from the perspective of actually living through it where you could really feel the difference in real time of how many games each system was getting week by week, month by month.
@@Kurriochiplus, the jaguars Motorola 68k cpu is another weakest link to the Jaguar. Imagine the snes used the virtual boy cpu as a enhancement chip cart.
@@Kurriochi what's so bad, is in Japan the 3do launch was actually quite a big success and it sold very well over there (all things considered). The US launch only having one game for a bit really killed the systems initial sales. Originally the line up was about 4 or 5 games. Madden NFL was on track to be a launch game, which would have been HUGE for the launch... But was pushed back for some reason plus an extra 1mb of ram being added to the system. Just silly mistakes that really would have made a huge difference if done differently.
1+2=32X
“You’re denying yourself an experience you might enjoy.” So true! I’ve been collecting for all 3 of these consoles and have found so much I love
I loved the n64 growing up but honestly the ps1 was better in every measurable category. Great videos
I've really enjoyed this series of vids and telling it how it is. People often miss the obvious factor regarding success of consoles in that generation - the games. The systems that had mass popular 'killer apps' were the ones that did better. Each system had their strengths and weaknesses, though arguably psx was a little more balanced all around, and with the money and dev support that sony threw behind it, it's no wonder they cornered so many third party devs and smashed the market
The cartridge space was limited back in the mid and late 1990's but now-a-days, with use of an SD card, you no longer have these limitations.
I liked the N64 at the beginning but as time moved forward, the writing was on the wall, the future was NOT only 3D, and RPG and other genres were necessary... N64 had too few games, and I just remember a few ones were worth talking about, LOZ and Mario games were almost a Hit everyone of them.. but fighting, racing, platformers, was a wasteland,.. I ended selling my N64 when the hype ran out.. and the Psone became more precious with time. I feel no need to replay 99% of N64 games.. other than the 'classics'.. meanwhile I continuously replay old Psone games,. Or discover hidden gems.
It’s hard to understand just how groundbreaking Zelda: Ocarina of Time was at launch.
You say the world of Zelda is barren, but considering a 3D field of that size, with that draw distance, real-time weather shifts, and a day/night cycle, that world was incredibly immersive.
You make an obvious nitpick about the camera, but ignores the fact that the puzzles made spectacular and innovative use of the 3D environment, and many games later copied those solutions. It’s not just the Z-targeting, but all the spatial and physical awareness required to navigate those dungeons.
Inside the Deku Tree, the player has to perform a leap of faith from the top floor to gain momentum and rip the spider web on the first floor. That was simple, intuitive and used the 3D gameplay in a way I had never seen before. It was leaps and bounds beyond just looking for a key or pushing a lever. The game is packed with those eureka moments showing a true reason for having the extra dimension.
It’s almost like the N64 didn’t deserve a game as good as Ocarina of Time, considering the rest of its library.
But, of course, a video game console can’t survive on 3 or 4 masterpieces. The PlayStation indeed offered a richer catalog and a more varied experience.
I was specifically critiquing its flaws from a modern perspective just to show that no game is perfect, as I've often seen claims that this game (and other games) "aged perfectly". The game was one of the best games released in 1998 for a reason, though, as the game didn't magically get worse over time, we just have far more polished games now, so OOT's age really shows in some areas.
As a Saturn/Playstation owner back in the day, who still prefers either library over the N64.
And with a ton of respect for you trying to be as fair as humanly possible? (I almost never see it happen).
You really do seem to underrate just how much Nintendo (and even Rare) made creative use of 3D space vs. the competition.
I can't stand half of Mario 64, but I'll happily watch a speed run history.
My FPS history may be more built on Doom and Duke Nukem, and then skipping straight to Perfect Dark, but I know Goldeneye rewarded stealth and specific body part based shooting of the enemies. That was the big innovation set, not "being modern".
I just woke up, and my Mario 64 comment is clear as mud, so let me expand on it?
The PS1 wouldn't catch up with a deep move set until Tony Hawk. Crash and Nights - and even Spyro-are far more limited, even if I play either of them far more often.
@@Kurriochi you need to see a game for what it represented at the time. Specifically with Zelda and Mario 64, how they used the new dimension to create deeper ways of thinking a gameplay experience.
Your criticism in the end is confined on a incremental thinking about details like having a camera move a little bit more functionally. Of course cameras nowadays move better, there are 30 years of iteration on top of the seminal work. However, Iteration efforts will never obfuscate the importance of successful innovation moves.
By your logic any yearly edition of Dirt would deserve more praise than Sega Rally, cause of course, modern games have more refined and realistic driving physics.
You say you don’t understand why people think Mario 64 is more dimensional than crash bandicoot.
Mario 64 never tried to be a direct translation of a 2d platformer. The idea of freely roaming a stage was the answer to the question people always asked when playing 2d Marios: what if I could walk around that hill I see in the background.
Crash bandicoot is an excellent game but it’s gameplay is simply an iteration of a game like donkey kong country, you move along a narrow path, in a straight line. The what if answered by Crash bandicoot is way less ambitious than Mario 64.
Many playstation and saturn games made their innovative leaps on storytelling. Metal gear solid movement nowadays feels too simple. You don’t aim, you don’t see what is ahead, but no one cares about that. The game single handed a revolution in tone, narrative and fourth wall breaking. If you make a video saying metal gear 1 as a game aged badly because you can’t headshot enemies you will be missing the point.
I mean, I did call them some of the best games of 96/98 for a reason, I was specifically trying to explain how they haven't "aged well", even if they were groundbreaking at the time. Also I feel like Mario's moveset is underutilized in Mario 64. Like, you can do all of this fun movement but the game rarely if ever requires most of it from my memory.
Also, Mario 64 feels far closer to Jumping Flash! than most other early 3D platformers in terms of design tbh. The difference is that jumping flash has standard levels where you collect jet pods in an open level and then find an exit, while in Mario 64, every jet pod is the exit and it's non linear (also Mario is in third person and not a robotic rabbit (robbit) but you get the picture).
I'm a JRPG fan, so I obviously prefer the PS1 from that era. I also find old turn based rpgs to age better than old action and adventure games. You really don't need to worry about janky cameras and weird controls in games built around turn based combat. Even with PS1 jrpgs with janky cameras like Xenogears and Grandia, it is still tolerable and won't ruin the experience. I really have a hard time playing many N64 games because the bad cameras do ruin the experience.
Console war ptsd is real
Had both consoles. Loved both consoles. Played MORE games on my PS1, but can’t deny the memories of multiplayer fun are mostly on N64…..until the XBOX and Halo came out
N64 had a LOT of 4-player split screen games. Some 4-player NON-split screen games too.
Goldeneye, Lylat Wars (Starfox 64), Mario Kart 64, Super Smash Bros, THQ/AKI Wrestling games, Mario Party(ies) etc
>first video in this series is titled "relive the console wars"
commenters: there better not be any console wars in here
To be fair, you'd get the same result with or without that title.
It's funny and depressing that people are so salty about a console war from nearly 30 years ago. And I bet a lot of those salty people weren't even alive back in the day. I've read comments from people who seem to be genuinely offended over the Sony/Nintendo falling out over the SNES CD addon. Fanboys being fanboys, annoying, insulting and emotional.
I tend to avoid discussions on modern video games because the toxicity there is disgusting and it is only getting worse as time goes on. But that toxicity also sometimes seeps into discussions about retro games as well. The internet and social media seems to have made certain people think it is appropriate to show abject disrespect to their fellow human beings for no reason.
Unfortunately those problems exist everywhere on the internet, not just in video game spaces.
I started playing videogames casually since the 80s with the atari and nes, but really got kinda hooked with the genesis and the 16bit arcades such as street fighter 2 onwards, but even then i can tell you i really started enjoing videogames with the ps1 in 1998, before that i kinda played casually, i did have lots of genesis games and played all the more famous ones, but i wasn´t that good and didn´t finish much of them, i too played PC games, Dos and windows 95, FMV, Duke nukem 3D, and weird adventure games, but with the ps1 is when i really got seriously hooked. Videogames back then really surprised in it´s presentation but the gameplay and game mechanics not always were tight, most of them played like shit, RISE OF THE ROBOTS for example, i used to think it was amazing cause the concept and graphics, but really aged terrible in gameplay, but on the Ps1 i would say that gameplay started getting more tight and it got progressively better onwards, ps2, ps3, and so on and the same for the other companies, nintendo, and so on, the 32 and 128 bits generation are the best to me, since 360 games were kinda a visual experience and some of the "game" aspect was lost, was a total reboot of gaming for sure, there is a before and after the ps1 and the ps2
If only the Saturn 3D pad had a second analog.
The N64 pad also was limited to one 3D analog stick.
I'm a lifelong N64 defender, as it was what made me a diehard Nintendo fanboy growing up as a kid & fighting many battles against PS1 fanboys on the playground...
However, as an adult, it's a FACT the PS1 was a better overall console, even if I didn't like the games as much.
While I defended the N64 religiously growing up, I also remember the months at a time I waited for ANY game to come out. We'd literally go months with only 1 or 2 games releasing, 3rd party included, especially in the later years.
N64 fans have a sort of comradery because we all played the same handful of games. PS1 owners had so many games to choose from, with multiple new games releasing every week, that their experiences were far more varried.
There are things people don't give the N64 enough credit for though. I see a lot of "GC was better!" comments online, but those people don't understand how it was at the time these consoles were out, or they're speaking purely on how well the games aged.
N64 had way more generation-defining games than GC, and was actually on par (or better) than the PS1 in that regard. Mario 64, Goldeneye, Ocarina of Time, Perfect Dark, Banjo, Mario Kart 64, etc. were all masterpieces of the era.
Also, the N64 era created a lot of new IPs that became huge hits, much more so than the GC. Paper Mario, Animal Crossing, Smash, Mario Party, etc. all had their debuts on the N64.
Lastly, the N64 controller was definitely odd, but it was revolutionary at the same time. Coming default with an analog stick (compare it to the PS1's ORIGINAL controller), the Z trigger, introducing rumble & camera controls - it set standards for the industry.
The PS1 had to adapt to it, and the GC's design was abandoned by even Nintendo (except for Smash). And while the GC controller was comfortable, it had plenty of its own flaws. Tiny Z button, awful D-Pad, offset button layout, poor C-Stick (when the competition had 2 full sticks) and less inputs overall (not clickable sticks, 1 start button, 3 shoulder buttons instead of 4). Yes, the analog shoulder buttons were great & had 2 inputs, but few games used them, and even Nintendo abandoned them today (sadly).
All that being said, the N64 library had massive holes & nearly omitted entire genres. RPGs is the most noticeable, with only 2 good ones throughout its whole existence. It also began Nintendo's struggle with 3rd parties, with it always being an uphill battle from that point on attracting consistent support. Carts also reduced game size, poor textures, and compressed sound quality, while also missing out on FMVs in nearly all games.
The PS1 had everything, the N64 just had SOME things that it did extremely well. That's it.
Tbh, from genre defining games (not generation defining, I mean, like what they did for a genre), I feel that like, past OOT/M64/Goldeneye, Smash and Mario Party, most games released on the system were iterations on an existing concepts. Banjo iterates on M64, MK64 iterates on SMK, etc. That doesn't stop them from being very good games, but it does stop someone from also calling FF7, 8 and 9 all "genre defining games", when FF7 was the main 'groundbreaking' JRPG. Similarly, Gran Turismo bascially invented a new form of progression in racing games, Metal Gear Solid, Tomb Raider, Resident Evil, Silent Hill, Twisted Metal, Driver, Jumping Flash! and others, all hit the same highs of M64/OOT/GE in terms of being generation-defining (though Jumping Flash!'s influence is far lesser even if it was the first (well, second, but first good) 3D platformer). The thing that annoys me on the N64 is just how many of the N64 games felt like 'more of the same', and that's entirely Nintendo's fault. Basically, I go about it in the 1st part, but Nintendo absolutely scalped the balls out of any poor soul that made an N64 game, so development costs were far higher. Because of that, devs only made games that they were sure would sell well enough, so there were far less experimental games on the N64, and that's something that I dislike about it. If you go to this list, micro-64.com/database/genrerundown.shtml, it's a little bit sad and hilarious that racing, puzzle and sports games make up a little over half of the N64's western library. And while a couple games in there were actually quality titles (Mainly the 1st party and rareware games), and a couple more were at least decent games (beetle adventure racing and such), most of them were just games that you'd never really look back to. I don't know anyone who'd genuinely try to explain to me why NFL quaterback club 98 is so much better than NFL quaterback club 99, while I know people who would have a very colourful argument about if Banjo Kazooie is better or worse than Tooie. And if you cut out the 'bloat' out of the N64 library and are left with the games you can actually talk about, you realize you have Castlevania 64, Indiana Jones, the Infernal Machine, Glover... Games that you could probably get some enjoyment out of at the time, but the vast majority of people don't talk about.
Though it's absurd how the 3 Crash games sold as many copies as Mario 64, DK64 Banjo-Kazooie & Banjo Tooie combined, while the 3 Spyro games sold as much as the latter 3 combined and both game franchises got shafted up until the PS4 with mid-tier at best games (ok crash had a decent one or two but still) and it took them until the Nsane & Reignited trilogy to get their shit together. Though we did get Crash 4, along with rumblings of a new Spyro game, so that's nice. You can read more about it here, www.reddit.com/r/crashbandicoot/comments/17a5bsq/the_history_of_the_crash_bandicoot_and_spyro_the/ - TLDR: Microsoft owns the 2 IPs now.
I want to say that it's funny how so many Nintendo fans (including me, I am a fan of quality games c:) stare at the 'dead' Nintendo franchises hoping Nintendo will re-make a game or two, knowing how many PS1 franchises are in "IP ownership hell" syndrome or just dead in the water.
I guess it's also important to note how youtubers exist whose entire channels are dedicated to exploring obscure or forgotten PS1 games, or PS1 games in a specific genre. It feels like there's not much to talk about on the N64, especially if we looked at exclusive games.
N64 never came to South Africa, we only started getting official Nintendo products from the GC, I got Ocarina of Time remaster on that and yeah my brother loved it and finished it, I got pretty far, but by 2001 it was boring.
See my issue is not with any one console being "better" than the other. My issue was when people try to argue that the PS1 launch titles are just as good, or better than the N64 launch titles. PS1 might have had more "variety" sure, but how many of those games were landmark classics like I think everyone agrees Mario 64 is? The only one I've heard mentioned is Ridge Racer, and ok, so what? It looks slightly better than Daytona USA on the Saturn, but doesn't play as well. In terms of the rest of their respective libraries? PS1 wins, I don't think anyone can deny that.
The thing is that while the PS1's launch was slow, it doesn't make a lot of sense to compare the launch lineup of the PS1 and N64, because if average consumer walked into a game store on the N64's launch day, they'd have far more options than just the launch lineup of the PS1, because a ton of quality games released between the launch of these two systems. I get comparing launch lineups in isolation, but it's kind of like comparing the theoretically maximum polygons per second a console can output - it doesn't represent the real life situation at the time.
@@seanmckelvey6618 ridge racer only has one track. And Tekken 1 was dog water compared to virtual fighter 1.
@@metronome8471 I agree totally. The only thing PS1 had over the Saturn at launch was perhaps slightly stronger graphics, in terms of gameplay quality the Saturn arcade ports blew Namco away.
@@Kurriochi I was alive at this time. No one was walking into the store on N64 launch day and being converted over to Playstation because it had more games. Everyone knew the PS1 had "more options". None of those options looked as good as Mario 64. Your entire point is also based on hindsight.
The PS1 has a HUGE game library compared to the N64, but the N64 had a lot of iconic IPs. If I had to pick one I don't know it would be hard, but I can tell you, quantity sometimes is better than quality.
Because if you were stuck on Mars and only could bring 1 console, an N64 or PS1 with their full libraries of games.
The PS1 probably will last you longer if you try and beat every game.
Sure the N64 is more powerful and looks better, but the number of good games is like....... just a handful.
What about saturn
The Ps1 was absolutly the best console of the 90s, even with it´s limitations, Playstation always made consoles that are kinda balanced, except maybe for the ps3 and vita, i mean the right balance between technology and price, even Mark Cerny said that about the ps5 in 2020. The Saturn is a great console but feels old, early 3D games on Dos PC used to look like Saturn graphics, i didn´t had 3D accelerator for my PC back then and i remember how the polygons used to look and the Saturn polygons looks exactly like that, Ps1 polygons look far better, more advanced, that´s why my impression is "saturn feels older" also the design of the games and ports were about an older concept of the type of games, saturn is the bridge between windows 95 and 3DO games and got a foot in Playstation games. N64 on the other hand was more advance, Zelda Ocarina and Golden Eye were very impressive, but lacked textures and effects. Playstation at the end had the right amount of tech and the better library, but yes the power of the saturn can be seen in the way it moves polygons and 2D sprites, and it got great hardcore games, n64 was for the time cutting edge and got less but great games, ps1 just gave you great presentation with all the tech and an amazing huge library
N64 is more close to PS1 than Saturn
The Saturns library in terms of depth and variety gives the N64s a run for its money tbh. Very underrated console.
@@ministryOFmuff N64 & PS1 build with 3D in mind but they still are 2D games for these platform like Klonoa & Mischief Makers.
@@hyperturbofox17 Saturn has texture mapping functions built into the vpd lol. Y'all gotta give up the Digital Foundry koolaid, he doesn't know what he's talking about most the time
Saturn had better Fighters. Between Capcom, Sega, and sometimes SNK it was a Megamix.
to me the worst ofenders in your opinions were saying the PS Dpad is superior (Sega/Xbox>Nintendo>Sony) and that the dualshock is good just for becoming a standard. Not everything that becomes a standard does so for being the best, and the dualshock is terrible for people with small hands (which is funny, since you always see reviewers of portable devices complaining of buttons being too small but nobody gives a shit when a layout is unconfortable for small hands)
I've always heard that the Dualshock was better for people with small hands than other controllers, so that's interesting. Also, the Sony D-pad style works far better for me than the shield or cross style, as you can just leave your finger in the center of the D-pad and rock it towards the direction you want to move in. The cross style just makes it easier for my finger to slip off while the shield style is just kinda bulky (though this is obviously my experience).
@@Kurriochi I find the cross or shield far easier to avoid pressing a wrong direction and transitioning to diagonals. As for the small hands thing, i find the upper portion found in the og PS1 controller really confortable indeed, the problem lies in putting critical stuff to the lower center of the controller, since you end having to constantly extend far too much your thumbs, that's where the discomfort (and my gripe with the dualshock standard) lies.
How do you hold your dualshock? At least for me, the center of my thumb is on the same spot in the center of the D-pad & face buttons as it is on the center of the analog sticks. I hold the controller by its side and bottom though, with the palm of my hand touching the end of the bottom grip (on a DS4).
For me all of Sony's controllers prior to Dualsense feel uncomfortable. These weren't designed with ergonomics in mind. The Dualsense, on the other hand feels great on thehands. However the dpad, as with previous generations, is too mushy, and wobbly. I prefer the new Xbox Series dpad or the SEGA ones
@@daspferd7810it was because the grips were to long, really long.
I just like the N64 better.
I always will like it better.
I wish people would just own their preferences and not rely on others validating their opinion.
I played a little bit of both as a kid, and I'm definitely more into Nintendo in the modern era than PlayStation. But it's undeniable that the PS1 was better than the N64. Like you said, it just had more and a greater variety of good games, and way better controllers. Those arguing against you and accusing you of being a PlayStation fanboy are just fanboys themselves projecting and blinded by their N64 nostalgia.
you talked even more theoretical social structure bollocks than in your last video
I had an N64 growing up and later a PS1. Yes I liked both systems, but that N64 controller sucks. It's got 3 prongs (handles) and this designer sucked so bad that they never....... nobody ever did it again.
Was it experimental, yes, but did it suck, yes.
Regarding your tangent at the beginning your logic is rather flawed. You say it's subjective to split hairs and compare quality but the very idea of qualifying anything as good or bad is just that. Making the distinction broader in scope does not make it more objective, in fact it simply makes it less precise which is actually a worse argument in regards to matters of subjectivity. There's plenty of good games on all 3 consoles, that's why I own all 3, but the N64 apart from it's lack of RPG's has a vastly superior lineup at the top of it's library. The PS1 certainly has more niche games as well. The early days of 3D was a struggle for most developers with only a few really turning out consistent quality. Sony was lucky to have Square Enix, Konami, and Capcom support the system as they had it figured out far better than most but even then nobody was as consistent and prolific as Nintendo and their partner studios. Very few 3rd parties provided not just consistent quality but mechanics and graphics that have actually aged well. Aging poorly in regards to mechanics is a common issue with many old RPG's, the lifeblood of the PS1. In conjunction with the poor graphics not many PS1 RPG's are relevant today in their classic form. Even a major system seller in Tomb Raider is a perfect example of a game series that really isn't great to play in it's original form. This is also true of Goldeneye but to a much lesser degree. So IMO Commenters would be right about the quality over quantity point, the best N64 games have aged better. This is evidenced by the fact far more are still relevant today.
I'd also counter the PS1's controller was poor for many games unless one purchased a dual analog controller which released later in the consoles lifespan.
PS1 aged better than Saturn but honestly i pull out my N64 more than both of them. When playing retro consoles I find the top of the heap to be 90% of the consoles relevancy. I don't care about the better than average games when I have 100's upon 100's of great ones to play at this point in history. This is why I'd easily recommend the N64 over the PS1.
1) It's far easier to agree if a piece of media is 'good', than to agree on if 'x media is better than y media'. There's no point in arguing if spyro, mario or banjo were the "best 3d collectathon" (or croc lol), because it's far easier to just say that "well, if all 3 are runners up for "best 3D collectathon, that must mean all 3 are considered good by most people".
2) I mean, Bubsy 3D is more relevant than Koudelka, and Superman 64 is more relevant than Blast Corps, a game's 'relevancy' often focuses on either the "best" or "worst" on a specific system (even if i'd argue games like iznogood are actually horrid, and bubsy 3d is just quite subpar). Actually, most actual "worst games of all time" are PAL releases funnily enough.
3) I personally don't see how the N64 'aged better', though because of its more child - oriented audience, far more people nowadays are nostalgic for it.
N64's Quality over Quantity argument is just dumb. It has a very small library and the overwhelming vast majority of that small Library is hot Garbage. Ask just about anyone what their favorite N64 games are/were and I guarantee you that list will be the same 10 or so games over and over. I'm in my 40's and owned both PS1 and N64 at the same time back then and still do today. The PS1 CURB STOMPS the N64 with Quality releases. It's just Fact. That said, I do love both consoles for different reasons.
@captain3186 153/297 games in the N64 library are sports, puzzle, trivia and racing games.
Yeah like maybe 10 of them, total, were actually decent, but the rest were either solid at the time but games you don't really consider coming back to today, or just awful.
Faster frame rate more polys and more influential gameplay that everyone else copied did not come from the PS1. The PS1 had better sound and more games at a better price. If you actually understand how to use the N64 controller it’s not bad but the dual shock is easier however the PS1 didn’t start with that, but instead copied N64 like everyone else by using analog sticks. The design of 3D action adventure was changed by Zelda Ocarina of Time which has been copied for that type of game countless times since. That’s not even to mention Mario 64 which created a whole new genre. Nothing comes close to popularizing FPSs first for the masses as Goldeneye. The N64 had superior local multiplayer, copied by Dreamcast and Xbox with 4 controller ports. The N64 had an awesome selection of arcade ports that were made on similar architecture like the Cruisin’ series. Also Killer Instinct could not exist without the Ultra 64. PS1 had Metal Gear Solid, Medal of Honour, Final Fantasy VII and the Crash Bandicoot series.l which was a direct response to Mario 64. N64 also had a bunch of more games from first and 3rd party developers. Great ports of Hydro Thunder and Star Wars Episode I Racer as well as other great Star Wars games like Rogue Squadron. There were tons of futuristic racing games, not just F Zero X, that ran at better frame rates and smoother graphics than PS1 similar games. PS1 had a way better selection of 2D games but many of them could be found on Saturn in often better versions making the PS1 less unique or superior in retrospect. Though PS1 games had great new versions of old series or great responses to what Nintendo was doing and more 3rd party support, it never could hold a candle to the level of innovation, influence and impact in the game themselves even if they had a more innovative approach for developers to be able to make more games.
Okay, if we're comparing the two:
1) the PS1's GPU actually had a higher fillrate by a couple million pixels per second over the N64.
2) both systems could output ~100k polygons per second (N64 with Fast3D as super3D was unsupported and awful).
3) both systems had extremely influential games and to imply otherwise is just ignorant.
4) The N64 controller IS bad & the first analog sticks were featured on the 5200, Vectrex and Megadrive (XE-1AP).
5) I'm not a fan of calling any form of inspiration 'copying', as any work of art will be influenced by the ones that came before it.
6) Mario 64 created the collectathon genera, yeah.
7) DOOM and Quake popularized FPS games. Goldeneye was far more influential in creating a far more contemporary setting for FPS games, where you fought real enemies and not alien mutants on far-away space installations or similar. It was also very influential in the 4 player co-op shooter space.
8) The multitap accessory for the PS1 was pretty cheap and it allowed for up to 8 player multiplayer.
9) the PS1 had FAR more than the games you listed, along with far more arcade ports, just FYI.
10) Crash was not a direct response to Mario 64, it was far more interesting and complex than that. One of the devs of that game has a really cool blog that you can read if you'd like, all-things-andy-gavin.com/2011/02/02/making-crash-bandicoot-part-1/, it's a good read.
11) Of course, the N64 had ~30 odd games that are worth playing nowadays, and quite a few of those are from RARE and Acclaim, though the PS1's 3rd party support was leagues above and beyond what the N64 had.
12) If we're talking futuristic PS1 racers, I feel Wipeout is far more advanced than most non-F-Zero X futuristic racers of the time. Also, I don't think it's fair to call the bilinearly blurred textures 'smooth', though it's definitely surprising how they got F Zero running at 60FPS, they basically needed to use under 1500 polygons per frame, and the game was criticized at the time for having such low-poly graphics actually, even if those reviews missed the point of why they were so low poly in the first place.
13) Tons of 2D games came out exclusively on Playstation (in terms of the big 3), like Metal Slug X, Rapid Reload, Megaman X5 and X6...
14) What innovation did these N64 games make? Mario 64 basically invented the collectathon genera and OOT popularized Z-targeting, but most N64 games were just iterations on an existing formula. Also, past OOT, Mario 64, Goldeneye and Smash Bros, there aren't that many N64 games that had as big of an impact as many people think they did. Banjo didn't do anything special, DK64 just stretched collectathon games out to their limits and now people aren't very big fans of it, and both games iterated on Mario 64 anyways. Diddy kong racing? A clone of MK64, which itself was just iterating on Super Mario Kart. Trust me, Nintendo wasn't making innovative game after innovative game. They were making good game after good game, and so were the developers on the Playstation, where there are far more good games.
15) calling the difficult development ecosystem of the N64 'innovative' is really funny and really dumb.
If the N64 was as good as you think it was, wouldn't it make sense that it would've won? Like, look at the Switch, so many high quality Nintendo games came out on it, and it's currently on its way to the best selling console of all time. People buy things that are revolutionary and innovative, and past like the top 5 best selling N64 games, most games on the platform were just more of the same.
The N64 was Nintendo's first low point. The gamecube may have sold worse, but the games on it were better (except sunshine). The second low point was the Wii U, but that's already common knowledge.
@@KurriochiI think everyone is giving you a hard time with the corrections and "but" in the comments. Do people really not research anything on here?
@@Kurriochi good thing you mentioned Switch and Wii U. Wii U is more innovative than Switch. Switch did better as it had better 3rd party support. That’s the same kind of comparison.
You brought up a lot of example of games on the N64 that people tout as good but those were none of the ones I emphasized. Out of the ones I brought up, you had nothing but praise.
I’m not sure if you misunderstood my comment as considering N64 better than PS1 but that’s not what I’m saying, I’m saying that they are both good for different reasons. I pointed out what advantages PS1 had, but also pointed out that it wasn’t the only one on the block to offer those things at the time.
Your examples of first analog controls were neither for popular nor widely adopted systems. There was also motion controls in the 90s way before the Wii but weren’t designed or marketed to the same effect. Same can be said about the analog stick.
I never said more difficult development was innovative. If you look at the PS2 it was more difficult to develop for as well because of the cutting edge architecture, that’s really no different and I don’t think you’re going to argue against the PS2 here. I think it was overrated but that’s another story.
The PS1 is a great system which I actually think was more innovative and interesting than the PS2, but the N64 held its own, even if it didn’t succeed as well in the USA it still found more success and audience in Japan and Canada. That even sustained the 64DD in Japan that allowed you to expand and create your own F Zero X tracks.
PS1 had better textures and was very 3D focused yet had all kinds of warping and other graphical hiccups not found on the N64. It also lacked anti-aliasing a trend that continued into the PS2 era.
With 0 load times and better 3D performance N64 definitely had the edge in speedy modern real-time 3D graphics for its time. Also a lot of the innovative design including Smash Bros and more were finally able to be appreciated by the US when the DS, essentially a handheld with similar power to an N64 smashed sales records there. So it seems the US did actually like what N64 had to offer, just that the timing, price of games, support and marketing of the PS1 were superior at the time.
Although the N64 was capable of 2D games and actually has at least a couple really good ones, Yoshi, Mischief Makers, StarCraft, etc… the cost of carts and the 3D trend prevented it from housing a library of 2D games. The king of 2D in that generation though was neither of them but the Saturn enjoying arcade perfect ports of tons of amazing games, even if mostly in Japan.
The same ports on PS1 like the VS series notably, had to be heavily cutback in order to run. So the PS1 neither had the best 2D nor 3D performance in its time, but instead had the best 3rd-party of support with an easier development environment and lower cost to produce and sell games. It had edgy marketing that did a good job of countering Nintendo’s kid friendly image.
If you for some reason had a Japanese Saturn, a PC and an N64 though you basically didn’t need a PS1 even back then because of Bleem! Which was actually a completely legal emulator along with the fact a lot of the top releases like Resident Evil and Final Fantasy VII got superior PC ports that made use of the boom of 3D GPUs of the time.
Also multi tap existed for many systems before including the 16-bit so there was no innovation there from PS1. Having 4 players available default is totally an N64 W. moreover N64 innovated with the first rumble technology for a mass home market by a highly dominant and successful video game company. This was also later copied by the dual shock, further cementing its influence.
It came packed with the mother of all on the rail shooters, Starfox, copied by Sega with Panzer Dragoon and copied by many others in terms of it feel for that type of shooter in 3D, ever since. It was as impactful as the innovation’s by Sega’s Suzuki during the faux 3D Scaler era of games he innovated with titles like Space Harrier and Outrun.
Also N64 predates PS2 in providing an open world type game with Body Harvest and 3rd person 3D cartoon run and gun gaming mastery with Jet Force Gemini also coming out on the console way before Ratchet and Clank.
This is why it’s always very easy to see where PlayStation copied Nintendo since their first system in yet it’s very difficult to see where Nintendo copies PlayStation.
@@SharifSourour I mean it's Nintendo fault for leaving the deal where the playstation would've been an addon. Also I don't understand how Sony could've copied if the PS1 came out in 1991 while the N64 came out in 1996?
@@Maximus20778 PS1 did not come out in 1991, the SNES did. The PS1 came out in 1994. They didn’t introduce the DualShock controller until after the N64 came out though. Also Crash Bandicoot also came out after the N64 launch in Japan and us being teased as to what Mario 64 would be years ahead of that.
There definitely is thick rose tinted glasses on the hardcore gaming community. You know it, the people who go on and on about how all modern games (especially AAA games) are terrible and overpriced and how games in the 90s were perfect and affordable and never buggy or unfinished. As someone who was alive at that time, I know for a fact that isn't true.
But, just with music, shows and movies, we only remember the good video games from the past. The vast majority of video games from any era have been forgotten for good reason. Proportionally, just as many good games are coming out now as in the 90s or 2000s. When it comes to raw numbers, more good games are coming out now because the industry is just that much bigger. No one will remember the terrible live service shovelware being made today, but no one remembers the terrible licensed game shovelware that came out 30 years ago.
And, even with recent price increases, video games are cheaper now than they were in the 90s when you actually take inflation into account. When you do that, you will see that many Genesis, SNES and N64 games would cost over $100 today. That even applies to consoles. People complained about the PS5 launch price, but the PS1 launched for a higher price when adjusted for inflation. Heck, the Atari 2600 would cost over $700.
I stopped watching when you said Mario 64 aged poorly. BTW, the footage of the game is awful, it runs way better .
It's a tiring contrarian opinion, for the sake of being contrarian. Anyone who was alive at the time knows Mario 64 blew the fucking pants off the PS1.
Sorry your opinion is wrong.