N64 vs Playstation

[quote name='daroga']I'm surprised there's even a debate.

N64 had vastly better software than the PS1. Not that the PS1 was bad, but it had nothing to compete with 4 player Golden Eye, Mario Kart, Star Fox, Smash Bros, Parties, etc. Spyro never really gave Mario a run for his money.

Now, the question as to which aged better is another one in its entirety. But, at the time, N64>>>>>PS1, no question. And yes, we had them both in the dorm and played a lot of each :)[/QUOTE]I strongly disagree there. PS1 had the best games in all genres IMO. IMO, RPGs alone on PS1 were better than everything on N64 combined with FFVII, FFVIII, FF Tactics, Xenogears, Chrono Cross, Lunar, Lunar 2 and many more. PS1 had the best fighters like Tekken 3. PS1 had the great racers like GT, Wipeout XL, Ridge Racer series, and so on. PS1 had all the great regular sports and extreme sports. PS1 had all the music games like PaRappa The Rapper, DDR, etc. The only genre PS1 didn't blow N64 away in was platformers, but I still give PS1 the slight edge for three great Spyro games, two great Crash games, Ape Escape, Jumping Flash 1 and 2, Rayman, Klonoa, and so on. PS1 got all the support from Squaresoft, Enix, Konami, Capcom, Namco, and many other third party publishers.

I'll admit I started off as a big N64 fan since the SNES was clearly my favorite console the previous gen, but the PS1 gave me so much more love, I sold the N64.
 
im STILL playing Ps1 games, N64 games were good but have aged quite badly for the most part with a few exceptions. PS1 all the way, even though i owned an N64 for the most of my childhood. the games were too expensive on N64 for me to enjoy the majority of titles until only recently as well...
 
This is a hard one. Each console has several incredible games, you can lob titles back and forth for quite a while. The Playstation gave us Metal Gear Solid, made the Final Fantasy series truly mainstream, and gave us the first great racing simulator in Gran Turismo. The N64 also had its share of juggernaut titles, from Mario 64 to Zelda to GoldenEye. Then you have a bunch of other great games for each console even if they don't have quite the legacy of other titles on the system.

The N64 was the first console to truly stress multi-player as opposed to two-player: Mario Kart, GoldenEye, and even Mario Party provided many nights of fun with my buddies, where-as I found the PSX experience to be more single-player oriented.

The PSX had a much larger library which provided a variety of genres and titles to chose from, where-as the N64 suffered from a smaller library, it's first library is amongst the best of any console ever. I think in terms of game development Nintendo hit its peak with N64.

All things taken into consideration, I'm going to give the nod to the N64. While the PSX had incredible titles that I still love to this day, I had more fun staying up way too late at night playing GoldenEye, Mario Kart, and others with my friends and siblings than I did playing my PSX library.
 
[quote name='leveskikesko']I agree with that, but at the same time I think the n64 is a bit of a step above. You don't even want to know the crap my ps1 friends played, could've very well have been the reason they quit gaming. They completely forgot about revolutionary gems like Parappa the Rapper or Um Jammer Lammy. But luckily the best n64 games were often the most mainstream.

Let's face it, Nintendo makes some of the best games ever, it's just what they do. Even if the ps1 had a lot of great games, it's hard to compete with games like Super Mario 64 and LoZ Oot.

I really think it's a battle of quality vs. quantity. I may have had more ps1 games than n64 games, but which system did I play more? The n64.[/QUOTE]

Having more mainstreame games shouldnt even be a qualifying factor. I mean seriously its like saying that MTV Rock is better then indy rock because its easy to find the popular songs or the best songs. And no really its not THAT hard to compete with games like Zelda. I would rather play Alundra over Zelda any day. And besides you guys keep saying stuff like that but can you name me a game on the 64 that competes with Final Fantasy as a traditional RPG? How about competes with Ogre Battle as a Strat RPG? How about Disc World as a Adventure game?

And no, this is not a battle of quality over quantity. Its a battle of ignorance over education. If someone takes the time and does any research they will sped far more time with their PSX then the 64. I think this is why you saw alot of the most hardcore gamers start to fall away from Nintendo......because we were bored. For your average Joe gamer the 64 was fine, you could walk in and get a Nintendo or Rare game a few times a year and thats all you needed. But hardcore gamers were bored with the 64 there simply wasnt enough to play.

Say what you want, but yes the Playstation was bogged down with alot of crap, but its not like the N64 didnt get 100s of bad games too.....you just dont remember it because you stuck to Nintendo franchises by and large(this is why developers avoid Nintendo consoles now, because they have just accepted they cant compete). Meanwhile the PSX had litterally 4x the crap the N64 had.......but it also had 10x the quality games.

Go break out your PSX, play some games like Alundra, Devil Dice, Blazing Dragons, Un Jammer Lammy, Tomba, Fear Effect, Grid Runner and Wild Arms 2. You will still be playing that PSX this time next year where I gurantee your N64 when you broke it out didnt last more then a month or two.
 
Having both consoles, I can say that my N64 received more attention than my playstation. This was because of the innovations that the 64 ushered in to the gaming world. 4 controller ports, rumble packs, an analog control stick, 3D console gaming, party gaming, etc.
 
[quote name='lombarvm']Having both consoles, I can say that my N64 received more attention than my playstation. This was because of the innovations that the 64 ushered in to the gaming world. 4 controller ports, rumble packs, an analog control stick, 3D console gaming, party gaming, etc.[/QUOTE]

All of these things were done before the N64 and all but party gaming were also done on the PSX. Again a mute N64 argument.

Its pretty hard to compare most systems in any way other then games, when people try to its generally not right...
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']And no, this is not a battle of quality over quantity. Its a battle of ignorance over education. If someone takes the time and does any research they will sped far more time with their PSX then the 64. I think this is why you saw alot of the most hardcore gamers start to fall away from Nintendo......because we were bored. For your average Joe gamer the 64 was fine, you could walk in and get a Nintendo or Rare game a few times a year and thats all you needed. But hardcore gamers were bored with the 64 there simply wasnt enough to play.[/QUOTE]

I think this line of reasoning is part of the problem with this whole argument. Many people preferred the N64 because, when it came down to it, they did only play a handful of games every year. In that case, they were plenty happy to play Nintendo's AAA fare and ignore the rest. That's really all they needed. Trying to argue to them that they needed to play a lot of A and AA titles on PS1 doesn't make sense because they simply didn't have the time or care enough. They never got past the AAA titles.

I owned both, and I can easily say the average N64 game got a lot more play time than the average PS1 game. When I look back, generally I remember the N64 more fondly due to those few games. That's not to slight the PS1's library, which was fantastic. It's just a matter of taste. No reason to get upset.
 
[quote name='elwood731']I think this line of reasoning is part of the problem with this whole argument. Many people preferred the N64 because, when it came down to it, they did only play a handful of games every year. In that case, they were plenty happy to play Nintendo's AAA fare and ignore the rest. That's really all they needed. Trying to argue to them that they needed to play a lot of A and AA titles on PS1 doesn't make sense because they simply didn't have the time or care enough. They never got past the AAA titles.

I owned both, and I can easily say the average N64 game got a lot more play time than the average PS1 game. When I look back, generally I remember the N64 more fondly due to those few games. That's not to slight the PS1's library, which was fantastic. It's just a matter of taste. No reason to get upset.[/QUOTE]

Eh not really getting upset. Sorry if it seems I am but im passionate about gaming and think this is really a no brainer argument to anyone thats experienced both libraries in full and fairly. I mean ok so guys like you didnt have time to play all the games thats fine. But some of us did or at least made time to. And if you did there is no possible way to argue that the 64 even came close to having the better library. In every genre the PSX had several times more quality games then the N64. And in some genres the N64 didnt even really make a showing(again Adventure games or RPGs are great examples).
 
And that's fair to say the PS1 had the more extensive library. That's a sheer numbers issue, and no one can really deny that. But for many, as someone else pointed out, quantity wasn't the issue as much as quality. They were satisfied with a few highly polished games in the genres they liked. They didn't care that the PS1 won out in adventure or RPGs.

Most would argue that the SNES was a better system than the Genesis, yet you'll still get plenty of argument form those who just really like Phantasy Star, Sonic, or the lineup of sports games. It's a preference issue, which is why debates like this usually degrade into silly arguing.
 
[quote name='elwood731']And that's fair to say the PS1 had the more extensive library. That's a sheer numbers issue, and no one can really deny that. But for many, as someone else pointed out, quantity wasn't the issue as much as quality. They were satisfied with a few highly polished games in the genres they liked. They didn't care that the PS1 won out in adventure or RPGs.

Most would argue that the SNES was a better system than the Genesis, yet you'll still get plenty of argument form those who just really like Phantasy Star, Sonic, or the lineup of sports games. It's a preference issue, which is why debates like this usually degrade into silly arguing.[/QUOTE]

See and im just a firm believer of the human abilty to set aside bias to judge something based on a rational argument. I think people these days pretty much think even the stupidest of arguments is just as valid or worthwhile as the best which isnt right.

I could understand the argument that the N64 approached the PSX(maybe not surpased)because of quality if it was true that the N64 had not only the best game in every genre but no holes in its line up or if the PSX fell far short. But thats simply not true from any rational or objective stand point. When you look at it the only two genres I can think of where the N64 had a title that just dominated was 3D Platformer and Kart Racer. Kart Racer isnt really even a genre and the 64 really only had Mario Kart 64 on that end(and the PSX had several Kart Racers such as Punky Kart and Chocobo but they were average at best). 3D platformers im drawing a blank on for the PSX but I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few(can think of stuff like Croc and Mr Domino but they hardly compete)however if you look at Platformers over all Klonoa, Tomba and alot of others come in and compete if not beat the 64. As I said as well if you want to argue a gap in the PSX library on those 2 genres you then have to look at the 64s gap in RPGs, Adventure games and many other genres where there isnt just a gap but gaping hole.

I have no problem with someone saying that the 64 got more use in their household or that its their fav system of the generation. But it should be very easily to objectivlly say that the PSX absolutely dominated that era.
 
The quantity vs quality argument just doesn't work. The Playstation had both. Of course there was crap for the system but most it fell by the wayside. So many companies got to show what they were made of on the system.

I can easily see people breaking out the N64 when friends come over because it was so well designed for party gaming (it's major strength over the Playstation), but you guys don't party all the time, do you?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='DQT']The quantity vs quality argument just doesn't work. The Playstation had both. Of course there was crap for the system but most it fell by the wayside. So many companies got to show what they were made of on the system.

I can easily see people breaking out the N64 when friends come over because it was so well designed for party gaming (it's major strength over the Playstation), but you guys don't party all the time do you?[/QUOTE]

Agreed. Iv always said you can have quality on the N64 or quality in quantity on the PSX. I think alot of people forget about the dry spells of the 64 too. Now ya there is like 100 games or something worth playing. However it took like 8 years for those games to come out. Where there were 4 or 5 great new PSX games every month you were lucky if you got 1 a month on the 64. Thats all alot of gamers could afford to play, but alot of others were happy to get as many as they could.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Agreed. Iv always said you can have quality on the N64 or quality in quantity on the PSX. I think alot of people forget about the dry spells of the 64 too. Now ya there is like 100 games or something worth playing. However it took like 8 years for those games to come out. Where there were 4 or 5 great new PSX games every month you were lucky if you got 1 a month on the 64. Thats all alot of gamers could afford to play, but alot of others were happy to get as many as they could.[/quote]This is a good point. I was somewhat of a Nintendo loyalist back in the day, and purposely bought a N64 to play Shadows of the Empire. After beating it, I looked around for other games. Since at the time I was tired of Mario, nothing looked appealing, while PlayStation had Tomb Raider, Castlevania, Metal Gear Solid, Twisted Metal, etc. out or coming out. So I exchanged the N64 for a PlayStation.

The difference is that now, the entire N64 library is extant, so if you are looking at collecting and playing, it looks a lot better than did if you were "there" with the system in the 90s.
 
[quote name='Gentlegamer']This is a good point. I was somewhat of a Nintendo loyalist back in the day, and purposely bought a N64 to play Shadows of the Empire. After beating it, I looked around for other games. Since at the time I was tired of Mario, nothing looked appealing, while PlayStation had Tomb Raider, Castlevania, Metal Gear Solid, Twisted Metal, etc. out or coming out. So I exchanged the N64 for a PlayStation.

The difference is that now, the entire N64 library is extant, so if you are looking at collecting and playing, it looks a lot better than did if you were "there" with the system in the 90s.[/QUOTE]

I did the same. I owned an N64 and no PSX for awhile. Then between the horrible lack of games on the 64 and FFVII and Suikoden I had to get a PSX. Even as a 13 year old kid I could tell the industry was shifting and developers were fleeing Nintendo.
 
Marketshare always wins, even if it leads to a whole bunch of crap on top of it.

The trend of low marketshare/high quality titles/small library were valid then as well as today.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']I have no problem with someone saying that the 64 got more use in their household or that its their fav system of the generation. But it should be very easily to objectivlly say that the PSX absolutely dominated that era.[/QUOTE]

Who is really arguing? From what I've read most people have simply stated they enjoyed one system better than the other. I don't think anyone is arguing number of titles or sales. So why does it matter? No one is wrong for choosing it as their personal favorite, or even as what they think was the "better" or more "successful" system. There's really no objectiveness to qualifications like that.

See and im just a firm believer of the human abilty to set aside bias to judge something based on a rational argument. I think people these days pretty much think even the stupidest of arguments is just as valid or worthwhile as the best which isnt right.
Click to expand...

Actually, when it comes to personal preference, even the stupidest of arguments is valid. This becomes like trying to argue with someone over what's the best film ever made. It seems very fanboyish to really care if someone else thought another system was better. Personally, I preferred the NES over the SMS, but I know lots who didn't. They're not stupid for disagreeing.
 
n64 all day

wrestling games ftw

ps1 graphics always bugged the shit out of me.... fucking sprites galore
 
Last edited by a moderator:
PS1 by a longshot...

I bought a PS1 first, then an N64 a bit later. When all was said and done, my PS1 would only play games while standing on it's side. By that point, the only action the N64 ever saw was as a brace for the PS1 to lean against while I played Ridge Racer Type 4 and Gran Turismo 2...
 
[quote name='We Are Ninja']PS1 by a longshot...

I bought a PS1 first, then an N64 a bit later. When all was said and done, my PS1 would only play games while standing on it's side. By that point, the only action the N64 ever saw was as a brace for the PS1 to lean against while I played Ridge Racer Type 4 and Gran Turismo 2...[/QUOTE]

Heheh thats freaking hilarious.
 
ps1?! what innovation did they bring?!

btw, when comparing a genre, don't forget to be specific [don't compare 2d with 3d and vice].
this topic needs a lot more then just literal definition, it needs hypothetical ideas.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='pochaccoheaven']ps1?! what innovation did they bring?!

btw, when comparing a genre, don't forget to be specific [don't compare 2d with 3d and vice].
this topic needs a lot more then just literal definition, it needs hypothetical ideas.[/QUOTE]

What does innovation matter? its nice to break up the routine, but a good game is a good game regardless of innovation. And besides id rather have innovation in my games then through add ons like the Rumble Pack.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']What does innovation matter? its nice to break up the routine, but a good game is a good game regardless of innovation. And besides id rather have innovation in my games then through add ons like the Rumble Pack.[/QUOTE]

This is a very good point, sure innovation is all well and good but making a better wheel works too. Besides the psx brought cds to the table which opened up bigger games, nintendo was dead set against using the format so they could continue to push expensive carts on developers. In turn they had to release an add on (64DD) just to play catch up and it flopped before it even got the America.
 
[quote name='coolsteel']This is a very good point, sure innovation is all well and good but making a better wheel works too. Besides the psx brought cds to the table which opened up bigger games, nintendo was dead set against using the format so they could continue to push expensive carts on developers. In turn they had to release an add on (64DD) just to play catch up and it flopped before it even got the America.[/quote]Nintendo avoided CD format for a variety of reasons, one of which was the busted deal for Sony to develope the SNES CD add-on, the Nintendo Play Station. The add-on didn't come to fruition, but part of the agreement was the provision that Nintendo pay Sony licensing fees for using the CD format. If the N64 used CDs, Nintendo would have been paying Sony! This is one reason Nintendo stuck with carts during that era.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']What does innovation matter? its nice to break up the routine, but a good game is a good game regardless of innovation. And besides id rather have innovation in my games then through add ons like the Rumble Pack.[/quote]

that's funny because when nintendo jumped on the rumble and made uses for it, so did sony and a lot of people were like what is this crap. look at it today. when sony said no rumble, all the people were like nooo, then they say it was fine. then when sony announces it was returning, all the sony people said all right. wtf does that tell you. when mario 64 was made, a lot of copy and paste was occurring. the only thing ps1 had were movies and was one of the moving forces that helped it's drive.

if suppose sony didn't have any movies [ff7 without fmv's], would it's game sell?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
N64 for multi - goldeneye, smash brothers, mario kart, MARIO TENNIS

PS1 for single player - FF and other epic jrpgs (tekken did kick some serious ass too, but N64 has the multi edge)
 
[quote name='Gentlegamer']Nintendo avoided CD format for a variety of reasons, one of which was the busted deal for Sony to develope the SNES CD add-on, the Nintendo Play Station. The add-on didn't come to fruition, but part of the agreement was the provision that Nintendo pay Sony licensing fees for using the CD format. If the N64 used CDs, Nintendo would have been paying Sony! This is one reason Nintendo stuck with carts during that era.[/QUOTE]

Doh! Forgot all about that agreement, skips my mind sometimes that Sony and Nintendo were in bed together before it got all ugly.


[quote name='pochaccoheaven']that's funny because when nintendo jumped on the rumble and made uses for it, so did sony and a lot of people were like what is this crap. look at it today. when mario 64 was made, a lot of copy and paste was occurring. the only thing ps1 had were movies and was one of the moving forces that helped it's drive.

if suppose sony didn't have any movies [ff7 without fmv's], would it's game sell?[/QUOTE]

It isn't like Final Fantasy as a franchise sold like crap, even without movies that would have sold. But for other stuff like the first million sellers such as Warhawk, or Gran Turismo, those had hardly any fmv to begin with so yes those would have sold just fine.
 
"It isn't like Final Fantasy as a franchise sold like crap, even without movies that would have sold. But for other stuff like the first million sellers such as Warhawk, or Gran Turismo, those had hardly any fmv to begin with so yes those would have sold just fine." coolsteel

if ff7 was without movies it would have sold. but another problem arises, storage capacity. the next question, if nintendo 64 was a cd based system rather then a cart based system, would it have been more successful then the ps1?

cd media has been in used way before ps1, you had sega cd, turbo cd, cdi, and 3do.

the one innovation that sony did bring to the console was sensitive touch buttons, where you can press the buttons hard or softly which will do certain tasks. this is a useless addition to the system. if you are playing an action game, when would you have the time to carefully determine if you should press hard or softly since you are pressing buttons fast.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']And besides you guys keep saying stuff like that but can you name me a game on the 64 that competes with Final Fantasy as a traditional RPG? How about competes with Ogre Battle as a Strat RPG? How about Disc World as a Adventure game? [/quote]


And name me a PS1 game that competes Mario Kart as a kart racer, Super Mario 64 as a platformer, Goldeneye as an FPS, or Super Smash Bros as a party game.
 
orge battle was released for n64. no rpg's because with the release of ff7, it made it a mandatory feature to have video which the n64 didn't have [storage]. n64 also had starcraft and command and conquer.
 
@gentlegamer - It doesnt change that Nintendo could have witout Sony went to CDs anyways with the 64. Developers like Capcom, Konami and Square have all said they left because of this and because Nintendo treated developers like crap.

@ pochaccoheaven - Nintendo didnt come up with Rumble it was already done on the PC years before. Besides that just because something is a nice feature doesnt mean that it changes the industry nor its standards. And damn....I was taking you seriously till you said the whole stupid movies thing. It shows just how ignorant and stupid you are. Go play Klonoa, Tomba and Jojos bizaare adventure. I dont even think your a gamer anymore just a freaking fanboy.

@ Darthpuma -There is no kart racer but thats an obscure genre. There were some good solid cart games but nothing that compares to Mario Kart. Can you say the same about the 64 with RPGs? Can you name dozens of action games and platform games that compete with Tomba and Klonoa(which were not as good as mario but close to it). You can say what you want but the FACTS are that while the 64 did win out in like 2 or 3 obscure genres the PSX slaughterd in in every other genre. And even with something like platforming if you look at the overall line up and dont try and just rest on Mario 64 then again the PSX slaugthers it. BTW stop naming obscure genres and going into third and fourth tier genres. I mean seriously this is like me saying the PSX wins in Arcade Shooter RPGs because of Elemental Gearbolt(another obscure gem im sure most of you 64 kids have never even heard of).

Again say what you wish but anyone that actually freaking is a true gamer and knows these systems, knows games like Jojo, Guilty Gear, Klonoa, Incredible Crisis, Alundra etc etc wont even be considering having a debate. They know its laughable to name the 64.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='pochaccoheaven']orge battle was released for n64. no rpg's because with the release of ff7, it made it a mandatory feature to have video which the n64 didn't have [storage]. n64 also had starcraft and command and conquer.[/QUOTE]

Again showing your ignorance and bias. Go play Tactics Ogre, go play Suikoden 1 and 2, go play Wild Arms 2, go play.....damn im just gonna stop now when it comes to RPGs there was no more joke of a battle between the system. Heh I think the PSX might have had more good RPGs then the N64 had good games total(exageration but not such a horrid one).
 
[quote name='Jesus_S_Preston']Magus, lay down.[/QUOTE]

Sure this was an insult or like saying calm down?

Edit and genocidal this shouldnt be hardnt and shouldnt have to be a debate. One system had 100s more quality titles then the other....its just that simple. The only reason there even is a debate is because of peoples ignorance of the subject and or love of Nintendo.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Sure this was an insult or like saying calm down?

Edit and genocidal this shouldnt be hardnt and shouldnt have to be a debate. One system had 100s more quality titles then the other....its just that simple. The only reason there even is a debate is because of peoples ignorance of the subject and or love of Nintendo.[/quote]The only reason there is a 'debate' is because even though you claim to, you can't accept the fact that others have differing opinions and prefer multiplayer games to single player games, or whatever reason they give for not agreeing with you. Get over yourself.
 
[quote name='coolsteel']It isn't like Final Fantasy as a franchise sold like crap, even without movies that would have sold. But for other stuff like the first million sellers such as Warhawk, or Gran Turismo, those had hardly any fmv to begin with so yes those would have sold just fine.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure I understand you here--Warhawk without FMV? Did you play the original Warhawk? It had more FMV than a lot of games that generation. Terrible, badly acted FMV, but FMV all the same. Otherwise, I get your point.

[quote name='Halo05']For what it's worth, I liked Crash Team Racing more than Mario Kart 64. That mad scientist's laugh is a riot.[/quote]

For what it's worth, you weren't alone. I've heard several people say that. Personally, I don't agree, but CTR was certainly an able competitor--unlike most kart racers. In fact, outside of the Mario Kart franchise, I'd say it's probably the best kart racer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Genocidal']The only reason there is a 'debate' is because even though you claim to, you can't accept the fact that others have differing opinions and prefer multiplayer games to single player games, or whatever reason they give for not agreeing with you. Get over yourself.[/QUOTE]

But thats just one part of the system. Your comparing one teenie tiny part to make your point. And if you notice iv not targeted people who say my favorite system was or simply I loved the N64 for its multi player. If you preffer the N64 and its your fav system thats cool. But if someone asks the question which is better and you give an answer to me it screams your trying to answer a question in a factual manor. Favorite and best are 2 very very different things. And if you look at things from an overall as iv said any fair argument and the N64 got crushed.
 
[quote name='kube00']Good response. Quest 64 anyone?[/quote]

I know this is pathetic, but before I was a smart gamer I was obsessed with Quest 64. I had no prior experience with RPGs of any sort and didn't own a Playstation at the time...

I miss me some Quest :)
 
[quote name='elwood731']I'm not sure I understand you here--Warhawk without FMV? Did you play the original Warhawk? It had more FMV than a lot of games that generation. Terrible, badly acted FMV, but FMV all the same. Otherwise, I get your point.


[/QUOTE]

Yes the fat man between levels along with the two hopeless pilots, I don't remember those scenes being that long but maybe i've blocked them out :p
 
The sheer number of incredible games for the PS1 puts it ahead of the N64. However, for some reason I find myself playing my N64 more often. Games like Perfect Dark, Goldeneye, Mario Golf, Mario Kart and Wave Race are still a lot of fun. I guess that could have something to do with the fact that a lot of my favorite PS1 games are RPGs, which I may not ever spend the time to play through again.

So, while the PS1 has the edge in overall greatness, the N64 wins in terms of pick-up-and-play fun.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']@gentlegamer - It doesnt change that Nintendo could have witout Sony went to CDs anyways with the 64. [/quote]No, Nintendo couldn't. It would have had to pay Sony licensing fees.
Developers like Capcom, Konami and Square have all said they left because of this and because Nintendo treated developers like crap.
Click to expand...
I think the bolded portion of your statement is more accurate. Frankly, CD format didn't end up having "bigger games," just more memory-intensive FMV cutscenes. Of course, CDs are cheaper to manufacture, so the margins were bigger and more attractive than the expensive N64 carts.

I guess all I'm saying is Nintendo's decision to stick with carts was not the "collossal boneheaded move" some people think it was. There was a variety of reasons behind it motivating Nintendo. You can't argue with the results, though, but no one can see the future.
 
[quote name='Gentlegamer']No, Nintendo couldn't. It would have had to pay Sony licensing fees.
I think the bolded portion of your statement is more accurate. Frankly, CD format didn't end up having "bigger games," just more memory-intensive FMV cutscenes. Of course, CDs are cheaper to manufacture, so the margins were bigger and more attractive than the expensive N64 carts.

I guess all I'm saying is Nintendo's decision to stick with carts was not the "collossal boneheaded move" some people think it was. There was a variety of reasons behind it motivating Nintendo. You can't argue with the results, though, but no one can see the future.[/QUOTE]

FIrst off im not sure about that whole licensing thing. Yes if they would have used Sonys technology but they could have created their own. Second even if they did license from Sony dont you think it would have cost them less to do this then to loose most developer support and sell not even half as many consoles as their competitor?
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']FIrst off im not sure about that whole licensing thing. Yes if they would have used Sonys technology but they could have created their own. Second even if they did license from Sony dont you think it would have cost them less to do this then to loose most developer support and sell not even half as many consoles as their competitor?[/quote]


I believe that Sony's patent is on the actual technology behind CD, and that they will inevitably get a royalty. That being said, the royalty fee is not high enough to make it matter (after all, there was Sega CD, Saturn, Phillips CD-i, Atari Jaguar CD, Neo Geo CD, etc).

[quote name='Gentlegamer']
I guess all I'm saying is Nintendo's decision to stick with carts was not the "collossal boneheaded move" some people think it was. There was a variety of reasons behind it motivating Nintendo. You can't argue with the results, though, but no one can see the future.[/quote]


People can try to say cart's weren't a large factor in the 64's demise, but they were. Many Playstation titles exceeded the capacity of a N64 cartridge without being "due to FMV". Even so, FMV is a very alive aspect of gaming today, so it's not a good thing to tell a dev "no FMV for you" in a soup-nazi voice. Square had a running engine they were making FF64 with, and could have made that FF7, but they chose the Playstation.
 
[quote name='Methadon']I believe that Sony's patent is on the actual technology behind CD, and that they will inevitably get a royalty. That being said, the royalty fee is not high enough to make it matter (after all, there was Sega CD, Saturn, Phillips CD-i, Atari Jaguar CD, Neo Geo CD, etc).[/quote]It's not just the patent royalty, Nintendo and Sony had a contract that would have really screwed over Nintendo if it had used CD ROM format.

From: http://www.n-sider.com/contentview.php?contentid=231

Sony was extremely interested in video games and was prepared to step on whomever necessary to get its head in the door.

In 1988, Sony came to an agreement with Nintendo to contribute the main audio chip for Nintendo's next-generation home console, the Super Nintendo Entertainment System (Super Famicom).

One of Sony's young engineers, Ken Kutaragi, had bought his children a Famicom and came away unimpressed by the technology. He approached Nintendo with some chips that his company was working on. The Kutaragi-designed sound chip for the Super Famicom would be a key element to the system and was slyly designed in such a way as to make effective development possible only with Sony's expensive development tools.

As an extension of the agreement, Sony made its most ambitious attempt at squeezing into the video game market by signing a deal with Nintendo that would allow it to develop and use CD-ROM drive technology in home console entertainment applications. Furthermore, games for Nintendo's forthcoming Super NES would be fully compatible with Sony's CD-based console.

Sony quickly began development on its home console in secret using the proposed "Super Disc technology". The technology was not scheduled to be released for another 18 months. Sony's console was initially called the "Super Disc", and was supposed to be able to play both SNES cartridges and CD-ROMs, of which Sony was to be the "sole worldwide licenser," as stated in the contract.

Nintendo president, Hiroshi Yamauchi thought CD-ROM technology and multimedia would be a vital part of the future of video games. He increased Nintendo's research budget to facilitate the exploration of this new future.

Nintendo was searching for a format to expand its multimedia endeavors, however for some reason Nintendo did not read the contract closely or simply didn't heed enough caution. Hiroshi Yamauchi and Co. thought they were playing Sony, but in reality, Sony would come to play Nintendo like a fiddle.

Rumors surfaced indicating that Sony lawyers had skillfully crafted the agreement so that it allowed Sony to reap publishing profits from the SNES/Super Famicom CD-based games. These were the very profits Nintendo most sought to retain.

All was looking just fine for Nintendo until it found that the deal they had struck with Sony way back in 1988 granted Sony the right to control and license all the CD-based games for the "Super Disc". Nintendo was now to be at the mercy of Sony and its "Super Disc", which could play SNES carts and Sony-manufactured CDs. Nintendo, understandably, began to get worried.

When it became clear that CD-ROMs weren't a fluke and could turn into a major business, Nintendo Co. Ltd. president Hiroshi Yamauchi realized that the proposed alliance with Sony meant giving up the very foundation of Nintendo's business - absolute control over license and manufacturing.

. . .

There are a lot of factors that ultimately contributed to Nintendo's backing-out of its deals for a CD-based system. One was obviously that Nintendo was comfortable with the profitable cartridge system it had running. Another was the clear failure of Sega's CD and NEC's CD consoles. The other arguments against the CD format, a little more arbitrary, are that of extended loading times, ease of pirating, and a read-only gameplay medium.

The Nintendo Power magazine said, "The next time when someone tells you that CD-ROM is the wave of the future, tell them that the future doesn't belong to the snails."

What would have happened had Nintendo partnered with Sony and released the Play Station? Perhaps Nintendo would have released the Nintendo 64 as a disc-based system. It's more likely, however, that nothing would be different today. Sony's goal was to gain knowledge that would allow it to eventually get into the industry. The "Play Station" was afterall Sony's machine.

All it might've done is prolonged Sony's inevitable entrance into the video game market.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Gentlegamer']It's not just the patent royalty, Nintendo and Sony had a contract that would have really screwed over Nintendo if it had used CD ROM format.

From: http://www.n-sider.com/contentview.php?contentid=231

Sony was extremely interested in video games and was prepared to step on whomever necessary to get its head in the door.

In 1988, Sony came to an agreement with Nintendo to contribute the main audio chip for Nintendo's next-generation home console, the Super Nintendo Entertainment System (Super Famicom).

One of Sony's young engineers, Ken Kutaragi, had bought his children a Famicom and came away unimpressed by the technology. He approached Nintendo with some chips that his company was working on. The Kutaragi-designed sound chip for the Super Famicom would be a key element to the system and was slyly designed in such a way as to make effective development possible only with Sony's expensive development tools.

As an extension of the agreement, Sony made its most ambitious attempt at squeezing into the video game market by signing a deal with Nintendo that would allow it to develop and use CD-ROM drive technology in home console entertainment applications. Furthermore, games for Nintendo's forthcoming Super NES would be fully compatible with Sony's CD-based console.

Sony quickly began development on its home console in secret using the proposed "Super Disc technology". The technology was not scheduled to be released for another 18 months. Sony's console was initially called the "Super Disc", and was supposed to be able to play both SNES cartridges and CD-ROMs, of which Sony was to be the "sole worldwide licenser," as stated in the contract.

Nintendo president, Hiroshi Yamauchi thought CD-ROM technology and multimedia would be a vital part of the future of video games. He increased Nintendo's research budget to facilitate the exploration of this new future.

Nintendo was searching for a format to expand its multimedia endeavors, however for some reason Nintendo did not read the contract closely or simply didn't heed enough caution. Hiroshi Yamauchi and Co. thought they were playing Sony, but in reality, Sony would come to play Nintendo like a fiddle.

Rumors surfaced indicating that Sony lawyers had skillfully crafted the agreement so that it allowed Sony to reap publishing profits from the SNES/Super Famicom CD-based games. These were the very profits Nintendo most sought to retain.

All was looking just fine for Nintendo until it found that the deal they had struck with Sony way back in 1988 granted Sony the right to control and license all the CD-based games for the "Super Disc". Nintendo was now to be at the mercy of Sony and its "Super Disc", which could play SNES carts and Sony-manufactured CDs. Nintendo, understandably, began to get worried.

When it became clear that CD-ROMs weren't a fluke and could turn into a major business, Nintendo Co. Ltd. president Hiroshi Yamauchi realized that the proposed alliance with Sony meant giving up the very foundation of Nintendo's business - absolute control over license and manufacturing.

. . .

There are a lot of factors that ultimately contributed to Nintendo's backing-out of its deals for a CD-based system. One was obviously that Nintendo was comfortable with the profitable cartridge system it had running. Another was the clear failure of Sega's CD and NEC's CD consoles. The other arguments against the CD format, a little more arbitrary, are that of extended loading times, ease of pirating, and a read-only gameplay medium.

The Nintendo Power magazine said, "The next time when someone tells you that CD-ROM is the wave of the future, tell them that the future doesn't belong to the snails."

What would have happened had Nintendo partnered with Sony and released the Play Station? Perhaps Nintendo would have released the Nintendo 64 as a disc-based system. It's more likely, however, that nothing would be different today. Sony's goal was to gain knowledge that would allow it to eventually get into the industry. The "Play Station" was afterall Sony's machine.

All it might've done is prolonged Sony's inevitable entrance into the video game market.[/QUOTE]

You missed the point. Iv read game over and alot of other history of gaming books so I know all this. The point was that the patent involved Sonys add on and CDs. Nintendo could have like Sega, MS and others(hell now including Nintendo)created their own CD based console. Hell they used the Phillips add on after all!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top