No it wasn't crash was and it wasn't even the best. You back password and said "full" because you know you have no argument. Facts don't change because you want them to. The game can be run on the PS1 easily btw, Spyro 2 and 3 are more impressive and the creaking DS cab run the game.
Game ran, moved, loaded polygons, had 2D trees, loaded textures, like crap, period.
No it wasn't crash was and it wasn't even the best. You back password and said "full" because you know you have no argument. Facts don't change because you want them to. The game can be run on the PS1 easily btw, Spyro 2 and 3 are more impressive and the creaking DS cab run the game.
Game ran, moved, loaded polygons, had 2D trees, loaded textures, like crap, period.
No it wasn't crash was and it wasn't even the best. You back password and said "full" because you know you have no argument. Facts don't change because you want them to. The game can be run on the PS1 easily btw, Spyro 2 and 3 are more impressive and the creaking DS cab run the game.
Game ran, moved, loaded polygons, had 2D trees, loaded textures, like crap, period.
No it wasn't crash was and it wasn't even the best. You back password and said "full" because you know you have no argument. Facts don't change because you want them to. The game can be run on the PS1 easily btw, Spyro 2 and 3 are more impressive and the creaking DS cab run the game.
Game ran, moved, loaded polygons, had 2D trees, loaded textures, like crap, period.
My post got burried last page.
Straight from the devs themselves: Mario 64 pushed the limits of the N64. No game could be open world with the same detail as Mario. PS1 couldn't do this.
Crash was was more corridor like but could push higher polycounts. The N64 couldn't do this.
Compare the boss battles:
Crash
![]()
Mario 64
![]()
No it wasn't crash was and it wasn't even the best. You back password and said "full" because you know you have no argument. Facts don't change because you want them to. The game can be run on the PS1 easily btw, Spyro 2 and 3 are more impressive and the creaking DS cab run the game.
Game ran, moved, loaded polygons, had 2D trees, loaded textures, like crap, period.
More anecdotes. It technically wasn't even new, maybe on consoles. But it wasn't this mind blowing impressive game you think it is. Something that is not done often does nit mean it cant be executed badly. N64 would have soldoutside one country if the games were as kindling mb impressive people are imagining.
The Crash devs actually got to meet Miyamoto and they discussed their games.
http://all-things-andy-gavin.com/2011/02/07/making-crash-bandicoot-part-6/
Both games had their pros and cons. Mario 64 went for a bigger world. This was not possible on PS1. Crash had a higher polycount, but was very confined. But it could not be done on the N64.
It's already been called out, but please tell us more about how you know more than Naughty Dog themselves did about their own game vs the competition:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=129888587&postcount=348
Did you really just day an open game was no possible on the ps1? So what are the 3 Spyro games then? Rayman 2? Gex? Not open?
But more fundamentally, the open world he chose would tax ANY system out at that time. Mario 64 couldn’t be open and any more detailed than it was. Miyamoto-san had chosen open and that meant simple.
This was my experience exactly!I was really blown away. I first played it at a demo kiosk at Toys R Us before the system was actually released, and I spent the entire day there playing it with my mouth agape. I'd never played anything like it, and it was so fun too.
Crash bandicoot.
*excuse me, I meant rare.
They were really the only star dev pushing the Nintendo hardware. Back then I found that strange and disappointing. But im starting to wonder what Tp dev tools were like.
Odd than there wasn't another 3Rd Mario either. But if dinosaur planet claims are true maybe they were scared of competing with Rare.
what are you even talking about, lol.
for one, dinosaur planet was a Zelda type of game, not a platformer. furthermore Nintendo was pushing it plenty on their own. plus, you had other devs doing a lot of amazing work, including factor 5.
it's hilarious that you keep insisting Mario 64 was this heap of garbage btw.
Anyway Mario 64 was a decent early 3D attempt. Sadly only really rate ever improve on it my a significant margin. I think that old nintendo and rate having different tools than 3rd party rumor was true.
actually, that was my reaction for Zelda OoT when going into hyrule field for the first time.
I was really blown away. I first played it at a demo kiosk at Toys R Us before the system was actually released, and I spent the entire day there playing it with my mouth agape. I'd never played anything like it, and it was so fun too.
we never got the sequel we deserved thanks to the pernicious influence of Banjo Kazooie and its subsequent impact on the direction of Mario Sunshine. And now we're into full Crash Bandicoot land with the series. A perverse irony for those of us who followed the development of the games at the time and bridled at any hint of a comparison between Naughty Dog's effort and EAD's masterpiece.
Honestly?, i was at a friend's house and all i could think was... why is everything so angular?, why can't they do round objects?. That was pretty much it, it was the main reason i passed on the N64 and switched to the Sony camp after being a Nintendo hardcore fan.
That doesn't really gel with my experience at the time, though.
I remember being disappointed by Mario 64 when I first played. The graphics were nice but didn't melt my brain or anything; there had been much better looking games in the arcade for a few years by that point, and even on consoles
I felt that about everything on every console I saw in the lead up to and beginning of that whole gen. I was fully in the 2D looks better camp then. These days I have some nostalgia for low poly but I took some time to grow into that.
Mario 64 wasn't that game for me but I recognize it was a technical marvel at the time now. Its more impressive to me in hindsight then it was at the time.
Explain this please.
If you look at Banjo Kazooie and Sunshine (in the main stages) you'll notice one peculiar thing: an almost complete lack of traditional platforming obstacles.
Rotating platforms. Spinning blocks. Sinking stands. Ground that slips away and falls beneath your fit. From what I remember of Banjo, it has almost none of this. Sunshine has a bit more, but it's few and far between, and it rarely places a series of them deliberately between you and your objective.
The (top part) of the Pianta village level is pure Banjo. A flat, square grid with a bunch of hills placed haphazardly around the map. No platforming obstacles . Certainly nothing resembling a path you have to take. Gelato beach is the same thing. It's as if Rare and then EAD decided to make a bunch of hub levels as the main levels.
Mario 64 on the other hand is an extremely clever little bastard. Many of the levels are spirals with strong vertical elements. A hilltop. A fortress. A snowy mountain. A tall tall mountain. A clock. It takes a star, and it puts it at the top, or sometimes at the bottom of the level. You've got to work to get it. You have to pass the traditional obstacles the designers purposefully put in front of you on an obvious path. Off the beaten path are opportunities for exploration and hence your other stars.
But, that's only half the story. The tight spiraling structure of a Whomp's Fortress or Tick Tock Clock means endless opportunities for creative platforming. And Mario's mechanics allow you to take full advantage of them.
Mario 64 never forgot it was a platformer. Maneuvering up and down Whomp's Fortress, with its vertical structure and obstacles and enemies which are all trying to kill you, is a lot more interesting to me than meandering around Gelato Beach with its static trees and static beach houses and static mountain path. I still think Mario 64 is the only game to get open 3D platforming stage design correct.