Support NeoGAF

[Midway-AGNC-]

You do remember that GTA 3 came out on more platforms than just PS2 right? This is supposed to be a N64 topic yet somehow you stick to only PS2 games which btw has no comparisson to N64 games. SOTC ran like dog shit and everyone knew it and talked about it, only difference is back then nobody gave a shit about 30 vs 60fps like they do today. Even on PS3 there were games that ran 30 fps and 60fps on xbox360 and still people didnt give a crap. Its only from PS4 when all of a sudden pixel peeping and FPS became this massive topic, meaning its not that people "ignored" SOTC terrible frame rate, back then they just didnt care as much. Nothing wrong with my memmory, just think you are trying really hard to have the last word for no reason at all, all while derailing from the original topic. Newsflash, you werent the only one that grew up on these games and your memmory of them isnt the only correct one. Deal with it.

I have a pretty interesting bit of info for you: GTA III launched first on the PS2 (Oct 2001), and then was ported to PC and later Xbox — so yeah, the game is heavily associated with the PS2 era. That's just a fact, not an opinion.

Now for the contradictions: you say the topic is N64 and PS2 games aren't comparable — yet you keep dragging up PS2 titles (SotC, GTA3) to make your point. You claim people "didn't care" about framerate back then, but also insist Shadow of the Colossus "ran like dog shit" yet is still "literally remembered" for its visuals — so which is it? That kind of back-and-forth just exposes that you're shifting the goalposts: first it's "N64 is irrelevant," then it's "PS2 was king," then it's "framerate didn't matter," and now you circle back praising GTA3 as "butter smooth."

All this accomplishes one thing: you're derailing the thread. If your aim was a constructive point about hardware differences, fine — stick to that. But repeatedly changing the metric and switching consoles mid-argument looks less like debate and more like attention-seeking bait.

 

[Instant_Classic]

Gonna be honest here I think you are retarded.

If your argument is that one must own a 15 inch CRT in 2025 to enjoy the N64, then you my friend are a dumbass.

 

[El Hee-Ho]

If your argument is that one must own a 15 inch CRT in 2025 to enjoy the N64, then you my friend are a dumbass.

I wasn't arguing with you dude. I was stating that you have to be severly mentally challenged to spend a Sunday console-warring online about 20+ year old videogame consoles like a middle-school kid.

 

[Instant_Classic]

I wasn't arguing with you dude. I was stating that you have to be severly mentally challenged to spend a Sunday console-warring online about 20+ year old videogame consoles like a middle-school kid.

You have to be mentally ill to think revisionist history on how the N64 looked "good", is a good idea.

Especially when we had a 20 pager a few weeks ago of people laughing over you nerds arguing over how "great" the N64 games look today.

Fucking nerds

 

[El Hee-Ho]

Jesus Christ

 

[Midway-AGNC-]

You have to be mentally ill to think revisionist history on how the N64 looked "good", is a good idea.

Especially when we had a 20 pager a few weeks ago of people laughing over you nerds arguing over how "great" the N64 games look today.

Fucking nerds

 

[Midway-AGNC-]

Playing N64 games that isnt through an emulator, run like crap. Almost every single N64 game aged terribly. Mario 64 was WOW back then but only if you never ever heard of any other game. By the time Mario 64 came out, Quake 2 was already out, a year later Quake 3. 3D games exploded during that time, every 6 months was a massive leap. N64 made that leap on release, 6 months later everything about it was outdated.

Ah, I didn't notice that edited part before — classic. Yet another copy-paste take straight from the same tired script I've already debunked multiple times in this thread. It's honestly impressive how deep the revisionist brainwashing runs with this kind of nonsense.

 

[Instant_Classic]

Ah, I didn't notice that edited part before — classic. Yet another copy-paste take straight from the same tired script I've already debunked multiple times in this thread. It's honestly impressive how deep the revisionist brainwashing runs with this kind of nonsense.

Take my advice, go fire an up N64 (no mods or emulator).

Have fun...

Good luck

 

[AeonGaidenRaiden]

I have a pretty interesting bit of info for you: GTA III launched first on the PS2 (Oct 2001), and then was ported to PC and later Xbox — so yeah, the game is heavily associated with the PS2 era. That's just a fact, not an opinion.

Now for the contradictions: you say the topic is N64 and PS2 games aren't comparable — yet you keep dragging up PS2 titles (SotC, GTA3) to make your point. You claim people "didn't care" about framerate back then, but also insist Shadow of the Colossus "ran like dog shit" yet is still "literally remembered" for its visuals — so which is it? That kind of back-and-forth just exposes that you're shifting the goalposts: first it's "N64 is irrelevant," then it's "PS2 was king," then it's "framerate didn't matter," and now you circle back praising GTA3 as "butter smooth."

All this accomplishes one thing: you're derailing the thread. If your aim was a constructive point about hardware differences, fine — stick to that. But repeatedly changing the metric and switching consoles mid-argument looks less like debate and more like attention-seeking bait.

YOU are the one that said SOTC doesnt get enough flack for low frame rate and I said it did except you want to say how PS2 had a pass and somehow that doesnt go the same for N64. You are the one that mentioned those two tiles and Im just telling you, you are wrong. You have to be medically blind to think anything after 6 months of N64 release, was considered "great". We get it, you get a hard on for Nintendo, here is a cum bucket for when you meat Miyamoto next time. Banjo Kazooie came out in 1998, nine months later we got Quake 3. N64 game became outdated not even 1 year after the release of the console lol :

 

[AeonGaidenRaiden]

Ah, I didn't notice that edited part before — classic. Yet another copy-paste take straight from the same tired script I've already debunked multiple times in this thread. It's honestly impressive how deep the revisionist brainwashing runs with this kind of nonsense.

"debunked" You didnt debunk anything, stop being a troll and dissapear from this thread with your 6 month old account.

 

[Instant_Classic]

YOU are the one that said SOTC doesnt get enough flack for low frame rate and I said it did except you want to say how PS2 had a pass and somehow that doesnt go the same for N64. You are the one that mentioned those two tiles and Im just telling you, you are wrong. You have to be medically blind to think anything after 6 months of N64 release, was considered "great". We get it, you get a hard on for Nintendo, here is a cum bucket for when you meat Miyamoto next time. Banjo Kazooie came out in 1998, nine months later we got Quake 3. N64 game became outdated not even 1 year after the release of the console lol :

 

[kapshin]

Superman 64 of course.

 

[Midway-AGNC-]

YOU are the one that said SOTC doesnt get enough flack for low frame rate and I said it did except you want to say how PS2 had a pass and somehow that doesnt go the same for N64. You are the one that mentioned those two tiles and Im just telling you, you are wrong. You have to be medically blind to think anything after 6 months of N64 release, was considered "great". We get it, you get a hard on for Nintendo, here is a cum bucket for when you meat Miyamoto next time. Banjo Kazooie came out in 1998, nine months later we got Quake 3. N64 game became outdated not even 1 year after the release of the console lol :

Look, this entire line of reasoning is just ignorant and completely misses the point. Nobody in their right mind is claiming N64 games were better than PC games — of course the hardware was inferior. That doesn't mean N64 titles suddenly became irrelevant the moment Quake 3 or other PC games launched. They still mattered to the console audience and pushed home gaming forward in ways PCs couldn't replicate at the time.

If we applied your logic consistently, the same would have to be said about the SNES — existing alongside arcades, Neo Geo, and high-end PCs, it was "outdated" from day one. That's obviously a ridiculous way to judge anything.

You're just another person here arguing in bad faith, throwing childish insults, and acting like your opinion somehow trumps historical context. This isn't a serious discussion when you can't stick to facts or treat the topic with a bit of decency and coherence.

 

[Instant_Classic]

Look, this entire line of reasoning is just ignorant and completely misses the point. Nobody in their right mind is claiming N64 games were better than PC games — of course the hardware was inferior. That doesn't mean N64 titles suddenly became irrelevant the moment Quake 3 or other PC games launched. They still mattered to the console audience and pushed home gaming forward in ways PCs couldn't replicate at the time.

If we applied your logic consistently, the same would have to be said about the SNES — existing alongside arcades, Neo Geo, and high-end PCs, it was "outdated" from day one. That's obviously a ridiculous way to judge anything.

You're just another person here arguing in bad faith, throwing childish insults, and acting like your opinion somehow trumps historical context. This isn't a serious discussion when you can't stick to facts or treat the topic with a bit of decency and coherence.

N64 mattered to the console audience?

N64 mattered to the remaining group within the Nintendo bubble at the time, nobody else gave a fuck.

There's a reason why Sony outsold the N64 with their first console by nearly 3 times.

Go meat Miyamoto bro...

 

[BlackTron]

I had a SNES, and played it leading into getting the N64.

Yes, moving to the 3D was a game changer.

However, that was just the nature of progress.

N64 happened to be the console during the time gaming was transitioning to 3D.

That meant, mechanics and game design knowledge on how games should be play or function in 3D were not understood fully.

3D was the big deal, not really the N64 itself, Sony outsold the N64 with their first console (PSX).

I thank the N64, PSX, and Saturn for leading us into the golden age which came after.

Couldn't have gotten there without them!

From a customer standpoint, just being 3D at all was such a big deal that it killed 2D games overnight.

From a design influence standpoint, I think N64 games made a huge mark...you can say open world games would have been figured out eventually no matter what, but GTA3 gets credit for being the first and influencing the development of so many games from that point forward. If GTA3 had happened a few years later, maybe a lot of games would be different.

Since, as you say, back then 3D design knowledge was lacking, different developers threw their hat in making up this knowledge as they went along, some solutions stuck and others were discarded. Without the efforts in games like Mario/Zelda/007 setting the stage, maybe ideas in other games would have had more time to gestate, or the road arriving to how they "should" play or function would be bumpier...or different.

Without N64 we might have had a lot more fixed camera games while everyone took notes from Resident Evil and FF7 instead of Mario 64, OOT and 007. And then those games would have had different priorities and mechanics that influence other games. Not even suggesting whether that would be good or bad, I bet some people would have loved that, or more 2D games. Just that 64 made its statement, and it was a megaton bomb that surely affected game developers (they all said so back then).

 

[AeonGaidenRaiden]

Look, this entire line of reasoning is just ignorant and completely misses the point. Nobody in their right mind is claiming N64 games were better than PC games — of course the hardware was inferior. That doesn't mean N64 titles suddenly became irrelevant the moment Quake 3 or other PC games launched. They still mattered to the console audience and pushed home gaming forward in ways PCs couldn't replicate at the time.

If we applied your logic consistently, the same would have to be said about the SNES — existing alongside arcades, Neo Geo, and high-end PCs, it was "outdated" from day one. That's obviously a ridiculous way to judge anything.

You're just another person here arguing in bad faith, throwing childish insults, and acting like your opinion somehow trumps historical context. This isn't a serious discussion when you can't stick to facts or treat the topic with a bit of decency and coherence.

 

[Midway-AGNC-]

 

[Instant_Classic]

Look, this entire line of reasoning is just ignorant and completely misses the point. Nobody in their right mind is claiming N64 games were better than PC games — of course the hardware was inferior. That doesn't mean N64 titles suddenly became irrelevant the moment Quake 3 or other PC games launched. They still mattered to the console audience and pushed home gaming forward in ways PCs couldn't replicate at the time.

If we applied your logic consistently, the same would have to be said about the SNES — existing alongside arcades, Neo Geo, and high-end PCs, it was "outdated" from day one. That's obviously a ridiculous way to judge anything.

You're just another person here arguing in bad faith, throwing childish insults, and acting like your opinion somehow trumps historical context. This isn't a serious discussion when you can't stick to facts or treat the topic with a bit of decency and coherence.

You speak as if your opinion is accurate.

The N64 was NOT impressive, relative to where technology was already heading at the time (3D).

The N64 was impressive to Nintendo gamers, that only stayed in their ecosystem.

That's the honest truth.

 

[Midway-AGNC-]

From a customer standpoint, just being 3D at all was such a big deal that it killed 2D games overnight.

From a design influence standpoint, I think N64 games made a huge mark...you can say open world games would have been figured out eventually no matter what, but GTA3 gets credit for being the first and influencing the development of so many games from that point forward. If GTA3 had happened a few years later, maybe a lot of games would be different.

Since, as you say, back then 3D design knowledge was lacking, different developers threw their hat in making up this knowledge as they went along, some solutions stuck and others were discarded. Without the efforts in games like Mario/Zelda/007 setting the stage, maybe ideas in other games would have had more time to gestate, or the road arriving to how they "should" play or function would be bumpier...or different.

Without N64 we might have had a lot more fixed camera games while everyone took notes from Resident Evil and FF7 instead of Mario 64, OOT and 007. And then those games would have had different priorities and mechanics that influence other games. Not even suggesting whether that would be good or bad, I bet some people would have loved that, or more 2D games. Just that 64 made its statement, and it was a megaton bomb that surely affected game developers (they all said so back then).

You know what's even more interesting? GTA III was developed by DMA Design, the same studio that partnered with Nintendo during the N64 era. Before GTA III, they created an exclusive title called Body Harvest for the N64 — and the engine, gameplay systems, and ideas from that game directly laid the groundwork and served as inspiration for later GTA III's design. Interestingly, DMA Design developed the game with these systems partly because Nintendo wanted it to have more appeal to the Japanese market, adding elements inspired by RPGs and other gameplay features popular there.

Body Harvest was a groundbreaking open-world action-adventure by DMA Design. It featured large, explorable environments, a variety of vehicles including cars, tanks, and helicopters, dynamic combat, and diverse mission objectives. For a console game of its time, its 3D engine allowed surprisingly expansive levels and a sense of freedom rarely seen on the N64. Of course, the game had its flaws — simplified graphics, limited detail, and short draw distances — but these were technical limitations of the hardware rather than design failings.

Many of these concepts directly influenced GTA III. The freedom to explore cities, use multiple vehicles strategically, and approach missions in different ways were all refined in GTA III. Essentially, Body Harvest served as a testing ground for the core mechanics that would define Rockstar's revolutionary open-world formula.

 

[Instant_Classic]

You know what's even more interesting? GTA III was developed by DMA Design, the same studio that partnered with Nintendo during the N64 era. Before GTA III, they created an exclusive title called Body Harvest for the N64 — and the engine, gameplay systems, and ideas from that game directly laid the groundwork and served as inspiration for later GTA III's design.

Body Harvest was a groundbreaking open-world action-adventure by DMA Design. It featured large, explorable environments, a variety of vehicles including cars, tanks, and helicopters, dynamic combat, and diverse mission objectives. For a console game of its time, its 3D engine allowed surprisingly expansive levels and a sense of freedom rarely seen on the N64. Of course, the game had its flaws — simplified graphics, limited detail, and short draw distances — but these were technical limitations of the hardware rather than design failings.

Many of these concepts directly influenced GTA III. The freedom to explore cities, use multiple vehicles strategically, and approach missions in different ways were all refined in GTA III. Essentially, Body Harvest served as a testing ground for the core mechanics that would define Rockstar's revolutionary open-world formula.

You're forgetting that umm, GTA 2 influenced GTA 3...duh.

The idea was always "how do we transition our world from the 2D isometric top down view to a fully 3D world".

Similar to how Mario 64 was "how do we transition the traditional 2D format to a 3D world".

Body Harvest is unknown, for a reason.

 

[CityHunter1981]

For me clearly ocarina of time and majora mask. Still remember first seeing screenshots in a magazine of it and thinking, wow, but that must mean the game is considerably smaller than older Zelda titles considering the impressive detail for that time. Still can't believe to this day how they managed to make it as big as it was.

 

[Midway-AGNC-]

You're forgetting that umm, GTA 2 influenced GTA 3...duh.

The idea was always "how do we transition our world from the 2D isometric top down view to a fully 3D world".

Similar to how Mario 64 was "how do we transition the traditional 2D format to a 3D world".

Body Harvest is unknown, for a reason.

Good Game Stories - Backwards Compatible - Rockstar North

"By 1994 it was time for something new, and DMA broke with their longstanding publisher Psygnosis to side with home console giant Nintendo.
This publishing agreement would produce an important game for DMA Design - Body Harvest for the Nintendo 64.

Despite Body Harvest's science-fiction setting and alien-blasting gameplay, this is probably the game that's most responsible for the future development of the Grand Theft Auto series.

It gave you a free-roaming open world to explore, non-linear missions and side-quests to follow and vehicles to commandeer and control - it was like GTA in space."



In the conclusion, this video explains how Body Harvest, along with other DMA Design games—including another N64 title, Space Station Silicon Valley—had elements that were later incorporated into the development of GTA III.

 

[electricmastro]

Conker's Bad Fur Day

 

[Parazels]

You're completely missing the point — the N64 wasn't just "there during the transition to 3D," it was the system that defined how 3D gaming would work going forward.

Aren't you exaggerating the influence of the Nintendo 64?

By 1996, we had already had Tomb Raider, The Need for speed, Virtua Fighter, Doom, Resident Evil, Ace Combat and so on.

 

[Instant_Classic]

Aren't you exaggerating the influence of the Nintendo 64?

By 1996, we had already had Tomb Raider, The Need for speed, Virtua Fighter, Doom, Resident Evil, Ace Combat and so on.

He is over exaggerating the N64, very much so.

 

[Raven77]

Could Sin & Punishment get a spot? The game's a looker and iirc it runs quite well.

(the gif is sped up)

Mmhmmm, mmmhmmm......

 

[_Ex_]

For 3D:



For 2D:

 

[nkarafo]

Midway-AGNC-

Mate, these HD emulated screenshots of Body Harvest look horrible. I mean, the game doesn't look good anyway, it's one of the ugliest N64 games (artistically), but it certainly looks more tolerable on a CRT/native. I know it's hard to find native N64 screenshots but it's very easy to do it yourself, just fire up Ares emulator or any other that uses Parallel RDP for graphics and do your own screenshots. It would make your own thread better, just saying.

 

[nkarafo]

Aren't you exaggerating the influence of the Nintendo 64?

By 1996, we had already had Tomb Raider, The Need for speed, Virtua Fighter, Doom, Resident Evil, Ace Combat and so on.

N64 mostly defined the way free roaming 3D will work with Mario 64. Tomb Raider's controls are too stiff and limited, even pre-defined. It feels like a 3D Prince of Persia. Mario 64 on the other hand really feels like a 3D Mario, with a much higher freedom of movement, smoother and more precise controls, etc. I know Nintendo didn't invent analog controls but they were the first who did them right for a free roaming 3D world.

Then you had things like WaveRace (which i still don't think has been bettered), Zelda with it's big landscapes (at the time) standardizing the way you lock at enemies in a 3D world, Goldeneye making all sorts of innovations for console FPS games and inventing dual analog controls for the genre (even though very few noticed), etc.

N64 wasn't the first 3D console obviously but some of it's games improved and standardized a lot of things for 3D games.

 

[Parazels]

I know Nintendo didn't invent analog controls but they were the first who did them right for a free roaming 3D world

 

[OmegaSupreme]

Perfect Dark and Conker stick out to me from memory.

Positive Nintendo threads really offend some people don't they?

 

[BlackTron]

Revisionist history should be corrected. Most people with functioning cerebral cortexes in 1996 know that this whole "64 wasn't a big deal" thing is a trickle down from young Youtubers who didn't exist yet. We know that when people show up to correct it the response will be covering their ears and acting too cool because hey, they're kids.

You just fell further into the demographic you're being accused of fitting in by posting that, playing into his hands basically.

 

[Midway-AGNC-]

Aren't you exaggerating the influence of the Nintendo 64?

By 1996, we had already had Tomb Raider, The Need for speed, Virtua Fighter, Doom, Resident Evil, Ace Combat and so on.

I'm not exaggerating at all. Many Nintendo 64 titles had a massive influence on how 3D gaming evolved — Super Mario 64, GoldenEye 007, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, Turok, and Banjo-Kazooie all contributed key ideas that shaped entire genres. Mario 64 practically set the standard for 3D camera and movement systems; Ocarina of Time defined modern action-adventure mechanics and targeting systems; GoldenEye became the blueprint for console FPS design and multiplayer.

Saying that "other 3D games already existed" completely misses the point — yes, Doom, Virtua Fighter, and Tomb Raider came earlier, but the N64 was pivotal to refine how 3D gameplay, level design, and controls would feel on home consoles. The influence isn't measured by release date alone, but by the systems and design conventions that stuck around for decades. And to be clear, this isn't about claiming the N64 "did everything first" or that other platforms and developers weren't influential — far from it. Many games on PC, PlayStation, and even arcades were technically superior or equally groundbreaking in different ways. The point is simply that N64 titles like Super Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, and GoldenEye 007 helped consolidate and popularize many of the design principles that became industry standards. It's about recognizing that contribution, not erasing anyone else's.

And no, I'm not dismissing games from other platforms. It's not about exclusivity or fanboyism — it's about recognizing that even though the N64 sold less than the PlayStation, its games had a cultural and technical impact far beyond sales numbers. By that logic, Halo wouldn't be influential because the OG Xbox sold fewer units than the PS2, or Sonic the Hedgehog wouldn't matter because the Genesis sold less than the SNES.

It's honestly a shallow take to say "X game released in year Y, so everything after it is irrelevant." That kind of argument isn't analysis — it's just console war nonsense. The lasting legacy of so many N64 titles, consistently ranked among the most influential games of all time, pretty much speaks for itself.

Midway-AGNC-

Mate, these HD emulated screenshots of Body Harvest look horrible. I mean, the game doesn't look good anyway, it's one of the ugliest N64 games (artistically), but it certainly looks more tolerable on a CRT/native. I know it's hard to find native N64 screenshots but it's very easy to do it yourself, just fire up Ares emulator or any other that uses Parallel RDP for graphics and do your own screenshots. It would make your own thread better, just saying.

Sure, I'm definitely not claiming that Body Harvest had good graphics — the draw distance was downright atrocious, and the visuals were rough even by N64 standards. But since GTA III came up and we're talking about the legacy and design influence of Nintendo 64 titles, it's worth mentioning. Body Harvest introduced several core ideas that later evolved into what became GTA III — the open-world structure, mission-based progression, freedom of movement, and vehicle-based gameplay. So while it looked clunky, conceptually it was far ahead of its time.

N64 mostly defined the way free roaming 3D will work with Mario 64. Tomb Raider's controls are too stiff and limited, even pre-defined. It feels like a 3D Prince of Persia. Mario 64 on the other hand really feels like a 3D Mario, with a much higher freedom of movement, smoother and more precise controls, etc. I know Nintendo didn't invent analog controls but they were the first who did them right for a free roaming 3D world.

Then you had things like WaveRace (which i still don't think has been bettered), Zelda with it's big landscapes (at the time) standardizing the way you lock at enemies in a 3D world, Goldeneye making all sorts of innovations for console FPS games and inventing dual analog controls for the genre (even though very few noticed), etc.

N64 wasn't the first 3D console obviously but some of it's games improved and standardized a lot of things for 3D games.

Yep.

Revisionist history should be corrected. Most people with functioning cerebral cortexes in 1996 know that this whole "64 wasn't a big deal" thing is a trickle down from young Youtubers who didn't exist yet. We know that when people show up to correct it the response will be covering their ears and acting too cool because hey, they're kids.

You just fell further into the demographic you're being accused of fitting in by posting that, playing into his hands basically.

I'm also glad to see the mod team stepping in and bringing down the ban hammer on some of those bad-faith users and trolls. Hopefully, we can maintain a higher level of discussion and keep the conversation productive from here on out.

 

[Horseganador]

Perfect Dark.

 

[Sethbacca]

Man, I did not realize some people had such an irrational hate boner for N64. It's wild watching this thread play out. Some people clearly got older but never grew up.

 

[Ikutachi]

It's The World Is Not Enough. It made GoldenEye look like SM64 in comparison.

 

[Midway-AGNC-]

Man, I did not realize some people had such an irrational hate boner for N64. It's wild watching this thread play out. Some people clearly got older but never grew up.

Not only that — even some self-proclaimed Nintendo fans have bought into this distorted narrative that games from that era were bad from the start and never really mattered to the industry. That's exactly why I, along with others here, have been pushing back and showing how false and misleading that idea is. It's honestly surreal — and a bit disturbing — how easily misinformation, bad faith, and revisionist nonsense can reshape public opinion and collective memory.

 

[Sethbacca]

Not only that — even some self-proclaimed Nintendo fans have bought into this distorted narrative that games from that era were bad from the start and never really mattered to the industry. That's exactly why I, along with others here, have been pushing back and showing how false and misleading that idea is. It's honestly surreal — and a bit disturbing — how easily misinformation, bad faith, and revisionist nonsense can reshape public opinion and collective memory.

The N64 clearly wasn't a perfect gen but it was fantastic fun. It was a transitional system that took us from 2d into the 3d era and for that reason alone it deserves a ton of respect. I don't think it's hyperbolic to say Nintendo has done more for gaming than pretty much any other company currently operating, even if they gave up the hardware crown ages ago.

 

[RoboFu]

Again people have this weird revisionist of history syndrome. when the playstation and n64 came out they were AHEAD of consumer PC graphics by quite a lot. PC was still doing software 3d rendering.

But again over the course of the gen PC did get 3d graphics cards that surpassed the consoles.

 

[GermanZepp]

 

[KenaiPhoenix]

Conker Bad Fur Day, and also one the best games in the system too! I still remember how impressed I was by the facial animations and Conker having individual fingers.

And it is funny seeing all these people downplay the impact of the 64, specially the ones that compared it to PC, you can tell these individuals first console was a PS4.

In those days having a gaming capable PC that you could have access to was a luxury that many people didnt have. And even if the PS1 beated the 64, the exclusives games of the latter are games that are still refered and being played by new players. If it werent for the cartridges (a big element, i know) of the 64, the story will definitely be different.

 

[Midway-AGNC-]

The N64 clearly wasn't a perfect gen but it was fantastic fun. It was a transitional system that took us from 2d into the 3d era and for that reason alone it deserves a ton of respect. I don't think it's hyperbolic to say Nintendo has done more for gaming than pretty much any other company currently operating, even if they gave up the hardware crown ages ago.

I completely agree with this part, one hundred percent. Unfortunately, Nintendo ended up following Satoru Iwata's mindset — focusing on simpler, more intuitive games and avoiding risks. As a consequence, that stripped away much of the identity the company once had: the drive to explore new ideas, new gameplay concepts, depth, and genuine innovation.

To be clear, the Wii, DS, 3DS and Switch did bring important innovations — motion controls and new, more physical ways to play on the Wii; the DS's dual screens and touch input that opened up novel interaction patterns; the 3DS's stereoscopic 3D; and the Switch's hybrid home/portable form factor. Those were meaningful advances in hardware and accessibility, and they broadened Nintendo's audience.

But these innovations are fundamentally different in kind from what the NES, SNES and N64 accomplished. The early systems changed the rules of what games were and how they were made: the NES helped codify platforming and brought home a console culture; the SNES elevated the medium with richer audiovisual storytelling, complex mechanics, and technical sophistication that expanded what games could express; and the N64 helped define 3D movement, camera control and spatial design with things like the analog stick and open, explorable worlds. Those generations introduced new genre-defining mechanics and design paradigms that forced developers to invent entirely new ways of designing games.

By contrast, Nintendo's later breakthroughs often innovated around interface and delivery — how people interact with games or where they play them — rather than radically rethinking core game design or taking the kind of creative gambles that kickstart whole new genres or development practices. That shift made Nintendo massively successful and more accessible, but it also meant fewer bold experiments in game systems and depth — the kind of risk-taking that once made the company an industry trailblazer.

Nintendo used to be a company that didn't just aim to be "different," but to change paradigms. Iwata often said that Nintendo wasn't good at competing, and that to stay relevant it had to be unique — but that was never entirely true. Just look at its own history, its track record, and its legacy during the NES, SNES, and even N64 eras. Those were times when Nintendo did compete — and, in doing so, defined the standards of the entire industry. Abandoning that philosophy may have ensured financial stability and consistent profits, but in return, it left Nintendo creatively stagnant and far removed from the cutting edge it once represented.

 

[kevboard]

Again people have this weird revisionist of history syndrome. when the playstation and n64 came out they were AHEAD of consumer PC graphics by quite a lot. PC was still doing software 3d rendering.

But again over the course of the gen PC did get 3d graphics cards that surpassed the consoles.

the N64 was ahead, the PS1 was not.

what the PS1 did was in essence worse than PC software rendering in terms of quality.
the PS1 couldn't do most of the basics of 3D rendering.

PC games like Terminal Velocity from 1995 already showed how PCs were superior. no vertex snapping, no z-fighting, no texture warping. running solely on a Pentium MMX 233, you could basically already outclass a PS1.

here's an MMX 233 running Unreal

 

[Ev1L AuRoN]

Conker and Majoras Mask are the best IMHO.

 

[SomeNorseGuy]

 

[NeptuneCL]

I'd say Conker, Banjo-Kazooie, Perfect Dark, Donkey Kong 64, Zelda Ocarina, Zelda Majora, Turok 2, Battle for Naboo, Ogre Batlle 64, Jet Force Gemini, Hybrid Heaven, Castlevania Legacy of Darkness.

 

[NeoIkaruGAF]

I completely agree with this part, one hundred percent. Unfortunately, Nintendo ended up following Satoru Iwata's mindset — focusing on simpler, more intuitive games and avoiding risks. As a consequence, that stripped away much of the identity the company once had: the drive to explore new ideas, new gameplay concepts, depth, and genuine innovation.

Uhm… what?
Launching the Wii as it was, and giving it that name, was the riskiest thing Nintendo ever did. Literally going against the whole market and the people's idea of video games at the time. And not only they kept AA gaming afloat a bit longer, along with pure gameplay when everyone else was trying so hard to turn games into cinema. They were also later imitated by all their competitors, who didn't understand what the Wii and its controls were all about in the first place.

Anyway, the console warring in here is absolutely hilarious. I think nothing can beat the banned dude, though.
"Hey, I had TWO N64s. Even the Pikachu model, that everyone on GameFAQs thought was gay. Then I bought a Dreamcast and I never looked back." Yeah, and I bet you hated your TWO N64s every single minute you played with them. You totally forced yourself to play them for years, crying yourself to sleep wishing you had a PC instead, anything that didn't look like that shit you had to play. Sure, bro. Suuuure.

 

[Nvzman]

I think Conker's Bad Fur Day just kind of hands-down wins.

A lot of these games presented in the thread do look good for the hardware, but the sheer amount of technically impressive content in Conker, such as full voice acting (which is legit insane for a 64MB cartridge) with lip syncing (which most games couldn't even do well in 2001) and extensive cutscene animations. Additionally, Conker had extremely little fog or draw distance quirks that most other N64 games had at the time, while also not using the expansion pak at all. AND the sheer amount of gameplay variety, from platforming to racing to shooting, all being done on the fly, its just kind of insane. Context sensitive nowadays doesn't seem all that interesting but it was extremely rare to see a game switch up gameplay styles so quickly and so well back in 2001. Imo it really is Rare's swan song.

Nothing else on the N64 really compares when you think about it that way.

 

[Midway-AGNC-]

Uhm… what?
Launching the Wii as it was, and giving it that name, was the riskiest thing Nintendo ever did. Literally going against the whole market and the people's idea of video games at the time. And not only they kept AA gaming afloat a bit longer, along with pure gameplay when everyone else was trying so hard to turn games into cinema. They were also later imitated by all their competitors, who didn't understand what the Wii and its controls were all about in the first place.

You're absolutely right that launching the Wii the way they did — with that name, that design, and such a radically different audience focus — was incredibly bold. From a business standpoint, it was a massive risk that paid off, and the "blue ocean" strategy completely reshaped how the industry viewed market expansion.

What I meant by risk, though, was something different — more about creative and design risk rather than market or hardware positioning. I'm referring to that earlier Nintendo philosophy of making games that were ambitious, demanding, and willing to challenge both players and conventions.

With the shift to the Wii era, Nintendo had to let go of a lot of that older identity. Their focus moved toward accessibility and simplicity — aiming for mass appeal rather than depth or the kind of layered, ambitious game design in gameplay systems. It was a smart move commercially, and I understand why many people actually prefer this direction, but from my perspective it marked a clear departure from the kind of creative daring that defined the NES, SNES, and N64 generations.

 

[BlackTron]

Not only that — even some self-proclaimed Nintendo fans have bought into this distorted narrative that games from that era were bad from the start and never really mattered to the industry.

A man hears Sonic was never good enough times, he starts to believe it