How much more powerful was the N64 compared to the PlayStation anyway?

How do Super Mario 64's visuals count as an art style?



Probably a good thing didn't have a TV like this back in the N64 days. Some game HUDs would be burned into my retinas.

Hard to show just how much it jumps off the screen. Even with the light on the screen is what caused most of the exposure. And the red isn't bleeding all over the place plus a brand new color, black. Dark isn't just sort of gray.

HD Trinitron using S-Video
 
This is why I think it was a revolutionary change, because such design was much ahead of its time. The introduction of the second analog stick was essential to play fps games, but this became apparent only when HALO opened the way to FPS on consoles. All current controllers own to the design of the Dual shock.
So much wrong here.

First of all, Goldeneye and Perfect Dark were the first dual analogue console FPS games by way of the two controller setups available. And the N64 controller already had a second dpad as the c-button section, so the idea of a 'camera stick' was predated by that, and put to great use in the N64's many hit FPS games. PS1 games were still doing crazy stuff like shoulder button strafing and face button shooting before the N64 came along with the c-buttons and trigger.

Secondly, the GCN, XB, 360, Wii (nunchuck) 3DS and Wii U controllers all have the left stick in the primary (upper) position, not in the secondary position like the PS controller. The GC controller was shown and released first of those, so I guess it's the originator of the dual stick functions of modern console controller in all non-Sony consoles. And once again, the c-stick was an evolution of the c-butons, so really it's the N64 controller again as the source. The modern controller is therefore irrefutably the SNES controller with the N64's innovations (analogue stick, distinct camera controls, trigger, rumble) added.

And I love how you say 'Halo opened the way to FPS on consoles' when Goldeneye sold more than Halo (9 million to 7 million), and was released more than four years earlier. If you mean originator of dual analogue, Goldeneye once again. And if you mean the first console FPS game to use dual analogue on a single controller (a very specific case), then that would be Timesplitters, by many of the Goldeneye team no less!

I think Sony just got ridiculously lucky with the Dual Shock design, they realised their controller was crap for 3d games and literally hacked on the N64's analogue stick and rumble to their existing SNES based design, and added a second stick for whatever reason (balance/symmetry?) that at the time they had no idea what to do with (no Ape Escape's gimmicky use of it doesn't count). Years later and on another console altogether the second analogue stick became indispensable. Not foresight - luck.
 
They are from an emulator running with really high IQ just like Banjo gifs earlier. :P



Why would anyone want this today? It would probably run like crap. We should be glad Retro delivered three silky-smooth 60fps Metroid games.

Yes, I'm holding out hope that Nintendo will finally announced a new internally developed N64 game, package it and distribute it to retailers.
 
So much wrong here.

First of all, Goldeneye and Perfect Dark were the first dual analogue console FPS games by way of the two controller setups available. And the N64 controller already had a second dpad as the c-button section, so the idea of a 'camera stick' was predated by that, and put to great use in the N64's many hit FPS games. PS1 games were still doing crazy stuff like shoulder button strafing and face button shooting before the N64 came along with the c-buttons and trigger.

Secondly, the GCN, XB, 360, Wii (nunchuck) 3DS and Wii U controllers all have the left stick in the primary (upper) position, not in the secondary position like the PS controller. The GC controller was shown and released first of those, so I guess it's the originator of the dual stick functions of modern console controller in all non-Sony consoles. And once again, the c-stick was an evolution of the c-butons, so really it's the N64 controller again as the source. The modern controller is therefore irrefutably the SNES controller with the N64's innovations (analogue stick, distinct camera controls, trigger, rumble) added.

And I love how you say 'Halo opened the way to FPS on consoles' when Goldeneye sold more than Halo (9 million to 7 million), and was released more than four years earlier. If you mean originator of dual analogue, Goldeneye once again. And if you mean the first console FPS game to use dual analogue on a single controller (a very specific case), then that would be Timesplitters, by many of the Goldeneye team no less!

I think Sony just got ridiculously lucky with the Dual Shock design, they realised their controller was crap for 3d games and literally hacked on the N64's analogue stick and rumble to their existing SNES based design, and added a second stick for whatever reason (balance/symmetry?) that at the time they had no idea what to do with (no Ape Escape's gimmicky use of it doesn't count). Years later and on another console altogether the second analogue stick became indispensable. Not foresight - luck.

Halo opened the way to FPS on consoles in the sense that it was a console game on par to what was on PCs at the time. Goldeneye and Perfect Dark were terrible compared to stuff like Half-Life and Deus Ex.

And you can call it whatever you want but the Dual Shock template is now the status quo for a game controller these days; two sticks and four shoulder buttons.
 
LBfxD.gif

PSY-Gangnam-Style-15.gif
 
Halo opened the way to FPS on consoles in the sense that it was a console game on par to what was on PCs at the time. Goldeneye and Perfect Dark were terrible compared to stuff like Half-Life and Deus Ex.

And you can call it whatever you want but the Dual Shock template is now the status quo for a game controller these days; two sticks and four shoulder buttons.

Goldeneye and Perfect Dark were mostly popular due to their great multiplayer, just like Halo (emphasis on mostly, Halo's campaign was still a huge deal).

Could you name me all the PC FPS that featured better multiplayer than Goldeneye at the time of it's release? Goldeneye came out months before Quake II.

Perfect Dark had MUCH stiffer competition but I think it competes with the best of them, that is if you can adjust to the poor framerate of it. I was into both Unreal Tournament and Perfect Dark at the time so it's possible.
 
Could you name me all the PC FPS that featured better multiplayer than Goldeneye at the time of it's release? Goldeneye came out months before Quake II.
Quake 1?

What was it about GE that made it special in that regards? The map design was boring and limited in scope, the framerate was abysmal, and you were limited to 4 players.
 
Quake 1?

What was it about GE that made it special in that regards? The map design was boring and limited in scope, the framerate was abysmal, and you were limited to 4 players.

It was fun moving and shooting in the levels. The answer really boils down to that, and it's something difficult quantify well. I will say that the levels were incredibly well designed with hidden passages and nooks and crannys and hiding places galore, and there was a certain familiarity and novelty with the fact that the multiplayer levels were pulled straight from the campaign. Atmospherics in levels like the caverns were off the charts with excellent music to boot, and in general the levels felt less like playgrounds for deathmatches and more like actual places because of the campaign connection, and this really only works because Rare developed the campaign as places first and filled in the objectives and what not from there, from what I remember of the development stuff I read.

Other than that the weapons were just well designed and satisfying to use. Throwing a remote mine and clicking the button to detonate it in mid air in the face of another player was like crack, and strategically placing proximity mines hidden throughout the levels was great fun, or getting that player that throws them at random so that the entire level is a minefield.

Also, Quake I is only one game, regardless of whether Goldeneye's multiplayer is better or not. Do you have more to list?
 
Also, Quake I is only one game, regardless of whether Goldeneye's multiplayer is better or not. Do you have more to list?

Quake already had clans and global rankings by late 1996 but the mod Team Fortress added stuff like class-based gameplay and headshots, it was quite beyond what Goldeneye had to offer. Prior to Quake not a lot of PC games had robust multiplayer modes because they used IPX Lan instead of TCP/IP. Marathon 2 came out in 1995 and had stuff like TDM and King Of The Hill, Duke Nukem 3D also had similar modes. Jedi Knight came out a month after Goldeneye, Quake II two months after and Rainbow Six was 6 months after.

I enjoyed Goldeneye when it came out as it was a fun adaptation of the movie and because it played like a more fleshed-out version of Virtua Cop what with the similar hit reactions by the enemies and all but it simply didn't compare to what was going on with the PC at the time and once the ball really got rolling with Unreal Tournament, Quake III and Counterstrike, Goldeneye and Perfect Dark felt a generation behind.
 
Quake already had clans and global rankings by late 1996 but the mod Team Fortress added stuff like class-based gameplay and headshots, it was quite beyond what Goldeneye had to offer. Prior to Quake not a lot of PC games had robust multiplayer modes because they used IPX Lan instead of TCP/IP. Marathon 2 came out in 1995 and had stuff like TDM and King Of The Hill, Duke Nukem 3D also had similar modes. Jedi Knight came out a month after Goldeneye, Quake II two months after and Rainbow Six was 6 months after.

I enjoyed Goldeneye when it came out as it was a fun adaptation of the movie and because it played like a more fleshed-out version of Virtua Cop what with the similar hit reactions by the enemies and all but it simply didn't compare to what was going on with the PC at the time and once the ball really got rolling with Unreal Tournament, Quake III and Counterstrike, Goldeneye and Perfect Dark felt a generation behind.

So PC FPS had far more robust multiplayer experiences than Goldeneye at the time in terms of features (As in features were developing/were developed rapidly and becoming standard on the PC platform, this doesn't mean better core multiplayer gameplay than Goldeneye at all of course).

"Halo opened the way to FPS on consoles in the sense that it was a console game on par to what was on PCs at the time. Goldeneye and Perfect Dark were terrible compared to stuff like Half-Life and Deus Ex."

Now that it looks like your counter-point to my multiplayer point is specifically about multiplayer features that were fast becoming standard on PC, how is Halo 1 less disadvantaged than Goldeneye compared to its PC competition in this regard.

Keep in mind that Perfect Dark came out before Halo and blows it away in terms of multiplayer features on consoles.
 
GoldenEye was slower and tension built up. The obvious advantage of the group all being on 1 tv and trying to spy what was coming. You would know when the health was down to a sliver of yellow. It was then either trying to control chaos with the auto weapons or trying to get the 1 good shot. With Golden Gun mode it was always a panic attack.
 
So PC FPS had far more robust multiplayer experiences than Goldeneye at the time in terms of features (As in features were developing/were developed rapidly and becoming standard on the PC platform, this doesn't mean better core multiplayer gameplay than Goldeneye at all of course).

"Halo opened the way to FPS on consoles in the sense that it was a console game on par to what was on PCs at the time. Goldeneye and Perfect Dark were terrible compared to stuff like Half-Life and Deus Ex."

Now that it looks like your counter-point to my multiplayer point is specifically about multiplayer features that were fast becoming standard on PC, how is Halo 1 less disadvantaged than Goldeneye compared to its PC competition in this regard.

Keep in mind that Perfect Dark came out before Halo and blows it away in terms of multiplayer features on consoles.

I misinterpreted your initial question it seems as I thought it was a given that PC shooters played better than Goldeneye given the fact they all used mouse aiming.

Halo didn't have the fancier stuff like bots that Perfect Dark had but it did have many of the requisite modes one expects from a multiplayer FPS. However unlike Goldeneye or Perfect Dark, Halo didn't feel like a compromised experience. I could play with 4 players on huge maps with vehicles and the game would hold a pretty stable 30 FPS.
 
So PC FPS had far more robust multiplayer experiences than Goldeneye at the time in terms of features (As in features were developing/were developed rapidly and becoming standard on the PC platform, this doesn't mean better core multiplayer gameplay than Goldeneye at all of course).

"Halo opened the way to FPS on consoles in the sense that it was a console game on par to what was on PCs at the time. Goldeneye and Perfect Dark were terrible compared to stuff like Half-Life and Deus Ex."

Now that it looks like your counter-point to my multiplayer point is specifically about multiplayer features that were fast becoming standard on PC, how is Halo 1 less disadvantaged than Goldeneye compared to its PC competition in this regard.

Keep in mind that Perfect Dark came out before Halo and blows it away in terms of multiplayer features on consoles.
Yep, exactly. Halo gets waaaay too much credit, especially when Goldeneye actually sold more copies. In fact I can't remember the exact timing, but Goldeneye remained the highest selling shooter on any platform including PC until this current generation, finally beaten by COD4, and even then that required three SKUs (PS3/360/PC). Obviously a lot of people pirated PC games though, and more recently the likes of Half Life 2 have sold more copies due to digital downloads that have cost basically nothing.

Kind of like te N64 overall actually. It sold far more systems than Xbox 1 and Genesis, yet in the revisionist press it is considered a failure and they were considered successes.
 
I misinterpreted your initial question it seems as I thought it was a given that PC shooters played better than Goldeneye given the fact they all used mouse aiming.

Halo didn't have the fancier stuff like bots that Perfect Dark had but it did have many of the requisite modes one expects from a multiplayer FPS. However unlike Goldeneye or Perfect Dark, Halo didn't feel like a compromised experience. I could play with 4 players on huge maps with vehicles and the game would hold a pretty stable 30 FPS.

Framerate is definitely a valid complaint, however I remember no bots being something often complained about around the time of Halo's release.

Delving into things where I don't really know what I'm talking about, I think the rapid PC game surge on consoles had more to do with Microsoft getting into the hardware business and the Xbox's architecture and development tools that catered to PC devs (also the included hard drive at the time). I don't think Halo caused a game like Morrowind to hit consoles. Not to mention online gaming hitting the mainstream (on consoles) had more to do with Xbox live itself than Halo, and it really was just natural progression considering Sega and Sony already moving in that direction. Halo 2 really boosted Live's popularity more quickly but I can't imagine that it would have failed without it either.

Not only that, but let's not forget there was Starcraft, Command and Conquer, Doom, Quake, and Quake II all on the 64, Half-Life and Deus Ex were on the PS2, Unreal Tournament, Quake III and Rainbow Six were the Dreamcast and the list goes on, things were just lining up for the industry as opposed to one specific game I think.

Edit: Of course then again where would the Xbox be without Halo? If you look at it like that I guess...
 
This thread made me check out what the state of N64 in MESS was, and you know what? It's kinda getting there. I haven't bothered to see if any developers are currently focusing on it or anything, but it's nice to know that low-level N64 emulation is happening somewhere.

Mario 64 framebuffer grabs, nothing too obviously different and there doesn't seem to be that edge detecting AA that I'm hearing about, but you can see some dithering going on.

000068scs.png
000138sqt.png

0002xpssq.png
00035ls79.png


And some quick HLSL action (I love this filter):

mario64_hlslzeshy.png


Still pretty slow, though. 60-80% speed on average on my 2600k, not surprising given that it's low level MESS.
Are you using any defocusing on HLSL? It looks a little too sharp. Maybe I'm just used to how 2D comes through it, never really tried any 3D stuff on MAME/MESS.
 
No way. Ocarina's environments were huge compared to what TR offered. Back in 1998 Lake Hylia just looked absolutely spectacular. Nothing on Playstation ever came close to that kind of scope.
The levels in TR3 were larger, but the fogging. TR 4, had higher texture rez, dynamic lighting, foot prints could be made, spector lighting as well and more intricate environments.
 
Keep in mind that Perfect Dark came out before Halo and blows it away in terms of multiplayer features on consoles.
Does it?

There were a boat load of customization options available in Halo (you could create many interesting game types just like PD) and the game play itself had more depth. Plus, you could link together four other systems for 16 player games. I'd say they were both loaded with features, but those features were more usable in Halo.

I mean, try playing a populated botmatch in PD. :(
 
What I've learned from this thread:

1. N64 has, had, and always will have better graphics than ps1.
2. Jett is always wrong.
 
N64 was quite a bit more powerful than Playstation. When Mario 64 was shown in stores, I remember nearly half of people walking by stopping and watching somewhat in disbelief.

However the media format really made a lot of N64 games sound terrible. Seemed like devs chose how much to prioritize audio, so many games sounded like shit. With Playstation you could just read CD audio...and I think the audio hardware was decent too considering what Square did with it.
 
Does it?

There were a boat load of customization options available in Halo (you could create many interesting game types just like PD) and the game play itself had more depth. Plus, you could link together four other systems for 16 player games. I'd say they were both loaded with features, but those features were more usable in Halo.

I mean, try playing a populated botmatch in PD. :(

Yeah you definitely have to be able to adjust to the framerate in PD. But as far as customization and the resulting variety from that customization, Halo isn't even on the same planet. A big part of that is in the weapons of Perfect Dark and how they change the entire dynamics of each mode. Most of Halo's weapons are more typical FPS weapons, although how they are used with the shield is what gives them some depth I will agree on that aspect. And the vehicles of course as well.

But let's take take a look at some for PD:

Slayer: Rocket launcher with a secondary fire of an endlessly controllable rocket with a camera on it. People will find a hiding spot and peruse the entire level trying not to crash it into walls and finding prey, while hoping they aren't discovered as they are vulnerable while controlling it.

Laptop Gun: Secondary function to attach your own sentry turret anywhere in a level and have it fire automatically at enemies, you can use it to protect yourself in King of the Hill or all sorts of other cool ideas.

Farsight: Can see and shoot through walls across the entire level, secondary fire caused your reticle to slowly hone in on other players so they have to keep moving, although the shooter is vulnerable much like the slayer.

Tranquilizer gun: Can fire at an enemy to blur their vision, the effect slowly wears off.

N-bombs: Bombs that exploded spherically and blur the vision (extremely) of players that get caught in the blast. It can get crazy chaotic with these going off all over the place.

RCP120: Secondary fire makes the user completely invisible but it burns ammo very quickly, and they become visible again when they fire.

Grenade: Secondary fire is Proximity Pinball, which is a grenade that bounces around the level endlessly until it hits a player and explodes

Dragon: Secondary fire has the user throw the gun onto the ground. The gun is set to detonate like a proximity mine while other players think they are getting a weapon pickup.

Disarm: If a player has no weapon they can make a mad dash or sneak up on another player and disarm/punch them, this will blur that players vision and cuase them to drop their weapon which you can pick up and kill them with.

There are a shit load of other weapons and unlockable goldeneye weapons as well, but I think you can see how much the variety of weapons can vary the gameplay in the game.

Assuming you know about Perfect Darks bots which multiply the variety 100 fold with the different personalities, like the peacetSim that tries to disarm all players and hoard all their weapons or the prey sim that goes after the weak or newly spawned. Not to mention you can have bots on your side and give them general instructions.

And then of course in addition to the co op that Halo also has there is Counter Op which I'm sure you've heard of, where one player continues to respawn as one of the generic enemies in the campaign while the other plays through the campaign.
 
Halo's physics, vehicles and large MP maps does more for variety (or the 'sandbox') than x number of rules/customization available in PFD. Halo was ahead of PC shooters on certain fronts when it released and it was the game that showed how fps games could truly work on a gamepad. The jump between PFD and Halo is like the difference between Wolfenstein 3D and Quake.
 
Halo's physics, vehicles and large MP maps does more for variety (or the 'sandbox') than x number of rules/customization available in PFD. Halo was ahead of PC shooters on certain fronts when it released and it was the game that showed how fps games could truly work on a gamepad. The jump between PFD and Halo is like the difference between Wolfenstein 3D and Quake.
How did it "show how fps games could truly work on a gamepad" when it didn't even sell as much as Goldeneye? Who did it show? Were all those Goldeneye buyers playing it with a mouse/keyboard?

All these circular arguments about how 'Halo proved FPS could work on consoles' when the fact is Goldeneye proved it four years earlier and proved it more by selling more. It's like claiming Sonic proved the viability of the 2D platformer when it was years after Mario and sold less.

You might have liked Halo more, that's great. It was a damn good game in 2001, I loved the vehicle element. It did have great controls (that it didn't invent, Goldeneye invented dual analogue and Timesplitters did it first on one controller). But more people liked Goldeneye enough to buy it, and years earlier so Halo proved jack all.

And okay, I'll agree Goldeneye was Wolfenstein 3D to Halo's Quake. Quake was 4 years after W3D, Halo was 4 years after GE. Both W3D and GE are the more important games.
 
How did it "show how fps games could truly work on a gamepad" when it didn't even sell as much as Goldeneye? Who did it show? Were all those Goldeneye buyers playing it with a mouse/keyboard?

All these circular arguments about how 'Halo proved FPS could work on consoles' when the fact is Goldeneye proved it four years earlier and proved it more by selling more. It's like claiming Sonic proved the viability of the 2D platformer when it was years after Mario and sold less.

You might have liked Halo more, that's great. It was a damn good game in 2001, I loved the vehicle element. It did have great controls (that it didn't invent, Goldeneye invented dual analogue and Timesplitters did it first on one controller). But more people liked Goldeneye enough to buy it, and years earlier so Halo proved jack all.
Halo had subtleties like gravity (aim slowing when hovering over enemies) and just the right amount of 'tracking' if an enemy jumps etc. I don't think Goldeneye/PDF/Timesplitters even had jumping.

Going from Red Faction on PS2 (the previous best) to Halo was huge in itself.
 
Halo's physics, vehicles and large MP maps does more for variety (or the 'sandbox') than x number of rules/customization available in PFD. Halo was ahead of PC shooters on certain fronts when it released and it was the game that showed how fps games could truly work on a gamepad. The jump between PFD and Halo is like the difference between Wolfenstein 3D and Quake.

And I'll say Perfect Dark's ridiculous amount of diverse weapons and bots allowed for more variety than Halo's vehicles and physics. And as said before goldeneye was working on a gamepad for more gamers than Halo 1 did.

As for PD to Halo being Wolfenstein to Quake, you may want to quantify that because it sounds ridiculous from my view.

Edit: As far as multiplayer variety I completely forgot about PD's challenge mode
 
Halo had subtleties like gravity (aim slowing when hovering over enemies) and just the right amount of 'tracking' if an enemy jumps etc. I don't think Goldeneye/PDF/Timesplitters even had jumping.

Going from Red Faction on PS2 (the previous best) to Halo was huge in itself.
You're running in circles not answering your own assertion. What do gameplay 'subtleties' like gravity and jumping have to do with backing up your claim "Halo showed how fps games could truly work on a gamepad". Nothing. Goldeneye was the game that proved FPS worked on a console/gamepad, and the sales prove it beyond any personal preference of yours.

Using your logic, I could say COD4 was the game that proved FPS could work on consoles because it had 'subtleties like better weapons and a cover system', and that anything that came before was irrelevant.
 
You're running in circles not answering your own assertion. What do gameplay 'subtleties' like gravity and jumping have to do with backing up your claim "Halo showed how fps games could truly work on a gamepad". Nothing. Goldeneye was the game that proved FPS worked on a console/gamepad, and the sales prove it beyond any personal preference of yours.

Using your logic, I could say COD4 was the game that proved FPS could work on consoles because it had 'subtleties like better weapons and a cover system', and that anything that came before was irrelevant.

Don't forget Turok which sold over a million. It even had that amazing jumping ability he speaks of.

Actually it had right stick aiming too, but the N64 controller wasn't set up well for that making it hard to hit the A and B buttons with that layout.
 
How many games took inspiration from goldeneye and how many did the same from halo? Halo essentially paved the way for how FPS play on consoles. I can see the timesplitters argument but not goldeneye.

I think this whole thing with goldeneye having dual analogue is really reaching. How many people ever used that control style or would ever want to use it? It was fucking terrible. Showing how something should be done right is much more important imo.

Halo is the franchise that led to FPS becoming the premier genre on consoles (COD took that one step further).

A copy of Starcraft 64 goes for an INSANE amount of money these days holy shit

Seriously? Hmm probably shouldn't have given my copy away then.
 
Halo is the franchise that led to FPS becoming the premier genre on consoles (COD took that one step further).

Absolutely false. That honor does go to the Nintendo 64. Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Turok, Turok 2, Turok Rage Wars. The sales speak for themselves.

HALO, as any good FPS on better hardware, took it further. But other FPS continued to do the same. But it doesn't change how Goldeneye and Perfect Dark sold millions. What console FPS sold millions before the Nintendo 64?
 
In 2028, there will be a 40 page thread on how much more powerful the Wii U was compared to the HD twins.
Oh man. I wonder if we should implement some sort of test for registration.

Example:

1. Place these consoles in the correct order of graphical power (You may place multiple consoles on the same level):

PS2 XBOX GC

2. What was the first twin stick FPS?

a. Halo
b. Golden Eye
c. CoD4
d. CoD BLOPS2

3. Which of these consoles is from a different generation?

a. Wii
b. XBOX 360
c. PS3
d. Wii U
 
One thing that this thread shows is that Nintendo knew the N64 better than anyone. RARE received most of the attention during that era, but when you look back it's Nintendo's games that still hold up very well in terms of playability. The framerates in (most) their games are still perfectly playable.
 
Oh man. I wonder if we should implement some sort of test for registration.
2. What was the first twin stick FPS?

a. Halo
b. Golden Eye
c. CoD4
d. CoD BLOPS2

None of those are the first twin-stick FPS, though. First, you've obviously got to say "console only". But looking just at console games, if buttons count as a "stick", which they should when they're serving the same function, the first twin-stick console FPS is Turok 1. If you want to restrict it to sticks only though, which I think is quite wrong (for FPSes, the N64's C-buttons serve the exact same function as a stick, after all), then it'd be whatever the first PS1 FPS is that has dual analog support, like the original Medal of Honor or something (I don't know which was first offhand).
 
So much wrong here.

First of all, Goldeneye and Perfect Dark were the first dual analogue console FPS games by way of the two controller setups available. And the N64 controller already had a second dpad as the c-button section, so the idea of a 'camera stick' was predated by that, and put to great use in the N64's many hit FPS games. PS1 games were still doing crazy stuff like shoulder button strafing and face button shooting before the N64 came along with the c-buttons and trigger.

Secondly, the GCN, XB, 360, Wii (nunchuck) 3DS and Wii U controllers all have the left stick in the primary (upper) position, not in the secondary position like the PS controller. The GC controller was shown and released first of those, so I guess it's the originator of the dual stick functions of modern console controller in all non-Sony consoles. And once again, the c-stick was an evolution of the c-butons, so really it's the N64 controller again as the source. The modern controller is therefore irrefutably the SNES controller with the N64's innovations (analogue stick, distinct camera controls, trigger, rumble) added.

And I love how you say 'Halo opened the way to FPS on consoles' when Goldeneye sold more than Halo (9 million to 7 million), and was released more than four years earlier. If you mean originator of dual analogue, Goldeneye once again. And if you mean the first console FPS game to use dual analogue on a single controller (a very specific case), then that would be Timesplitters, by many of the Goldeneye team no less!

I think Sony just got ridiculously lucky with the Dual Shock design, they realised their controller was crap for 3d games and literally hacked on the N64's analogue stick and rumble to their existing SNES based design, and added a second stick for whatever reason (balance/symmetry?) that at the time they had no idea what to do with (no Ape Escape's gimmicky use of it doesn't count). Years later and on another console altogether the second analogue stick became indispensable. Not foresight - luck.

It's a bit too convenient to suggest that just because the N64 had c buttons, that it's meaningless that the Dualshock had two sticks. If it were such an obvious evolution, it could have had two sticks from the beginning. It's easy to take for granted that the dualshock provided in house rumble whereas the N64 did not, until you remember that the Dreamcast followed the pack design of the N64 for both rumble and memory. The N64 introduced several conventions that generation, but it was the way the dualshock delivered them that was standardized, for the most part.
 
Top Bottom