Support NeoGAF

[Oddish1]

The N64 is fondly remembered because its best games haven't aged terribly. Games like Mario 64, Wave Race 64 and 1080 Snowboarding are still as good today as they were back then. If anything they are *better* today since making games of their ilk today isn't financially feasible.

You could bring up how GoldenEye 007 has "aged", but it's only in the combat and shooting mechanics. The actual level and game design hasn't aged terribly at all -- it's peerless as far as tiered-objective, stealth-based gameplay goes in an FPS, and again, because you can't make a shooter today with that sort of game design it's aged better than it should have.

GoldenEye has also aged in that from a modern perspective it looks awful visually. Even Mario 64 which is still praised today for its controls in 3D space still has the worst camera in any Mario game due to the time it was made. Don't really buy the argument that games become "better" because games like them aren't made anymore. Collect-a-thons are also not made anymore and I think those type of Rare games have also aged pretty poorly.

The N64 still has some of the most played games by speedrunners to this day. Nice try though

Of the reasons a speedrunner chooses to play a game, 'quality' is not necessarily one of them.

 

[woopWOOP]

I'm aware a lot of the big publishers jumped ship to the Playstation, but there were still a lot of fun third party games on that thing. Nintendo's own first party releases were top notch too. This is coming from someone who didn't give a shit about OoT.
I remember the Playstation looking more crisp back then, but the N64's fogginess never really bothered me. Ofcourse compared to today's graphics it all looks very basic 3D, but I'm a sucker for that kind of stuff anyway (tho admittedly the Playstation games look better to me today with the lack of fog).
Console's design never bothered me, tho the N64 controller was, uh... different. My biggest problem with it was how easily you could wreck the analog stick, had to rebuy joysticks several times. It's pretty bad.

But still it'll never be the worst for me because of the focus of 4-player multiplayer it had. Loads of games of different genres being able to be played in a group, shit was so awesome. You didn't need to buy a multitap or another damn system, just a bunch of controllers, plug 'm in, have fun. They've been continueing that trend for the following systems, but I'm giving the N64 bonus points for being the first one to just have it all built in.

 

[Dr. Buni]

Definitely. The N64 gave me one of my favorite games AND my favorite game of all time for years, which is Majora's Mask. It also gave me Banjo-Kazooie/Tooie and Ocarina of Time (which is a great game, really damn great, but still manages to be so overrated by its diehard fans) and also the best Smash game before Smash 4 was a thing, the original. But overall I just think its library isn't as appealing as the SNES's, Gamecube's, Wii's or even Wii U's. Still a great console to have anyways.

 

[ponpo]

Why was the word "sorry" removed from the title lol

 

[Toadthemushroom]

GoldenEye has also aged in that from a modern perspective it looks awful visually. Even Mario 64 which is still praised today for its controls in 3D space still has the worst camera in any Mario game due to the time it was made. Don't really buy the argument that games become "better" because games like them aren't made anymore. Collect-a-thons are also not made anymore and I think those type of Rare games have also aged pretty poorly.

I agree that GoldenEye has aged visually - though I think both Mario 64 and it have visuals that play to the system's strengths. They weren't trying to recreate detailed textures, rather the textures used were designed to look great with the texture filtering. I much prefer the look of Mario 64 to its poorly-translated DS remake.

As for your response about whether games age due to not being made anymore, I don't think it's right to point out collect-a-thons and conflate them with other games. There's a difference between the best wave racing game on the market and a type of 3D platforming game that stood in Mario 64's shadow.

What makes Mario 64 special today is its emphasis on traversal rather than collecting things, which, combined with the masterfully constructed physics and controls, makes for a platformer that's irresistible to play even today. Nearly every facet of Mario 64 can be mastered, from competently being able to move around to taking shortcuts across level furniture.

The point is, there aren't many games like Mario 64, and because of that, you can't just look at it from a modern perspective. You can compare it to games that are similar to it, and hey look, it still comes out on top despite being the oldest!

That's good design. Here's a post I completely agree with about why it's still a damn good piece of game design:

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.

I get that you're pointing out that individual aspects of games may have aged, but that wasn't my point at all. Just because Mario 64's camera may have been bettered since (personally I think it's a great fit for what the game is trying to do) doesn't immediately discount it of timeless status, if that's what you were implying.

If that were a metric that truly mattered, people would be claiming Sunshine has aged better than 64 solely on the basis of its more modern method of camera control. More refined mechanics don't necessarily make a better game, but likewise there are games which have aged mechanics that are let down by them. But the N64's best games aren't those sort of titles.

 

[-MB-]

For me it is still the Gamecube that is the worst. Never cared for Smash, worst Mario worst Zelda and worst Mario Kart. I liked Prime but to me still fell short of Super too. It did not have the games I loved on 64 like Mario 64, Kart 64, Goldeneye, Blast Corps, Wave Race 64 , Perfect Dark etc etc.

 

[Irminsul]

I'd say that while the Saturn/PS1/N64 generation holds up the worst in hindsight, the Gamecube is Nintendo's worst console (disregarding the Wii U).

The Gamecube had exactly two games that weren't better in another generation, Metroid Prime 1/2, and even there you could argue MP3's controls made it better.

The thing is, a lot of Nintendo's offerings on the GC just looked unfinished or way too bug-prone for Nintendo titles.

Super Mario Sunshine is the only 3D Mario I never finished due to the fucking blue coins. Also that Pachinko level and its fucking glitchy physics. And the pre-Bowser fight stuff. Or the Hotel level without a single fun shine to get.

I still like Wind Waker, but the original version was obviously unfinished and just got tedious at one point.

Mario Kart DD is quite nice and definitely better than 64 (except the battle mode), but MK8 is just the best game in the series. And DD was the last title with only 16 courses.

Yeah, I know, Melee is for some still the gold standard for Smash games, but I like Smash 4 more.

I don't hate the Gamecube, but at least to me, its offerings weren't really better than what the N64 had. Especially from Nintendo.

 

[Business]

N64 was good and it could hold its own against PS1. Now Gamecube was a weak proposition.

 

[Firemind]

Of the reasons a speedrunner chooses to play a game, 'quality' is not necessarily one of them.

Quality isn't quantifiable though. Speedrunners are still playing N64 games so it must be doing something right.

 

[sanstesy]

Quality isn't quantifiable though. Speedrunners are still playing N64 games so it must be doing something right.

Quality isn't quantifiable though. Speedrunners are still playing Sonic 2006 so it must be doing something right.

 

[Oddish1]

Quality isn't quantifiable though. Speedrunners are still playing N64 games so it must be doing something right.

Sonic 2006 is speedrun. A game being speedrun is meaningless to the quality of a game, even though you are clearly trying to imply otherwise.

EDIT: Beaten

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

Wii U obviously takes the cake. Saleswise alone and with regards to software all the more. Even the gamecube got 1.5 Zelda games.

 

[Zalman]

I have to agree. I love the N64, and it had some of the most revolutionary games of all time, but it certainly lacked in variety.

 

[Jack The Nipper]

Wii and Wii U if judging Nintendo games.

 

[Firemind]

Quality isn't quantifiable though. Speedrunners are still playing Sonic 2006 so it must be doing something right.

That shit is too funny though. How can anyone not enjoy watching that?

 

[Toadthemushroom]

Yeah, definitely the Wii U for Nintendo's worst console.

At least the N64 had some connection with the mainstream -- Wii U is distinctly a niche device.

N64 install base at the end of its lifespan was a close match for SNES's in North America, and the N64 saw NoA fire on all cylinders as far as their autonomy went.

As for the games, while Wii U has some solid exclusive titles few of them are transformative. New N64 exclusives tended to be game-changers as far as game design went, it was also a period where Nintendo EAD was putting out quality games after one another.

 

[spliced]

You can't even begin to have an balanced viewpoint until you go back and complete some PS1 games old school style, no smartphones, no tablets. You sit there and watch those marathon loading screens over and over again.

Your OP is basically a smear campaign of nonsense.

N64 and PS1 had different strengths so neither one was best for every type of design but in general the N64 looked better. It had some fog but the jagged warped mess almost every PS1 game looked like was awful, it was one of the rare times when even during it's era it looked ugly.

As for the controller....sigh. It's 20 years later and you still can't figure out what casuals picked up on long ago:

You don't have to hold all 3 prongs at the same time.

How many times does it need to be said before you finally understand. When they put a knife, spoon and fork down at dinner do you use all 3 at once, do you tell the waiter to take one back since you only have 2 hands?

As far as the library goes, it's got greatness and I'd way rather have quality over quantity. I spend most of my gaming time playing the top stuff and that's why the N64 library was one of the best. Having tons of 6's and 7's is highly overrated.

The only part I agree with is that it's games are the least futureproof, they don't hold up today.

 

[dr.rocktopus]

It was innovative and influential...but it's severely hampered by the lack of games. Nintendo and Rare were at their best during this era, but that was pretty much it outside of a few notable third-party efforts from Factor5, Iguana and the like. In the grand scheme of things I would peg WiiU as worse. I think it has worse droughts than N64, and while it has very good games, nothing is genre defining.

 

[Annoying Old Party Man]

Weeeell, lets look at a few facts


- A few of its games change the nature of the industry.
- It was the system that popularized rumble and analogue controls
- Mario 64 was literally, a paradigm shift. (IMO there hasn't been a bigger shift since, with the exception of VR)
- Zelda refefined 3rd person action games.
- It introduced the concept of "party games" with Kart, Party, etc

I won't even go to Rare's output, the above facts are enough to not make the system Nintendo's worst.

 

[DeuceGamer]

I was just poking fun at how you capitalized "Couple Hunting Games" in your list. No need to take offense. I personally think OP is taking crazy pills.

Edit: I think OP for reasons previously stated in case anyone is wondering.

Plus rumble and Starfox 64, as others have mentioned.

No offense taken Mostly just trying to get the info right and playing devils advocate.

I love the Nintendo 64, but I also love the other Nintendo consoles. It's really a difficult decision for me on which is the "worst" Nintendo console. I actively collect for all of the Nintendo home consoles and thus revisit all of them frequently. In doing so I find a lot of redeeming factors for each of Nintendo's consoles. I the end I'm not really sure which I'd rate as "worst".

 

[Coxy100]

Personally disagree - purely because the N64 is the only Nintendo system I've ever wanted to own.

I loved Goldeneye and Zelda and a few others were good too. I've had zero interest in Nintendo consoles before or after.

 

[Future PhaZe]

The Wii has the worst library

 

[tkscz]

Ok no, someone is going to explain to me right now how most N64 games have aged badly. Graphically, the N64 had texture problems, but gameplay, how did these games age badly? What about their gameplay doesn't work anymore?

 

[Vitten]

Not sure what you're smoking. It was an excellent console at the time with many amazing games.
And the fact that you don't even mention F-Zero X which is one the best and most fun racers ever ( and in 60 FPS no less ! ) doesn't make me think highly of your opinion.

Main problem is that the early low-poly 3D look of most games has aged terribly and looks ugly by today's standards. But apart from that many games still stand the test of time

 

[LabouredSubterfuge]

The best and last Nintendo console I ever owned.

Company's output went to shit after that.

 

[ogbg]

Goldeneye

 

[kinoki]

While nothing can top the SNES or NES I do think that N64 is a solid machine. While lacking in quanitity it makes up for it in quality. Every single great game still holds up today. You can even trace many of the staples of 3D gaming back to these games.

Nothing they've done since has been that revolutionary. Sadly.

 

[DragonSworne]

There really is nothing quite as bad as the Wii U.

 

[Athreous]

It's one of the worst consoles ever, with just a few games that actually made it worth, like most nintendo consoles... mostly 1st party are great, the rest is crap or don't exist at all =p

But yeah, Mario 64 and Zelda pumped the console a lot!

 

[TheMagician]

The standard of Nintendo's first party games was absolutely brilliant and far stronger than the GameCube, Wii or Wii U.

For me, since the N64 went by, only Metroid Prime and the Galaxy games have ever reached the elite level set by the likes of SM64, OoT & MM.

 

[Shion]

Sorry op, but I'll take the N64 over the GameCube, Wii and Wii U any day.

Nintendo was still focused on premium offerings back then, both in terms of hardware and software. On the hardware front, the N64 was a powerful console with impressive specs that gave birth to some of the most ambitious projects of the late 90s. On the software front, EAD was knocking it out of the park with generation-defining games. The N64 era was also the last time that Nintendo games were free of oversimplified game design and immense handholding. This, along with the fact that EAD was still into non-cartoony games back then, made their output much more diverse and appealing to me.

The N64 also had Rare at its peak releasing one great game after another. The best console FPS (GoldenEye/Perfect Dark), the best 3D platformer not named SM64 (Banjo-Kazooie), one of the best kart racers ever created (Diddy Kong Racing) and even awesome arcade-style games (Blast Corps). Having both Nintendo and Rare releasing top-quality games was reason enough for me to love the console. Generally, from a 1st party perspective, my only "complaint" about the N64 is that Metroid didn't have its Super Mario 64 / Ocarina of Time moment (one of the very few things I liked about the GameCube).

3rd party-wise, the N64 was a disaster and a huge disappointment after the NES and SNES. Western developers provided decent support, but the lack of Japanese games like Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid and Tekken was painful. The GameCube-era was definitely an improvement on the 3rd party situation (although, it still missed most of the big Japanese games of that era). But, compared to what the Wii and Wii U offered, I definitely prefer games like Turok 2, Resident Evil 2, Doom 64, Rogue Squadron, WipEout 64, San Francisco Rush, Beetle Adventure Racing, Extreme-G, Rocket and Goemon.

Despite its shortcomings, the N64 offered me highly ambitious games and a good selection of titles that appealed to me. Barring a very few exceptions, I can't say the same for the consoles that followed.

The standard of Nintendo's first party games was absolutely brilliant and far stronger than the GameCube, Wii or Wii U.

For me, since the N64 went by, only Metroid Prime and the Galaxy games have ever reached the elite level set by the likes of SM64, OoT & MM.

Agreed.

 

[Aske]

Mace: The Dark Age negates your argument.

Seriously though, the N64's library destroys that of the WiiU. I can't think of a metric by which the WiiU can be called superior.

I will say that the N64 generation was my worst. I thought the new 3D graphics on the PS1 and Saturn looked like trash compared to the N64; but good games for the system were drip fed to consumers so slowly that I lost interest in gaming as a pastime over the course of the gen. I didn't get a PS2 until a few years into the new gen, but when I did? Mind-blowing. Truly the greatest console ever made, and the greatest generation.

 

[hichanbis]

In the bizarro world maybe, but irl I think it's actually the best Nintendo system.
It is the system where Nintendo IPs were at their best imo.

Since everybody is giving a list of the best games, so here it is:

Ocarina of Time
Super Mario 64
GoldenEye 007
Majora's Mask
Banjo-Kazooie
Wave Race
Mario Kart 64
Smash Bros
F-Zero X
Turok
Rogue Squadron
WWF Vs NwO

No other Nintendo system can compare to this list (except maybe the SNES but it's a simple matter of personal preference to me)

 

[Celine]

The GameCube-era was definitely an improvement on the 3rd party situation (although, it still missed most of the big Japanese games of that era). But, compared to what the Wii and Wii U offered, I definitely prefer games like Turok 2, Resident Evil 2, Doom 64, Rogue Squadron, WipEout 64, San Francisco Rush, Beetle Adventure Racing, Extreme-G, Rocket and Goemon.

Yes and no.
GC surely had far more third-party games released on it compared to N64 but in most cases they were inferior ports of multiplatform releases coded by third-string developers with missed features, graphics directly ported from the weaker PS2 version and sometime delayed launch.
Also after 2003/2004 many third-party games were available on PS2/Xbox but not Gamecube because most publishers had bailed out from the platform.
Nintendo signed deals with some japanese publishers like Capcom, SquareEnix and Namco meant they got some excellent third-party games from them (many of which ended up on PS2 though).
On the other hand N64 had little support from japanese publishers (except Konami and maybe Hudson) but american publishers were quite supportive and N64 got many third-party games that remained exclusive or were later ported to PS1 with shoddy results.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

The N64 still has some of the most played games by speedrunners to this day. Nice try though

People speedrun trash games all the time.

 

[SamuelSupreme]

I actually agree with you, but I'd go so far as to say that generation for ALL parties was the worst. The PSX/N64/Saturn generation pushed me toward PC gaming for almost everything. I played the big titles, the Zeldas, Marios, Final Fantasys, the Metal Gears, but most everything else was on PC for me. That was when EQ, the Sims, and Half-Life was out, though, so I was good.

Fortunately, the PS2/GCN/DC/Xbox brought me back to console gaming.

What? The PSX ?

 

[GabeTheGrouch76]

In terms of policy and management it's where I'd argue Nintendo started making their first big missteps in which they refused to move with the industry, a few of which are directly responsible for the setbacks the company suffers from today. I imagine it would had been able to hold more ground against the then-newcomer PS1 in marketshare and third-party support if Nintendo wasn't so stubborn in several aspects. Under that context I'd probably call the N64 their worst era.

But I don't agree in regards to their games and technological innovations. A fair amount of which were essentially revolutionary to entire gaming genres and industries; and in some cases can arguably be pointed to when certain developers were at their absolute peak in quality and talent (Rareware comes to mind).

As much as I'm a fan of the system, I honestly think Wii U would be their worst machine and era to be honest. The console and controller was a huge misfire in design and marketing; and while it has a selection of great games, I can't say they are/were as groundbreaking as their N64 offerings (evolutionary would probably be a more fitting term for certain Wii U entries IMO; Mario Kart 8 and Smash Bros. 4 I feel are solid refinements of the groundwork laid by past entries). Coming off from the Wii era, which is when they really managed to turn things around after being dogged by their missteps with N64 and the GC, it's an amazing country-mile of a step back in comparison.

I also feel that without question, the overall level of support for the Wii U from both Nintendo and third-parties was arguably worse than the N64 too. Especially from Nintendo's part, in regards to the droughts being much more noticeable and Nintendo essentially putting the Wii U on autopilot after the first few years of the systems life, with offerings in the console's later life being of very dubious direction and quality and Nintendo as a whole seeming to fall out of touch of what their fans want and expect from them as a developer / publisher.

 

[GabeTheGrouch76]

What? The PSX ?

Popular abbreviation name for the original PlayStation. I myself don't really understand why the "X" is used, or where it originated from.

(Sorry for the double post.)

 

[MacTag]

For me it is still the Gamecube that is the worst. Never cared for Smash, worst Mario worst Zelda and worst Mario Kart. I liked Prime but to me still fell short of Super too. It did not have the games I loved on 64 like Mario 64, Kart 64, Goldeneye, Blast Corps, Wave Race 64 , Perfect Dark etc etc.

I have to agree. Pikmin and Prime were highpoints but the system and games were really a let down in so many ways. Wii U is definitely a contender though and feels like a similarly missed opportunity with an almost identical tragic outcome.

In comparison I think N64 and Wii both showed Nintendo really firing on all cylinders at their creative industry defining best. Even if 3rd parties generally cold shouldered the systems, Nintendo's own efforts were strong enough to lift the platforms up single handedly.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

Popular abbreviation name for the original PlayStation. I myself don't really understand why the "X" is used, or where it originated from.

(Sorry for the double post.)

The PlayStation was, at least in the US, supposed to be called PSX, because simply "Playstation" failed to gain interest in focus study groups. They obviously changed it, but a lot of the early marketing material was already labeled PSX, so people kept calling it PSX.

They wound up releasing an actual PSX in 2003.

 

[LordOfChaos]

What you say sounds plausible, I can't say it's wrong because I know I'm looking through heavy nostalgia glasses. It may be their worst era, it may not be...But it was my first console and my most loved.

 

[TheMink]

I don't really agree with the OP but I see many people saying "quality over quantity." Is that in comparison to later Nintendo eras? Because if that's supposed to be in comparison with PS1 that's nonsense.

 

[Rambler]

The n64 can't be the worst because Nintendo still made games for more than one audience back then, they still had some semblance of 3rd party support, and their second party guys were still able to make more than one game every two thousand years.

I liked the Nintendo that could give you a Mario AND a Perfect Dark.

 

[jobrro]

Never owned an N64 but logged some hours at friends' houses. With it's four controller ports built in it was king of multiplayer. Had fun times with Diddy Kong Racing, Star Fox, Mario Party and even Buck Bumble.

Looking back the whole era was pretty awkward for 3D games. We went from good looking 2D games on the Mega Drive and SNES to bad looking 3D games on Saturn/PSX/N64 but it opened new game play opportunities so we dealt with it. Thought in the 32/64bit era art style could certainly help, it wasn't until the Dreamcast that 3D looked good.

 

[jroc74]

What's amazing is in all this I totally forgot about the Wii U.

OP, I might have to re think my stance...lol. I initially agreed with you. But forgetting a console doesen't look good for that console.

And I agree about the Wii being very under rated. Some folks need to look past waggle. And realize it had alot more to its library than shovel ware.

 

[RBIYF]

Completely disagree.

Though the argument can be made that the games that were on N64 have aged badly, it's a moot point to me, because that era was the most fun for me and brought the fondest memories.

...and I don't believe I'm alone. There is a reason that to this day, 1998, a year smack in the middle of the "N64" era, is still considered one of the or even the best year in the history of gaming.

The design template introduced in games from that era are still used and influential in games to this day.

Again, though one can make the argument N64 games have aged badly, I can't think of any other era that was such a leap and impact of going from 2D to 3D. Thanks to that transition, the N64 era literally defined the formula of many of the genres we still play to day.

 

[ahoyhoy]

The N64 era will be lost to history, as it rightfully should. Those games have not aged well and many are unplayable by modern standards.

 

[Rambler]

The n64 is a lot like the 3ds in that it had good games that I wish were on literally anything else.

 

[javac]

N64 legit one of the worst cosoles of all time.

 

[Cepheus]

no way have PS1 games aged better than N64 games in my opinion. PS1 games, looking back, for the most part look like shit.

This. The 2D PS1 games still look fantastic, though.

I think that the Wii U era is worse than the N64 one. Neither had Metroid but at least the N64 had F-Zero.