-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Nintendo 64 Vs. PlayStation: Which console was more innovative?
- Thread starter Jubenhimer
- Start date
- Hardware Platform
killatopak
Member
There was one thing Playstation showed that no other had done before.
Beat Nintendo.
Unfortunately, it came with a cost. RIP in peace Sega.
Beat Nintendo.
Unfortunately, it came with a cost. RIP in peace Sega.
Allnamestakenlol
Member
Innovative how? Just from a hardware/tech perspective? If so, it's a bit of a draw, imo. But from a games perspective, I'd have to give it to PS.
Holammer
Member
Maybe the N64 was more "innovative", but it was a failure sales wise and its controller was an evolutionary dead end.
It had so few games it's actually within the realm of possibility to get a full game collection for it.
Nintendo was lucky to have strong handhelds carrying the company.
It had so few games it's actually within the realm of possibility to get a full game collection for it.
Nintendo was lucky to have strong handhelds carrying the company.
Sub_Level
wants to fuck an Asian grill.
What is this meme about crediting N64 with the analog stick? Nintendo themselves already did that in the 80s. NES Max is also a lot more similar to modern controllers than the clusterfuck that is the N64 pad.
Mario 64, as a videogame, absolutely deserves to be hailed as a groundbreaking moment in innovative videogame design. Of course it does. We still use the fundamentals from that game today. But the N64 console itself cannot be credited with that.
Mario 64, as a videogame, absolutely deserves to be hailed as a groundbreaking moment in innovative videogame design. Of course it does. We still use the fundamentals from that game today. But the N64 console itself cannot be credited with that.
By the same logic, analog sticks weren't Nintendo's innovation, because Arcade had them long before?
FingerBang
Member
The PlayStation didn't launch with the Dual Shock. The Analog Controller and the Dual Shock, were launched after the Nintendo 64 was launched. They made those features mainstream by creating games that used them well. Same with the rumble pack and the DualShock. Sony saw Nintendo doing that and decided to improve the formula by adding dual sticks and dual motors. It made a lot of sense since PlayStation wanted to make sure Nintendo didn't have an edge.
The thread is about being the most innovative and I think from a hardware perspective Nintendo was more innovative overall. For everything else, Sony dominated and the race wasn't close. We can make several examples of innovative consoles that failed against the competition. Dreamcast vs PS2, PS Vita vs 3DS etc.
Last edited:
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
PS1
- CD based, so lots of content, great audio, cheap games ($60 cdn)
- Some games let you play music CDs while you played (I'd listen to Hole CDs while playing Vigilante 8)
- Smoother moving but blocky 3D
- Cut scenes (if you like that shit)
- Awesome first party games and third party games
- Flakey reliability (upside down trick, I had to do it myself and eventually it didnt work)
- $300 US
N64
- Faster loading with cartridges, but $100 games in Canada
- Antialiasing. Choppier frame rate but smoother looking 3D visuals
- Awesome first party games. Crap third party games
- I think it was a tank. Dont remember seeing gaming threads about N64s breaking
- $200 US
Overall, I go with PS. Way better games for my tastes. I'm not a Nintendo franchise gamer.
- CD based, so lots of content, great audio, cheap games ($60 cdn)
- Some games let you play music CDs while you played (I'd listen to Hole CDs while playing Vigilante 8)
- Smoother moving but blocky 3D
- Cut scenes (if you like that shit)
- Awesome first party games and third party games
- Flakey reliability (upside down trick, I had to do it myself and eventually it didnt work)
- $300 US
N64
- Faster loading with cartridges, but $100 games in Canada
- Antialiasing. Choppier frame rate but smoother looking 3D visuals
- Awesome first party games. Crap third party games
- I think it was a tank. Dont remember seeing gaming threads about N64s breaking
- $200 US
Overall, I go with PS. Way better games for my tastes. I'm not a Nintendo franchise gamer.
Last edited:
Context.
CDs were in EVERY new console launched around then, going back to stuff like the Mega CD. It was the default medium.
I'm not aware that analogue sticks had EVER been used on a controller before, and coupled with the proof of concept that was Mario 64, they basically instantly showed the whole industry how 3d games should be approached from now on. I mean, really, with the camera buttons, they even went 90% of the way to defining the dual stick setup as well.
If that's not innovation, I don't know what is. It was a genius move.
Magnific0giganticus
Banned
All you wrote I know. You don't know the definition of mainstream. I agree with you on the innovation part, but sadly Nintendo didn't make it mainstream, Sony did.
Last edited:
Oh, for sure. But if your reason for picking PS is that it had a CD rom, I think a history lesson is in order, is all I'm saying
BigBeauford
Member
Software Side, N64 had much higher highs, but also lower lows. Hardware wise, 64 I felt was better and more innovative.
IFireflyl
Gold Member
The analogue stick existed in consoles prior to the N64 though. The Atari 5200 had it. So giving the N64 credit for the analogue stick is no different from giving the Playstation credit for the CD-ROM.
Playstation had the first dual analogue controller, and that is what is now the standard.
The N64 rumble pak was an addon that wasn't available with the original console, and you had to use 2 AAA batteries to power it. The first Playstation DualShock controller came out only seven months later and was far more innovative, and it was powered by the console itself.
The Playstation controller had R1, R2, L1, and L2 buttons. The N64 controller had R1/L1 buttons (whatever they called them), and the Z-Trigger. I'm not sure how the Z-Trigger (which we've never seen in a first-party controller since the N64) is somehow innovative to you. The N64 had three top/back buttons, and the Playstation had four. That seems to be a far better design to me, especially since all four buttons on the Playstation controller are easily accessible, while the Z-Trigger requires your hand to be in a certain spot which doesn't always work with that controller design.
The first Playstation DualShock controller is the foundation for all Playstation and Xbox controllers that have come out since then, as well as the Switch Pro controller. The N64 controller was idiotic. That trident truly makes no sense, and there's a reason nobody ever copied that monstrosity.
nkarafo
Member
Εven that was something the 3DO did before the PS1. Not counting PCs. And assuming the PS1 came before the Saturn.
Come on People, the CD-Rom was not PS1's innovation. Not in any way.
Was the PS1 your first game system or something? So many are posting this, what a weird thread.
Last edited:
Dream-Knife
Banned
THPS on 64 was great. Levels load immediately.
Ps1 controller was just a SNES controller with 2 extra shoulder buttons and nice handles. When they bolted two sticks on it became a rather uncomfortable controller.
Below are some of them.
I counted 7 games I like. Here's 8 from n64:
Perfect Dark
Goldeneye
Ocarina of Time (GOAT)
Majoras Mask
F-Zero X
Smash 64
Wave Rave 64
Wipeout 64 (lol)
Are you one of those people who say "HoW Do yOu hOlD It wItHoUt 3 hAnDs?"
DGAF about FF after playing Xenogears, they don't even compare. MGS was good though. I have RE2 for N64. Don't care about that series though.Really? That’s ALL they were missing?
You’re just going to skip over all 3D Final Fantasy games, mature games like Silent Hill, or even Resident Evil? Metal Gear Solid rings a bell? Tomb Raider? & a thousand more?
I ended only having like 7 games for N64 in the end. Quite disappointed in most of their library vs my tastes. If it weren’t for the Capcom exclusive deal for the Cube, N64 would have been my last Nintendo console
Last edited:
nkarafo
Member
Shoulder buttons were a SNES controller innovation though. The PS1 just added more.
The Ζ-trigger was exactly that, a trigger. It worked like a trigger in every FPS game and if you used the correct control scheme, it felt like holding a gun. I thought that was quite an improvement for these types of games.
Also, the trident design allowed for FPS games to be played like a keyboard/mouse. Analog for aiming and D-pad or C-buttons for walking/strafe. All FPS games were compatible with this scheme. It's the ONLY single analog controller that allows that.
Last edited:
Sosokrates
Report me if I continue to console war
They both had there pros and cons, playstation had the mass storage of CD which meant more space for audio, textures and other assets.
N64 had the faster storage of the game carts ehich acted like RAM which meant no loading times and larger open worlds.
N64 had the faster storage of the game carts ehich acted like RAM which meant no loading times and larger open worlds.
StateofMajora
Banned
About the only thing ps1 brought to the table was the possibility of higher quality cd audio. I say possibility because in fact a lot of games just used sequenced audio from the sound chip, which was also better than n64 sound because it lacked one.
Anyways, you’re a fanboy if you say playstation, full stop. Analog stick alone wins it for n64. Camera buttons. Rumble even though I don’t much care for it ; it stuck.
Mario 64, ocarina of time were revolutionary and playstation games did nowhere near that level of innovation.
Tailor made 64 games have aged much, much better overall in terms of a 3d experience.
Anyways, you’re a fanboy if you say playstation, full stop. Analog stick alone wins it for n64. Camera buttons. Rumble even though I don’t much care for it ; it stuck.
Mario 64, ocarina of time were revolutionary and playstation games did nowhere near that level of innovation.
Tailor made 64 games have aged much, much better overall in terms of a 3d experience.
Last edited:
nkarafo
Member
Not to mention no moving, mechanical parts. Which also means less noise and things to break.
If only ROMs weren't so expensive back then.... CDs would have had no chance. Arcades still used ROMs and were quite big in size (just look as some Neo-Geo games) but the price was the only thing holding the superior, faster, solid state medium back. Thankfully, SSDs showed the mainstream how mechanical parts should be a thing of the past.
Last edited:
Sosokrates
Report me if I continue to console war
Yes, in a way the N64 was a head of its time. If they had like 1gb carts back then it would of been superior in everyway.
nkarafo
Member
I wouldn't say it was ahead of it's time, the only thing it did was to keep the same tech as the previous cart based consoles and bump the size at the same pace.
CDs were never really viable for gaming (adds loading and moving parts to the picture). But the low production cost was too lucrative for the industry to ignore. They didn't really need that much space early on anyway (first CD based console was released in the late 80's), most games were the same as the carts in size with FMVs or redbook audio added. But yeah, 8MB-32MB in the late 90's was too low, games evolved much faster than cart sizes in the 5th generation. Thankfully, solid state has now catch up.
Jubenhimer
Member
The casual gamers the PS1 appealed to were a bit different than the casual gamers the Wii appealed to. The PS1 appealed to a hip, young crowd who previously believed gaming was a geeky hobby, like comic books. The CD format allowed for presentations that can appeal to this audience. Cinematic presentations, and licensed music in games like Tony Hawk's Pro Skater were a huge hit with this audience.
The Wii, was designed for people who saw modern gaming as too complicated, by offering a simpler, multiplayer focused alternative. Games like Wii Sports were designed to be enjoyed by both seasoned gamers and elders who never even played games before.
But as I said, the PlayStation was arguably the first console to do the format proper justice. The problem with something like the Sega-CD for example, was that the Genesis didn't have the hardware necessary to take advantage of the format in any meaningful way. Hence the abundance of crappy FMV games. But the PlayStation was powerful enough to use the CD format in much more interesting and exciting ways.
Last edited:
Captain Toad
Banned
The only thing the Saturn innovated was new ways to destroy a fanbase's faith in a company.
nkarafo
Member
You are correct.
Either way, both groups were considered "non-gamers" and the PS1 was the first that brought such crowd in, for better or worse. I vividly remember people who accused me of being a nerd in school for being a gamer, becoming Playstation fanboys themselves later on.
Last edited:
TheGodfather07
Member
The playstation. Dual analogue, two shoulder buttons and discs are still used today. The n64 controller is a joke by comparison.
nkarafo
Member
These are not PS1's innovations.
KungFucius
King Snowflake
Nintendo brought the analog and real 3D games to the table first. Sony half-assedly added analog to their existing controller and still haven't tried moving it. Nintendo completely blew it by using carts and essentially set themselves up to have first party only machines from that point forward. I played my PS much more than my N64. They brought the modern "cinematic" feel to games because the CD format let them load games with FMV, voice tracks, and what not and it was very entertaining even if a lot of the games looked kind of shitty. I guess what I am saying is Nintendo was most innovative on the HW side and some core gameplay like SM64 and OoT, but Sony made a machine that allowed game devs to innovate of the content in games. Both had major influence on the industry.
OrionNebula
Member
And yet it's still the basis for controllers since then *shrugs*
lachesis
Member
Well, back in PSX/N64 days - it felt like anything Nintendo did in H/W side, Sony copied it.
So I'd say other than moving onto CD, Nintendo was more innovative in terms of hardware.
As per the software side, I think PSX was more competent. I won't say it was more innovative - but it had a log of unique and experimental things going on - due to lots of niche & unique concept games by 3rd parties and 1st parties.
So I'd say other than moving onto CD, Nintendo was more innovative in terms of hardware.
As per the software side, I think PSX was more competent. I won't say it was more innovative - but it had a log of unique and experimental things going on - due to lots of niche & unique concept games by 3rd parties and 1st parties.
nkarafo
Member
Same way people credit Nintendo for Analog sticks and when asked "well it's because they made it popular and did it right", I'd imagine same logic is used here.
MS's original design failed (though was creative) and from the 360 onwards they used the PS layout but with swapped Dpad and Left Stick placement, hey, how about Nintendo and their Pro controllers, which also use the same design.
Sure, but it's still not a PS innovation. Innovation means something new, it had been done before. Sony just did it better.
A.Romero
Member
I'd say N64 was innovative in aspects like controllers and accessories.
PlayStation was more innovative in the business side of things, they truly changed everything. We would not see innovation like that again in this space until Microsoft came in with XBL, the store, etc.
Hardware-wise I'd say it would be a tie, mainly because they chose different approaches and while the PS had some advantages, the N64 had some as well but launched later and more expensive.
PlayStation was more innovative in the business side of things, they truly changed everything. We would not see innovation like that again in this space until Microsoft came in with XBL, the store, etc.
Hardware-wise I'd say it would be a tie, mainly because they chose different approaches and while the PS had some advantages, the N64 had some as well but launched later and more expensive.
Jubenhimer
Member
Innovation doesn't mean invention. You can use something that's been done before, and use it in a new way. Which is what the PlayStation and Nintendo 64 did with CD and the analog stick. Both have existed before, but Sony and Nintendo used them in new and practical ways.
93xfan
Banned
You forgot Jumping Flash 2. A great standout.
Owned a PS1 and glad I did. Always was jealous of Mario 64, Goldeneye and Ocarina of Time though.
MGS and FF7 were amazing for story, atmosphere and music, but the former 3 games stood out to me as the best examples of gameplay for the generation. They were just in a league of their own
Dream-Knife
Banned
How so? 2 sticks? Xbox and GC had the asymmetrical layout that's now standard.
N64 confirm button is where the A button is on Xbox, and the X button on PS, which is now the standard confirm button.
yurinka
Member
Analogs, triggers and rumble existed in consoles or computers since the 70s or 80s. PlayStation was the first console to sell over 100M console while N64 sold a third of that, so what became mainstream and was a big hit that influenced future ones was PlayStation, not N64.
Tech wise PSX and N64 didn't introduce any big new stuff. Not sure if to expand from L and R to keep them as thumb buttons and add triggers behind them or to include memory cards, or some kind of dual analogs but I'd bet other consoles or computers also did it before. Maybe in this generation stuff like dual analog sticks, CD, rumble, 'horns' to improve ergonomy etc became standards but they already where there.
I think the main reasons behind the fact the first PS sold way more than the other consoles of its generations plus the previous ones were:
-Sony successfully increasing and targeting the main gamer demographic back then: teenagers and young males. In previous generations the main audience were kids, but they grew so at the PSX gen they were teenagers and young adults
-Consoles reaching getting a similar tech level than arcades, enough for people to prefer to play at home instead of in the arcades
-Sony highly increasing the localization efforts for non English/Frech speaking European countries, that until then they had a very low % of properly localized console games
Last edited:
sainraja
Member
Nintendo brought back gaming. They pretty much brought gaming back to life. They defined how 3D games should be built.
Sony refined and popularized gaming. They added dual analogs, four shoulder buttons and the general shape of the controller we use today.
Microsoft popularized online gaming. They focused on the social aspects, connected people, etc.
Sony refined and popularized gaming. They added dual analogs, four shoulder buttons and the general shape of the controller we use today.
Microsoft popularized online gaming. They focused on the social aspects, connected people, etc.
Ergonomic design and shape logic and with how gamers hold their controllers these days. The button placement since PS1 has pretty much remained unchanged outside of swaps, if you ask someone to mimick holding a controller they'll show their hands in the current clam hold which was popularised from the Dual Shock design.
sainraja
Member
PS1 had the DualShock controller with two sticks & four shoulder buttons (two of which are now triggers). All Xbox did was swap the position of the stick. The general shape that has been the standard started with DualShock. The original controller introduced by Xbox was a monstrosity and notice how the only thing that Xbox did differently (the black/white buttons) are no longer being used, even by them.
This part of your post shows how far you are reaching lol
"N64 confirm button is where the A button is on Xbox, and the X button on PS, which is now the standard confirm button."
Last edited:
nkarafo
Member
The CD was widely and properly used by older consoles before the Playstation.
I don't remember a single console game using the analog stick in such way as Mario 64. Analog controls isn't just a hardware thing, software also has to support it and the N64 was the first in that sense.
The Playstation did nothing with CDs the 3DO didn't do before it.
sainraja
Member
I wouldn't call the 3DO or the original Saturn popular. They didn't stick around long for a reason.
nkarafo
Member
Fixed.
manzo
Member
Just fucking imagine if
- N64 would’ve launched in 1995
- The N64 would’ve had a 4x CD-ROM
- The N64 would’ve had direct memory access for the VDP and a separate video ram for it
- The N64 would’ve had the extra 4mb RDRAM accessory built-in day one
The competition wouldn’t have held a candle.
- N64 would’ve launched in 1995
- The N64 would’ve had a 4x CD-ROM
- The N64 would’ve had direct memory access for the VDP and a separate video ram for it
- The N64 would’ve had the extra 4mb RDRAM accessory built-in day one
The competition wouldn’t have held a candle.
nkarafo
Member
Its not about popularity, its about innovation. You just can't credit the PS1 for the CDs in any scenario. But crediting the N64 for the analog seems more reasonable.
Dream-Knife
Banned
So the SNES made modern controllers then. Sony just bolted two sticks on the bottom of the controller because they had to do something regarding the 64.
No, actually take a look. On SNES most games started using Y and B as the main buttons. N64 confirmed it by moving A and B to those positions. PS1 had a weird mix of circle and X as confirm. Since PS is now a western company, they too have moved globally to that standard.
Black and white buttons weren't important that gen, as all four shoulder buttons largely weren't used. Just as the right stick on PS1 was barely used, but that's more of a fault of the PS1s lack of good FPS games.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll