Support NeoGAF

[Eddie Griffin]

How old were you in 1996?
Mario 64 was a technical marvel at the time. The fluidity of the animation in a 3D game was unrivaled. I remember a lot of PC gamers being even impressed by it at the time.

Your anecdotes don't change the fact the game was not even close to technically impressive at all. Most likely you are using a nostalgia or eye candy argument. The game was technically flawed. It also was not fluid. It was clunky. But you were probably a kid back then and easily impressed.

 

[JimiNutz]

I thought it looked amazing but I also didn't like the open world exploration feel to it. I wanted those graphics but with straight forward Mario gameplay.
I also found the camera annoying at times.
I did warm to the game eventually though.

 

[biggersmaller]

How old were you in 1996?
Mario 64 was a technical marvel at the time. The fluidity of the animation in a 3D game was unrivaled. I remember a lot of PC gamers being even impressed by it at the time.

Age is so important. If you had already been gaming to that point, I don't see how anyone was utterly unimpressed. Maybe I could understand a lack of compulsive fapping if not your thing - but not even a spark of interest? Please.

 

[Screenboy]

I am playing the future

 

[timetokill]

I had a PlayStation at the time and it made crash instantly look old and dated. 3d analog full range of motion. huge diversity of worlds. way better soundtrack. no load times. everything felt giant and open and begged you to explore. great controls. great soundtrack.

crash felt boxed in, felt like you were swimming through shimmering pixels. it felt archaic. the camera was trash, with weird angles not showing properly due to psx limitations and varied angles of ground. you're controlling a character in 3d space with digital controls for crying out loud.

Mario 64 opened everything up and led to non-stop imitation and inspiration. Crash was forgotten. ultimately as "pretty" as Crash was, poor gameplay doomed it. meanwhile merely controlling Mario in Mario 64 was so fun that little were overjoyed to run around the courtyard for hours.

claiming Mario is "clunky" while crash is smooth is a straight up bizarro land claim.

I think sterling nailed it here: http://www.destructoid.com/ten-classic-games-that-did-not-age-well-154409.phtml

 

[biggersmaller]

Your anecdotes don't change the fact the game was not even close to technically impressive at all. Most likely you are using a nostalgia or eye candy argument. The game was technically flawed. It also was not fluid. It was clunky. But you were probably a kid back then and easily impressed.

It was technically impressive in not being the first 3D game, but defining the 3D platformer experience. How much more technically impressive does a game in 1996 need to be? It's like complaining the Apollo spacecrafts were unimpressive as they relied on low-spec computers.

 

[Eddie Griffin]

Too bad Naughty Dog didn't throw together a bunch of empty levels filled with non-threatening obstacles and banal gameplay objectives such as "touch treasure chests in random order!", rather than creating tight, challenging obstacle courses filled with classic platforming challenges. Then Crash would've made IGN's top 100 for sure!

Crash was actually and is on a lot of top lists. Its just that some put Crash 2 and 3 as replacements because they were improvements with top quality over other platfomers on the console. Unlike Mario which got its butt shipped by both banjo games and is usually ahead of Mario on non-nostalgia lists from what I have seen through the years.

 

[timetokill]

2. Camera angles have nothing to do with what's going on screen and in motion.

hahaha, WHAT

 

[KooopaKid]

This doesn't apply for numerous reasons. First of all anybody would have left you for saying crash is 2D, which shows you have no clue what your taking about. 2. Camera angles have nothing to do with what's going on screen and in motion. Mario 64 is empty, Crash has nearly 3x the stuff going on while still running smoothly with extra stuff in the background and forground. Its more machine nintendo
So camera and history changes nothing. At most its a small advantage. Mario 64 struggles with half the stuff as Crash with nothing going on in comparison running worse.

Why do you think so many reviewers praised Banjo so much?

You really don't know what you're talking about. Crash Bandicoot plays like a 2D game. The camera is fixed. It's easier to make a pretty corridor than fully explorable areas.
Super Mario 64 is one of the few games where the term revolutionary applies.
At the same time on PC the most impressive 3D game was Quake...

 

[Eddie Griffin]

It was technically impressive in not being the first 3D game, but defining 3D platformer experience. How much more technically impressive does a game in 1996 need to be?

I don't think you know what technically impressive means. Mario 64 is not the most optimized game.

It was no where near as big an impact as people imply in this thread other wise the N64 might have actually sold outside the u.s.a.

 

[Percy]

"What the fuck is with this controller?" was mine.

Was not a fan of that monstrosity at all.

 

[BumblebeeCody]

It's like...I can move anywhere!

 

[DaleinCalgary]

Still my favorite gaming experience outside of Dark Age of Camelot.

 

[Gorestrafe]

Mindblowing indeed.

Nothing will ever top the transition from 2D to 3D and Mario 64 was truly a revolutionary experience that can never be replicated.

Nothing will ever top that Christmas morning... we got our N64 with Mario 64, Star Wars Shadow of the Empire and Wace Race 64. The only problem? We didn't have a tv with component jacks so we had to wait until boxing day to go to eb games get an rf adapter. Let me tell you, as an 11-year-old kid, that wait was brutal!

 

[JordanN]

Crash is also locked into specific camera angles. It's 2d with 3d models. You can do more when you don't have free camera rotation. Even today rotating the camera quickly will slow down rendering, as textures and geometry have to be quickly dumped and reloaded.

I never heard of this.

Geometry is already loaded into a level. The game only has to render what the camera sees. In fact, newer games deal with this better. There was no polygon culling on the PS1, so the game was always rendering stuff in the background, even when the camera wasn't focused on it.

As for textures, same deal. They're stored in memory. The only exception is when they're streamed. However, I've never encountered texture popping or slowdowns by simply moving the camera.

 

[KooopaKid]

Your anecdotes don't change the fact the game was not even close to technically impressive at all. Most likely you are using a nostalgia or eye candy argument. The game was technically flawed. It also was not fluid. It was clunky. But you were probably a kid back then and easily impressed.

I think you are trolling. Again what full 3D console game was more impressive in 1996? The answer is none.

 

[Griss]

Judging from that Super Mario World topic, there seems to be a widespread conception of this game as a religious experience that was universally awe-inspiring, and that it was singularly looked upon as the greatest leap in game design history.

Well, you nailed it OP. I struggled to believe it was real, even as I was playing it. It felt like a genuine magic, inexplicable, that sucked you into a new world.

I spent a half hour at least in the courtyard just running around and diving into the water. Swimming in a 3D space in the water, and how well it worked, is something I'd never forget. I thought: 'Imagine a whole level - an ocean! - filled with amazing things to swim through! Of course, a couple of hours later I was playing exactly that kind of level, backed with one of the best pieces of music written for games.

In its combination of leap in game design and also artistic execution, I'm not sure anything could ever top it. I felt a real sense of joy at human accomplishment while playing it. The kind of joy I feel when listening to an astonishing symphony or something. Glad to be alive to experience it. That kind of feeling. I'll probably never feel that way playing a game again.

 

[Eddie Griffin]

You really don't know what you're talking about. Crash Bandicoot plays like a 2D game. The camera is fixed. It's easier to make a pretty corridor than fully explorable areas.
Super Mario 64 is one of the few games where the term revolutionary applies.
At the same time on PC the most impressive 3D game was Quake...

Im sure you know all about the pc in 96.

Also you have no idea what you are talking about. The game is still 3d. The game has 3x more going on screen, with back effects like rain, fire, rivers, etc. Causing no slowdown it low textures, all at a steady frame rate. Lets not forget the enemies as well.

Mario 64 is Empty. EMPTY. With the game barely doing anything yet it runs like garbage, has problems with textures, uses repeats, lag, blur, fof, etc. A lot of objects and effects looks to have been renders in blocks, and how are those trees doing?

There is no technical objective defence for Mario 64.

 

[Ninjimbo]

It was one of the few times that I was blown away. I avoided that game for as long as I could, actually, only wanting to play Goldeneye and stuff like Duke Nukem. But when my dad got it for me, an entire week disappeared from my life. It's a true masterpiece.

 

[Eddie Griffin]

I think you are trolling. Again what full 3D console game was more impressive in 1996? The answer is none.

Now your backpeddling. Because thats not what the argument was about.

 

[Eddie Griffin]

I never heard of this.

Geometry is already loaded into a level. The game only has to render what the camera sees. In fact, newer games deal with this better. There was no polygon culling on the PS1, so the game was always rendering stuff in the background, even when the camera wasn't focused on it.

As for textures, same deal. They're stored in memory. The only exception is when they're streamed. However, I've never encountered texture popping or slowdowns by simply moving the camera.

Hmmm.

 

[Always-honest]

Fuck that camera and fuck those ugly graphics.

But i loved the game

 

[shandy706]

Crash bandicoot.

I swear my copy of CB must have been glitched, it didn't hold a candle to M64 in my library.

I really enjoyed CB, but I don't see the comparison (overall).

 

[jblank83]

I never heard of this.

Here's an example:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/117447-13-skyrim-huge-drop-powerfull

What's not on screen is not being actively rendered, as you say, even if it's in readily accessible memory. When you quickly turn the processor has to dump data from certain portions of memory, push new data from one part of memory to another, recalculate a lot of information (such as lighting), and redraw a lot of textures and polys. If you turn slowly, you may not see it. Modern games may do it better, but that's not the real point.

The point is that when you have fixed camera angles and linear paths from which the player can not stray, you can more easily optimize art assets and performance. When you have free camera rotation and free exploration, you have to think about worst case scenarios: what parts of the geometry can the player reach, how many polys are visible from that angle, etc.

 

[Farslain]

I didn't love it, I missed the visual beauty of the previous 16-bit era so much it blinkered my ability to appreciate the amazing experience beyond the visual.

It wasn't perhaps until my 2nd or 3rd time playing it, years after release that I enjoyed it for what it was.

Super Mario World and then Link to the Past were near religious experiences for me at release, when you delete complete save files on a game because there are no slots left for you to complete it again you know you love that game perhaps a little too much.

 

[Pakkidis]

Out of all the games on the N64, it probably aged the best. I just beat it again a few months ago and was amazed how fun it still was.

 

[Mman235]

With the game barely doing anything yet it runs like garbage

You keep talking about how bad the framerate is but Mario 64 runs at 30FPS or close to it outside a few instances, framerate is the #1 thing that bothers me about games from that time, and Mario 64 is one of the few I consider in the good enough range.

I think sterling nailed it here: http://www.destructoid.com/ten-classic-games-that-did-not-age-well-154409.phtml

I agree that Crash technically outstripping Mario 64 is some bizzaro world shit, but wow this article is fucking awful (with some bonus misogyny to boot).

 

[Pocky4Th3Win]

Thought it was cool and then I went back to playing Quake 1 Team Fortress...

 

[KooopaKid]

Now your backpeddling. Because thats not what the argument was about.

Then this discussion has no point. Super Mario 64 was the most technically advanced 3D console game in 1996. PS1 could never run it. What does that tell you?
I feel like I'm back in high school ffs.

 

[rjc571]

I had a PlayStation at the time and it made crash instantly look old and dated. 3d analog full range of motion. huge diversity of worlds. way better soundtrack. no load times. everything felt giant and open and begged you to explore. great controls. great soundtrack.

crash felt boxed in, felt like you were swimming through shimmering pixels. it felt archaic. the camera was trash, with weird angles not showing properly due to psx limitations and varied angles of ground. you're controlling a character in 3d space with digital controls for crying out loud.

Mario 64 opened everything up and led to non-stop imitation and inspiration. Crash was forgotten. ultimately as "pretty" as Crash was, poor gameplay doomed it. meanwhile merely controlling Mario in Mario 64 was so fun that little were overjoyed to run around the courtyard for hours.

claiming Mario is "clunky" while crash is smooth is a straight up bizarro land claim.

I think sterling nailed it here: http://www.destructoid.com/ten-classic-games-that-did-not-age-well-154409.phtml

So industry trends determine what makes a game good? Guess Call of Duty and Flappy Birds are the pinnacle of gaming, then.

It sounds to me like your 1996 self wasn't prepared for undertaking 3D gameplay with legitimate challenge. The controls in Crash worked flawlessly and I was always able to make him go exactly where I wanted, so your complain there holds no water. In fact I would say Crash's controls worked BETTER than Mario's. The latter required far too much momentum buildup, which resulted in awkward moments whenever the game featured stop and go platforming.

I'm glad you enjoyed endlessly running around in circles in Mario 64, but comparing actual gameplay content, the Crash games absolutely obliterate it. The Crash games are endlessly replayable because they feature smart level design which puts your gaming skills to the test. Mario 64 on the other hand is a complete chore to slog through once you know how to obtain the stars.

 

[Thrakier]

I was really blown away. I first played it at a demo kiosk at Toys R Us before the system was actually released, and I spent the entire day there playing it with my mouth agape. I'd never played anything like it, and it was so fun too.

Same for me, except I watched the video cassette for hours on end before....

 

[DarkKyo]

I think I was too young to fully appreciate it when it came out (I was 11 or 12 I'm pretty sure) but I remember being blown away by how fun it was.

 

[Griss]

So industry trends determine what makes a game good? Guess Call of Duty and Flappy Birds are the pinnacle of gaming, then.

It sounds to me like your 1996 self wasn't prepared for undertaking 3D gameplay with legitimate challenge. The controls in Crash worked flawlessly and I was always able to make him go exactly where I wanted, so your complain there holds no water. In fact I would say Crash's controls worked BETTER than Mario's. The latter required far too much momentum buildup, which resulted in awkward moments whenever the game featured stop and go platforming.

I'm glad you enjoyed endlessly running around in circles in Mario 64, but comparing actual gameplay content, the Crash games absolutely obliterate it. The Crash games are endlessly replayable because they feature smart level design which puts your gaming skills to the test. Mario 64 on the other hand is a complete chore to slog through once you know how to obtain the stars.

Every so often you come across an opinion that you really struggle to believe exists, or was honestly written. This is one for me. Blows my mind that anyone could honestly hold this opinion, but if you do then fair play to you. I'd suggest that you're in a minority.

 

[Percy]

I agree that Crash technically outstripping Mario 64 is some bizzaro world shit, but wow this article is fucking awful (with some bonus misogyny to boot).

Jim Sterling really was at his absolute worst when he was at Destructoid.

 

[biggersmaller]

I don't think you know what technically impressive means. Mario 64 is not the most optimized game.

It was no where near as big an impact as people imply in this thread other wise the N64 might have actually sold outside the u.s.a.

Was it Pixar? No. However, it incorporated analog control technology, 3D rendering technology, and audio technology in a new way that impressed people. I remember reading gamers/non-gamers alike who wrote about nothing but the jump mechanics and the birds chirping, passer-byes stopping in their tracks without even touching the controls - within like 30 seconds of watching being in awe and murmuring to strangers standing next to them.

How well do you remember that launch?

 

[DSN2K]

Mario 64 camera changed everything.

 

[The Albatross]

I wanted to not like it because I was a Genesis and then Playstation fanboy, but it was undeniably awesome.

 

[phanphare]

I just wanted a straightforward action game like the previous Marios.

.....which ones were those again?

 

[Aquavelvaman]

"You can see his hand reach out and grab the door knob. This is indistinguishable from real life."

 

[Eddie Griffin]

Here's an example:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/117447-13-skyrim-huge-drop-powerfull

What's not on screen is not being actively rendered, as you say, even if it's in readily accessible memory. When you quickly turn the processor has to dump data from certain portions of memory, push new data from one part of memory to another, recalculate a lot of information (such as lighting), and redraw a lot of textures and polys. If you turn slowly, you may not see it. Modern games may do it better, but that's not the real point.

The point is that when you have fixed camera angles and linear paths from which the player can not stray, you can more easily optimize art assets and performance. When you have free camera rotation and free exploration, you have to think about worst case scenarios: what parts of the geometry can the player reach, how many polys are visible from that angle, etc.

Lost you at art assets.

What you don't get still is Crash can draw non,square only gone, while running smoothly, with multiple animations on screen, moving polygons with a.i., back effects like rain, moving rivers, etc. With objects and enemies also moving fluidly, with lack of fig, with textures kidding fast and smoothly, with out heavy reuse of assests through most the game, with on the spot input etc.

AT the same time

Mario 64 has nothing going on, has issues loading textures, has slow down, fog, blur, frame drops, heavily reused assets, can't even put in really 3D trees, freaks out with only a bit more on screen, enemies are usually isolated, next to no back effects, etc.

It is impossible to state Mario 64 is technically superior.

 

[Platy]

Spend half an hour stretching Mario's face ... A then spend 10 minutes running outside the castle so in awe that I had to call my parents.

I will never forget my mom's face when she said "he is BREATHING"

 

[santi_yo]

Amazing. I sent an entire hour jumping, running, swimming and exploring the whole area outside the castle.

 

[Mman235]

Jim Sterling really was at his absolute worst when he was at Destructoid.

Yeah I give a pass here because old Sterling was basically an entirely different person to who he is now. I have no idea what happened to make him shift from being Arthur Gies/Ben Kuchura level (before they existed) to one of the more reasonable voices in games right now, but I'm not complaining.

 

[clo1_2000]

I was really blown away. I first played it at a demo kiosk at Toys R Us before the system was actually released, and I spent the entire day there playing it with my mouth agape. I'd never played anything like it, and it was so fun too.

This was my exact experience at a San Mateo/Redwood City TRU here in California. My GF at the time didn't think it a good use if funds...ffffff that. Mario still around, we broke up 2 years later. Decision vindicated.

 

[jblank83]

What you don't get still is Crash can draw non,square only gone, while running smoothly, with multiple animations on screen, moving polygons with a.i., back effects like rain, moving rivers, etc. With objects and enemies also moving fluidly, with lack of fig, with textures kidding fast and smoothly, with out heavy reuse of assests through most the game, with on the spot input etc.

I like you. You're dedicated.

 

[Eddie Griffin]

Was it Pixar? No. However, it incorporated analog control technology, 3D rendering technology, and audio technology in a new way that impressed people. I remember reading gamers/non-gamers alike who wrote about nothing but the jump mechanics and the birds chirping, passer-byes stopping in their tracks without even touching the controls - within like 30 seconds of watching being in awe and murmuring to strangers standing next to them.

How well do you remember that launch?

More anecdotes. It technically wasn't even new, maybe on consoles. But it wasn't this mind blowing impressive game you think it is. Something that is not done often does nit mean it cant be executed badly. N64 would have soldoutside one country if the games were as kindling mb impressive people are imagining.

 

[JordanN]

It is impossible to state Mario 64 is technically superior.

The Crash devs actually got to meet Miyamoto and they discussed their games.

If I had to guess what Miyamoto-san was thinking when he was playing Crash in the photo above it was probably “damn this game looks good.”

Of course he had consciously made the decision to forgo the complex worlds Crash contained. The N64 had prettier polygons, but less of them to offer. Crash Bandicoot could not be made on the N64. Of course Mario 64 couldn’t be done on the PlayStation either. The PlayStation sucked at big polygons, specifically scissoring them without warping textures. Mario 64 relied on big polygons.

But more fundamentally, the open world he chose would tax ANY system out at that time. Mario 64 couldn’t be open and any more detailed than it was. Miyamoto-san had chosen open and that meant simple.

http://all-things-andy-gavin.com/2011/02/07/making-crash-bandicoot-part-6/

Both games had their pros and cons. Mario 64 went for a bigger world. This was not possible on PS1. Crash had a higher polycount, but was very confined. But it could not be done on the N64.

 

[MrCunningham]

Then Crash would've made IGN's top 100 for sure!

Funny thing is... IGN existed in 1996....

So let's check out their Crash Bandicoot review from that year: 7.5 (man what a short review, I guess they weren't paying editors by word count back then.)
Their Mario 64 review from 1996: 9.8
They gave the original Tomb Raider (on PS1) a 9.3, and even used the quote: "PlayStation finally has its own Mario" for this one.

Gamespot originally gave Crash Bandicoot a 6.8 in their 1996 review, and Mario 64 was given a 9.4..Tomb Raider received an 8.5 on Playstation and PC, though the Saturn version had a score of 7.9.

These reviews shouldn't be a barometer for anything. But it is interesting to look back on them. 2D platformers were tired out by 1996 and people were looking for the next big thing. Crash Bandicoot was partially looked at as a "been there done that" experience from the gaming press, but with prettier graphics. It was a 2D platformer that was played in a 3D axis. It still did get its acclaim, but not on the level most people would make it out to be. Mario 64 on the other hand was being hailed as revolutionary by just about every game review outlet, and even Tomb Raider was looked at as the next best thing to Mario 64. Nights into Dreams on the Saturn got a lot of props back then too for its quirkiness. But it is hard to find reviews for this one. Neither Gamespot or IGN have original reviews for this one, just retro reviews or reviews from the digital re-release.

Resident Evil and Quake were also looked at as revolutionary in 1996 as well.

 

[Peltz]

Pretty much this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFlcqWQVVuU

Spoiler

(I wouldn't be surprised if this kid was on Gaf now)

 

[Eddie Griffin]

Then this discussion has no point. Super Mario 64 was the most technically advanced 3D console game in 1996. PS1 could never run it. What does that tell you?
I feel like I'm back in high school ffs.

No it wasn't crash was and it wasn't even the best. You back password and said "full" because you know you have no argument. Facts don't change because you want them to. The game can be run on the PS1 easily btw, Spyro 2 and 3 are more impressive and the creaking DS cab run the game.

Game ran, moved, loaded polygons, had 2D trees, loaded textures, like crap, period.