It's simple
Consoles
Late 70s/Early 80s
2600
Late 80s
NES
Early 90s
Genesis/SNES
Late 90s
Playstation (though I prefer N64)
Early 00s
PS2
Late 00s
Wii
It's simple
Consoles
Late 70s/Early 80s
2600
Late 80s
NES
Early 90s
Genesis/SNES
Late 90s
Playstation (though I prefer N64)
Early 00s
PS2
Late 00s
Wii
I have to say that Tomb Raider is the first action/adventure/platformer that has open world levels. Neither Super Mario 64 or Tomb Raider are actually open world due to certain barriers.
Super Mario 64's castle is nothing more than a hub in which you are able to travel to the rest of the stages in any order of your choosing, much like Super Mario Bros 3 and Super Mario World's still hubs, or even better, Chakan's and Bubsy's hubs which you go to which stage you want.
Tomb Raider is three very large connected areas which just like Super Mario 64's stages, you can tackle however you want and are free to go wherever you want and you need to actually search for the items in order to proceed. However, once leaving one of those areas, it locks behind you and is unable to be returned to(making two different saves allow you to traverse each of the three areas.)
Both games have stages that are open world, but the games themselves are not.
King's Field, although not a platformer, is an open world action/adventure game. You could technically call it a platformer because in order to get to some areas and some of the special items, you're required to walk off an edge and land on another. The only difference here is you can't jump.
There's also Daggerfall. The second Elder Scrolls game, but the first of them to allow you to jump and you are required to do so. Another game that was released prior to that of Super Mario 64 being an action adventure game, this one requiring platforming in order to complete. This is the only game listed that is an action/adventure/platformer that is infact open world.
"Free-roaming" is not relevant to my original statement. You're throwing in unrelated qualifiers to artificially boost Mario 64's importance.
Those games would have been 3D anyway. Mario 64 only influenced how they did it, not the mere fact of being 3D.But after Super Mario 64 was released, the market was suddenly flooded with them: Spyro, Gex, Croc, Glover, 40 Winks, Ape Escape, Banjo-Kazooie, Donkey Kong 64, Rayman 2, Shadow Man, and even Mega Man and Castlevania.
You can't be serious. No one game can do that. There was an industry-wide shift. There are plenty of 3D games before and after Mario 64 that had an impact.For better or worse, Super Mario 64 single-handedly destroyed 2D gaming. As a result of that one game, 3D games became the standard for everyone.
Also, 2D gaming was not destroyed in late 1996. You'd probably get that impression if your only system was N64.
Last edited by j_factor; 06-23-2010 at 12:26 PM.
Super Mario 64 was monumental in 1996. It basically did for 3d games, what Super Mario Bros. did for platformers. When SM64 came out, that was all I could think about, and then waited for Super Mario 64 2 to come out, but to no avail.
Check out my Super Mario 64 review http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhpMssIeRis
No, if it weren't for Super Mario 64, those games I listed wouldn't have existed in the first place.
You're right, there was in industry-wide shift...because of Super Mario 64. And how many 2D PlayStation platform games were released after Super Mario 64?
To deny the success, importance, and overwhelming influence of Super Mario 64 on the video game industry is silly.
How many were released before? Not many and not many after.
EDIT: found this list on this site of 2D ps1 us titles
http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?t=54374
More than I thought but I wonder how many came before and then after Mario 64.
Last edited by pepharytheworm; 06-23-2010 at 05:36 PM.
Where's my chippy? There's my chippy.
Well it was going up against the Xbox 360 which had a horrible RRoD problem and the PS3 which didn't have any good games for about the same amount of time and cost 3x as much. If you bought a 360 it was like throwing $450 down the toilet, and if you bought a PS3 it was like spending $600 that could have been in a bank collecting interest. The Wii cost $280 and had some interesting potential. GameCube backwards compatibility also helped it out through the start.
I never said it was the bees knees, you're making a straw man argument. I said it was better than any other option on a portable.
You still haven't played even a small fraction of all the games available nor have you bothered to look at the titles being put out and the developers working on them given the patently false claims you were making about it.I like DS and PSP. I do not like iPhone games. I've played plenty of them to know it's not really worth my time.
It has Square Enix developing for it, and you say it has no Crisis Core competitor? You can make subjective claims about what counts as a CC competitor, or not, but you'll be eating your hat once Square ports it. As for Pokemon competitor, if that's your thing, then sure, get a DS. But neither the DS, and espeically the PSP (with it's single analog stick fail) has a single dual analog shooter, and iOS has at least 50.The thing has no Crisis Core competitor. No pokemon competitor.
The best selling game on the PSP is Monster Hunter Freedom's Unite at 3.5 million sales. Assassins Creed 2 on iOS hit over 8.5 million sales, and it's not even the highest selling game. You have no argument. iOS has hugely successful games by big name developers that are preferring it as a platform to the PSP and DS - notice the lack of Sonic 4 on either platform.If they already did better on iPhone, tell me the name of the game then.
bejeweled doesn't count.
I think you're neglecting the importance of 3dfx on the PC with games like Quake.
You're not making a great case for yourself with nothing to back up quips like this.And once again, you've proven that nothing you post should be taken seriously.
You claim not to be a gamer, yet you're here. You're comparing GoldenEye on the N64 to the PS. I'm comparing it to the slew of far better FPS games for the PC. It's thoroughly unimpressive.
You're twisting things. The only genre that the N64 has anything that I have no interest in is wrestling. It's poor in the FPS department simply on account of being a console. Racing it doesn't hold up to the PS. Quirky games, while great, I never heard of, none of my friends with N64s ever talked about them nor did I ever see them mentioned on forums or getting front page treatment on game sites. As I didn't have an N64 I didn't go digging deeply for them, but if there isn't even any mention of them as there is nowadays with echochrome and Flower showing up on non PS3 specific blogs, it can't be counted as that much of a success.
Round to 1 significant figure, the PS sold an order of magnitude larger than the N64 and Saturn. It's not a solid second place that it had, it's an incredibly weak second place.Now I know that 32.93 rounds down to 9.5. The Saturn did just as well as the N64! I've been using bad arithmetic all these years...
Crash Bandicoot was released on the PS before anyone knew anything about Mario 64. They would have happened all the same. 3D platformers on the PS were competing with each other more than they were with Mario 64.
They were releasing 3D platformers on the playstation before Mario 64, so it's not like it had as amazing a shift as you're claiming.You're right, there was in industry-wide shift...because of Super Mario 64. And how many 2D PlayStation platform games were released after Super Mario 64?
It had success yes, importance, not really, overwhelming influence - hardly. Nothing from the N64 or GameCube eras had overwhelming influence on the video game industry. That was all Sony.To deny the success, importance, and overwhelming influence of Super Mario 64 on the video game industry is silly.
Biggest success? NES. Hands down.
The Paunch Stevenson Show free Internet podcast - www.paunchstevenson.com - DP FEEDBACK
I don't know chief, I think I would prefer the actual thumbstick on a PSP over a frictiony touch screen.
I also think most people don't want an FPS on a 5" screen and that is why they aren't the big focus of handhelds.
Next, iPhone is best for VR Sims because of the touch interface being more realistic than a controller, right?
Neither have you. Flid.You still haven't played even a small fraction of all the games available nor have you bothered to look at the titles being put out and the developers working on them given the patently false claims you were making about it.
I've played enough games to know that if there is a ton more like what I DID play, then it isn't worth two fucks of my time.
I will believe it when I see it for Crisis Core competitors. It's not a subjective claim. It's plain as day. I want to see a graphic intensive handheld action RPG with voice overs/cutscenes, and at least 20 hours of solid gameplay. Where is it. The stuff Square put on the iCrap is not very epic. Just because Square made it doesn't mean it can compete with it. Next you will tell me that the FF1 and FF2 ports are great and compete with Crisis Core right?It has Square Enix developing for it, and you say it has no Crisis Core competitor? You can make subjective claims about what counts as a CC competitor, or not, but you'll be eating your hat once Square ports it. As for Pokemon competitor, if that's your thing, then sure, get a DS. But neither the DS, and espeically the PSP (with it's single analog stick fail) has a single dual analog shooter, and iOS has at least 50.
iOS has 50 shooters. of the 50, 48 of them suck more man shaft than a back alley hooker on a saturday in July.
Citation needed.You have no argument. iOS has hugely successful games by big name developers that are preferring it as a platform to the PSP and DS
Leave the statistical analysis to someone who isn't operating at <50% mental capacity.Round to 1 significant figure, the PS sold an order of magnitude larger than the N64 and Saturn. It's not a solid second place that it had, it's an incredibly weak second place.
Gex 3D would have though!
I consider the N64 to be a success despite never getting a lead on the PS1. It may have had a smaller library compared to that system, but from what I remember whenever there was a new first party 64 release it would garner tons of attention and be talked about for months in the magazines.
Super Mario 64
Mario Kart 64
Banjo Kazooie
Diddy Kong Racing
Star Wars Rogue Squadron
Goldeneye 007
Perfect Dark
Paper Mario
Turok 2
Super Smash Brothers
1080 Snowboarding
Wave Race 64
Zelda: Ocarina of Time
Zelda: Majora's Mask
Donkey Kong 64
Starfox 64
F-Zero X
I just don't remember many PS1 games getting as much attention as these. Maybe Final Fantasy 7 or Crash Bandicoot 2.
Again, the sales numbers may not have matched the PS1, but it hung on to the market for at least 5 years and the games are still widely known and cherished. I once heard someone compare it the Game Gear, which i think is way off the mark. The Game Gear never had a killer app like the N64.
@j_Factor - I never said N64 wasn't a success, not sure who you are directing your response to.
Last edited by Doonzmore; 01-30-2015 at 09:03 PM.
Tomb Raider and SF Alpha were on Saturn too. I never heard a lot of hype on Star Ocean 2 and Einhander other than places like this. So, Crash, Metal Gear Solid, Gran Turismo, Spyro the Dragon and Final Fantasy had universal appeal. Some secondary iffy titles would be like, Driver, Twisted Metal, Tekken, and Syphon Filter.
Where's my chippy? There's my chippy.
Yeah, Mario 64 caused an industry-wide shift... in platform game design. You can't seriously believe that ONE GAME made games in general go 3D. What about Tomb Raider? What about Virtua Fighter? What about Quake? What about Descent, Magic Carpet, et al? What about the dozens of editorials/articles talking about how 3D was the future of gaming long before N64 was released? What about the very design of the Playstation and Saturn consoles, being made with 3D graphics in mind?
Why are you saying platform games? My original comment was not specific to platform games. You keep making red herring statements. (And actually, a significant number of Playstation games were 2D still -- Mega Man 8/X4/X5/X6, Skullmonkeys, Oddworld 1 and 2, Heart of Darkness, Tomba, Strider 2, Castlevania SOTN/Chronicles, the list goes on)And how many 2D PlayStation platform games were released after Super Mario 64?
And games take a while to develop. If it were all because of Mario 64, its influence would've taken a while to kick in, and Playstation and Saturn would have been dominated by 2D games until early 97. But that was certainly not the case.
I do not deny that Mario 64 was hugely successful, important, and influential. I do, however, deny the ludicrous notion that any one game could be responsible for polygonal graphics becoming standard. It was happening either way, and was obvious at the time.To deny the success, importance, and overwhelming influence of Super Mario 64 on the video game industry is silly.
When there are much fewer games to talk about, individual games get more attention.
However, to say the N64 wasn't a success is just silly. You don't have to be #1 to be successful.
Well, Game Gear was also a #2 system that lasted more than 5 years, and its library is almost the same size IIRC. It may not have had anything as significant as Mario or Zelda in terms of success or influence, but it did have its own killer apps, otherwise it wouldn't have kept going. Its most popular games were Sonic, Columns, Shinobi, Streets of Rage, Mortal Kombat, X-Men, Spider-Man, Jurassic Park, and several Disney games.Again, the sales numbers may not have matched the PS1, but it hung on to the market for at least 5 years and the games are still widely known and cherished. I once heard someone compare it the Game Gear, which i think is way off the mark. The Game Gear never had a killer app like the N64.
Last edited by j_factor; 06-23-2010 at 07:05 PM.
"You're twisting things. The only genre that the N64 has anything that I have no interest in is wrestling. It's poor in the FPS department simply on account of being a console. Racing it doesn't hold up to the PS. Quirky games, while great, I never heard of, none of my friends with N64s ever talked about them nor did I ever see them mentioned on forums or getting front page treatment on game sites. As I didn't have an N64 I didn't go digging deeply for them, but if there isn't even any mention of them as there is nowadays with echochrome and Flower showing up on non PS3 specific blogs, it can't be counted as that much of a success."
That's because now there's simply a much bigger craving and desire for the the quirky and obscure. Games like Space Station, while well reviewed in mags like EGM, didn't have the luxury of internet blogs and forums to stimulate interest and garner much attention back in 1998.
In the past twenty years, here are the top 10 games in terms of critical acclaim.
Guess what's the top game? Guess the seventh top game? There's no GoldenEye in here, even.
Let me restate myself. I am a gamer, and so is everyone here. But I'm not the 'gamer' that is described by most of society. I just play casually, and I have never thought of the N64 as a failure. It didn't sell as much as the PS, but it's simply ignorant to say that it wasn't a success, and even more ignorant to say that it was a failure.
This thread needs more multi-quoting. >_<
No, but that one game showed every developer how to make a 3D game the right way. Before Super Mario 64, most developers had no clue how to make good 3D games other than first-person shooters.
How many "Top 100 Video Games of All Time" lists are Magic Carpet, Battle Arena Toshinden, Destruction Derby, Decent, Bubsy 3D, and Tail of the Sun featured in?
Nintendo should have made a camera system for Super Mario 64 that didn't suck. Then you could say Nintendo was the innovator for that as well. However, you could say that Nintendo was the innovator of the bad multi perspective camera. Castlevania copied it and the camera sucked almost as bad.