Nintendo 64 vs Dreamcast

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

Mario 64, meet Jumping Flash for PS1 in 1995:

Emerald_Warrior

Yeah, that was a cute and unique game, but do you honestly think it's comparable to SM64?

I mean, in terms of level design, polish, content, graphics, sound, control, ect. ect. it just pales in comparison.

I'm probably not exaggerating if I say that this might have been a SNES Super FX or Sega 32X game with some compromises in graphics and control.

Right, because it's totally on the same level:

Regardless, I was never trying to say it was better than Super Mario 64 anyways. I was just pointing out a game that came out before Super Mario 64 that did the things that SM64 did, before SM64.

That Star Fox pic you posted actually looks suspiciously similar to Jumping Flash... :P

Of course, Jumping Flash still had better graphics as it was running on a much more capable system, but I think that with the SFX GSU2 chip and some compromise here and there (less textures, lower resolution, view distance and framerate), the game could be done on the SNES and retain it's base playability. (which I would not dare to claim about SM64)

You're incorrect that Jumping Flash is comparable to SM64 in gameplay mechanics.

It's a first-person 3D platformer with shooter elements whereas SM64 is more an "adventure, open-world" 3rd person 3D platformer.

[QUOTE="Heirren"][QUOTE="Jag85"] Stefan was talking about 3D graphics, not 3D gameplay. bultje112

and by unique controller, you mean most attrocious controller design in history for 3d games?

controller opinions are just personal prefrances. There is no good or bad controller it depends on the person playing, and since you think the n64 controller is bad it just shows how much of a noob you are.

[QUOTE="bultje112"]

[QUOTE="Heirren"] That's what was revolutionary about the graphics though--they revolutionized gameplay, in conjunction with the unique controller. It's what made the n64 so special. Edit: jumping flash is nothing like Mario 64.luckykoopsie

and by unique controller, you mean most attrocious controller design in history for 3d games?

controller opinions are just personal prefrances. There is no good or bad controller it depends on the person playing, and since you think the n64 controller is bad it just shows how much of a noob you are.

never seen someone contradicting himself so much in one sentence. first controllers are opinions and having the opinion that the n64 controller sucks means you're a noob? wow, you must be really smart :)

[QUOTE="Domino_slayer"]

The Neo Geo doesn't have an analogue stick.

Emerald_Warrior

that's not an analogue stick, it's the same stick but smaller as in the aes arcade sticks and they aren't analog, no complete 360 movement, but just a d-pad but with a stick, same directions

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

 

Yeah, that was a cute and unique game, but do you honestly think it's comparable to SM64?

I mean, in terms of level design, polish, content, graphics, sound, control, ect. ect. it just pales in comparison.

I'm probably not exaggerating if I say that this might have been a SNES Super FX or Sega 32X game with some compromises in graphics and control.

nameless12345

Right, because it's totally on the same level:

Regardless, I was never trying to say it was better than Super Mario 64 anyways. I was just pointing out a game that came out before Super Mario 64 that did the things that SM64 did, before SM64.

That Star Fox pic you posted actually looks suspiciously similar to Jumping Flash... :P

Of course, Jumping Flash still had better graphics as it was running on a much more capable system, but I think that with the SFX GSU2 chip and some compromise here and there (less textures, lower resolution, view distance and framerate), the game could be done on the SNES and retain it's base playability. (which I would not dare to claim about SM64)

You're incorrect that Jumping Flash is comparable to SM64 in gameplay mechanics.

It's a first-person 3D platformer with shooter elements whereas SM64 is more an "adventure, open-world" 3rd person 3D platformer.

[QUOTE="luckykoopsie"]

[QUOTE="bultje112"]

 

and by unique controller, you mean most attrocious controller design in history for 3d games?

bultje112

controller opinions are just personal prefrances. There is no good or bad controller it depends on the person playing, and since you think the n64 controller is bad it just shows how much of a noob you are.

never seen someone contradicting himself so much in one sentence. first controllers are opinions and having the opinion that the n64 controller sucks means you're a noob? wow, you must be really smart :)

now your just talking out your ass

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

Right, because it's totally on the same level:

Regardless, I was never trying to say it was better than Super Mario 64 anyways. I was just pointing out a game that came out before Super Mario 64 that did the things that SM64 did, before SM64.

Heirren

That Star Fox pic you posted actually looks suspiciously similar to Jumping Flash... :P

Of course, Jumping Flash still had better graphics as it was running on a much more capable system, but I think that with the SFX GSU2 chip and some compromise here and there (less textures, lower resolution, view distance and framerate), the game could be done on the SNES and retain it's base playability. (which I would not dare to claim about SM64)

You're incorrect that Jumping Flash is comparable to SM64 in gameplay mechanics.

It's a first-person 3D platformer with shooter elements whereas SM64 is more an "adventure, open-world" 3rd person 3D platformer.

You're completely blind if you think they look similar, one has basic geometric shapes with very little-to-no textures while Jumping Flash has very recognizable objects with full textures.

But like I already said, regardless of the graphics difference, that wasn't my point. I was never comparing graphics, that was just a quick reply to somone trying to say Jumping Flash looked like a SFX chip SNES game.

My point was that it's a platformer with open "levels" (because Super Mario 64 absolutley does not have an open-world like you keep saying, it has a level-hub), and just because it's played from the first-person perspective doesn't take away from the fact that it's a 3D platformer with open-levels that came out before Super Mario 64.

At this point, I give up with Super Mario 64. You guys have been pointed out multiple consoles, and arcades that had fully 3D graphics, good looking graphics, and open-levels (as you've argued all 3 points separately). You guys can't decide which reason Super Mario 64 is revolutionary for, so you've gone with all 3. And all 3 have been debunked.

Now to be clear, I don't hate Super Mario 64. It's a great freaking game. But it's not this huge revolutionary step, IMO. Plenty of companies and systems were doing the 3D thing before Super Mario 64 came out. The original Super Mario Bros. was a huge revolutionary step, as it changed the industry forever, without a shadow of a doubt. Super Mario 64 was revolutionary for the Super Mario series because it brought Mario into 3D, but it didn't really change anything for anyone else as other companies were already doing that with their games.

But if you guys want to just buy the hype and ignore all the evidence, be my guest.

I do however concede on the N64 controller point. You guys are absolutely right on that one. It was pointed out on this thread that I had no clue what an analog stick was, as I thought it just referred to a thumbstick in general.

[QUOTE="Heirren"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

That Star Fox pic you posted actually looks suspiciously similar to Jumping Flash... :P

Of course, Jumping Flash still had better graphics as it was running on a much more capable system, but I think that with the SFX GSU2 chip and some compromise here and there (less textures, lower resolution, view distance and framerate), the game could be done on the SNES and retain it's base playability. (which I would not dare to claim about SM64)

You're incorrect that Jumping Flash is comparable to SM64 in gameplay mechanics.

It's a first-person 3D platformer with shooter elements whereas SM64 is more an "adventure, open-world" 3rd person 3D platformer.

Emerald_Warrior

You're completely blind if you think they look similar, one has basic geometric shapes with very little-to-no textures while Jumping Flash has very recognizable objects with full textures.

But like I already said, regardless of the graphics difference, that wasn't my point. I was never comparing graphics, that was just a quick reply to somone trying to say Jumping Flash looked like a SFX chip SNES game.

My point was that it's a platformer with open "levels" (because Super Mario 64 absolutley does not have an open-world like you keep saying, it has a level-hub), and just because it's played from the first-person perspective doesn't take away from the fact that it's a 3D platformer with open-levels that came out before Super Mario 64.

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

 

Yeah, that was a cute and unique game, but do you honestly think it's comparable to SM64?

I mean, in terms of level design, polish, content, graphics, sound, control, ect. ect. it just pales in comparison.

I'm probably not exaggerating if I say that this might have been a SNES Super FX or Sega 32X game with some compromises in graphics and control.

nameless12345

Right, because it's totally on the same level:

Regardless, I was never trying to say it was better than Super Mario 64 anyways. I was just pointing out a game that came out before Super Mario 64 that did the things that SM64 did, before SM64.

That Star Fox pic you posted actually looks suspiciously similar to Jumping Flash... :P

Of course, Jumping Flash still had better graphics as it was running on a much more capable system, but I think that with the SFX GSU2 chip and some compromise here and there (less textures, lower resolution, view distance and framerate), the game could be done on the SNES and retain it's base playability. (which I would not dare to claim about SM64)

You're incorrect that Jumping Flash is comparable to SM64 in gameplay mechanics.

It's a first-person 3D platformer with shooter elements whereas SM64 is more an "adventure, open-world" 3rd person 3D platformer.

Uh, no...

Star Fox (1993, SNES)

Jumping Flash (1995, PS1)

Super Mario 64 (1996, N64)

If you can't tell the difference between the flat-shaded polygons of Star Fox and the fully texture-mapped polygons of Jumping Flash, then I'd have to question your eyesight. And if you think Jumping Flash, a first-person open-world platformer, has more in common with a third-person rail shooter like Star Fox than it does with a third-person open-world platformer like Mario 64, then I really don't know what to make of that.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

Right, because it's totally on the same level:

Regardless, I was never trying to say it was better than Super Mario 64 anyways. I was just pointing out a game that came out before Super Mario 64 that did the things that SM64 did, before SM64.

Jag85

That Star Fox pic you posted actually looks suspiciously similar to Jumping Flash... :P

Of course, Jumping Flash still had better graphics as it was running on a much more capable system, but I think that with the SFX GSU2 chip and some compromise here and there (less textures, lower resolution, view distance and framerate), the game could be done on the SNES and retain it's base playability. (which I would not dare to claim about SM64)

You're incorrect that Jumping Flash is comparable to SM64 in gameplay mechanics.

It's a first-person 3D platformer with shooter elements whereas SM64 is more an "adventure, open-world" 3rd person 3D platformer.

Uh, no...

Star Fox (1993, SNES)

Jumping Flash (1995, PS1)

Super Mario 64 (1996, N64)

If you can't tell the difference between the flat-shaded polygons of Star Fox and the fully texture-mapped polygons of Jumping Flash, then I'd have to question your eyesight. And if you think Jumping Flash, a first-person open-world platformer, has more in common with a third-person rail shooter like Star Fox than it does with a third-person open-world platformer like Mario 64, then I really don't know what to make of that.

Well, thanks for proving my point again. ;)

Early PS1 games like Jumping Flash looked just like a small step up from the SNES Super FX and Sega 32X games.

I do believe that with some compromises in the graphics, it would run on both of them.

And if were arguing what was the first 3D platformer, then we could include Alpha Waves, which was a 3D platformer way back in 1990.

Not that it would affect the importance and influence of SM64 in any way, though.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

Right, because it's totally on the same level:

Regardless, I was never trying to say it was better than Super Mario 64 anyways. I was just pointing out a game that came out before Super Mario 64 that did the things that SM64 did, before SM64.

Jag85

That Star Fox pic you posted actually looks suspiciously similar to Jumping Flash... :P

Of course, Jumping Flash still had better graphics as it was running on a much more capable system, but I think that with the SFX GSU2 chip and some compromise here and there (less textures, lower resolution, view distance and framerate), the game could be done on the SNES and retain it's base playability. (which I would not dare to claim about SM64)

You're incorrect that Jumping Flash is comparable to SM64 in gameplay mechanics.

It's a first-person 3D platformer with shooter elements whereas SM64 is more an "adventure, open-world" 3rd person 3D platformer.

Uh, no...

Star Fox (1993, SNES)

Jumping Flash (1995, PS1)

Super Mario 64 (1996, N64)

If you can't tell the difference between the flat-shaded polygons of Star Fox and the fully texture-mapped polygons of Jumping Flash, then I'd have to question your eyesight. And if you think Jumping Flash, a first-person open-world platformer, has more in common with a third-person rail shooter like Star Fox than it does with a third-person open-world platformer like Mario 64, then I really don't know what to make of that.

Going by the screenshots you posted, Jumping Flash does look more similar to Starfox than Mario 64. But then again, I'm only going off your screenshots.

I went to a friend's house the day Super Mario 64 came out, and it might be the most blown away I've ever been by a video game.  Sure, you guys mention how there were 3D games and even 3D platformers out there already, but none like Super Mario 64. 

Like Herrien said, the way that the controls were implemented in Super Mario 64 were groundbreaking, unheard of, and flat out amazing.  The way you could control Mario seamlessly throughout a 3D world was just something I had never done on any video game before.  Sure, SM64 isn't open world, but it has that open world feel.  There's the hub world that you choose which world to go to, but the point is is that it's not level based and the levels were enormous (for the time). It's no secret that the Nintendo 64's strong point, and its main advantage over the PlayStation, was that it was able to render massive 3D worlds.  What it lacked in storage capacity, texture detail and audio quality, it made up for in its ability to do 3D like no one had ever seen, at least on consoles. 

As someone already pointed out, it was the true analog capabilities of the N64 controller and its implementation in SM64 that was truly ground breaking.  You move the analog slightly, mario walks super slow.  A little harder push on the analog, he walks.  A little harder, a jog, and then finally, a run.  That combined with the precision of moves like the flying cartwheel, the Z-vault jump, the triple jump, just the complete overall preciseness of the controls, combined with the fact that they worked in a 3D world perfectly, is something that no one had ever seen.  3D levels that huge that looked that good were basically unheard of, and controls that precise on a 3D plane were too. 

Also, the camera is worth noting as well.  The camera in SM64 worked amazingly well at the time.  Sure, it's been improved in games like Galaxy, but back then it was groundbreaking.  The complete package, the huge 3D worlds that looked so good, the level design, the implementation of true analog 3D control, the camera, it was all a recipe for success and laid the foundation for all future 3D platformers.  Whether it be Spyro the Dragon, Banjo Kazooie, Conker's Bad Fur Day, Rayman 2, Donkey Kong 64, the list goes on and on, especially if you list games all the way up to the present.

It's not about who made the very first 3D platformer.  It's not just about who was the first to do it.  It's inevitable that when 3D technology became available that there was going to be a 3D platformer.  A 3D First Person Shooter, a 3D sports game, a 3D fighting game, it just comes with the territory.  The important thing, the most important thing that people are losing sight of, is who was the first to truly do 3D platforming right.  So right that it was the foundation for everything to follow.  So right that it laid the blueprints for video games still being made to this very day.  Just like Ocarina of Time and its Z targeting, these games aren't recognized for being the very first 3D adventure or platformer, they're recognized for their design, the winning design formula that changed gaming as we know it to this very day.

I love Super Mario 64 and I know how groundbreaking it was.  To discredit it is really bitter, IMO.  To compare it to games like Jumping Flash is even more foolish. 

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

 

That Star Fox pic you posted actually looks suspiciously similar to Jumping Flash... :P

Of course, Jumping Flash still had better graphics as it was running on a much more capable system, but I think that with the SFX GSU2 chip and some compromise here and there (less textures, lower resolution, view distance and framerate), the game could be done on the SNES and retain it's base playability. (which I would not dare to claim about SM64)

You're incorrect that Jumping Flash is comparable to SM64 in gameplay mechanics.

It's a first-person 3D platformer with shooter elements whereas SM64 is more an "adventure, open-world" 3rd person 3D platformer.

nameless12345

Uh, no...

Star Fox (1993, SNES)

Jumping Flash (1995, PS1)

Super Mario 64 (1996, N64)

If you can't tell the difference between the flat-shaded polygons of Star Fox and the fully texture-mapped polygons of Jumping Flash, then I'd have to question your eyesight. And if you think Jumping Flash, a first-person open-world platformer, has more in common with a third-person rail shooter like Star Fox than it does with a third-person open-world platformer like Mario 64, then I really don't know what to make of that.

Well, thanks for proving my point again. ;)

Early PS1 games like Jumping Flash looked just like a small step up from the SNES Super FX and Sega 32X games.

I do believe that with some compromises in the graphics, it would run on both of them.

And if were arguing what was the first 3D platformer, then we could include Alpha Waves, which was a 3D platformer way back in 1990.

Not that it would affect the importance and influence of SM64 in any way, though.

The Jumping Flash screenshot I just posted clearly has more detailed textures than the Super Mario 64 screenshot... yet it's only a small step up from Star Fox? 

Wow, I think I might have to agree with Emerald Warrior about some Nintendo fans being blinded by their loyalty to Nintendo...

EDIT:

You're right that Alpha Waves was the first 3D platformer and it doesn't negatively affect Mario 64's importance. But I believe Emerald's argument was that Mario 64 isn't the first 3D open-world (or hub-based open-world) platformer as many Nintendo fans often claim, but that Jumping Flash already featured similar hub-based open-world platformer gameplay before Mario 64. There's no doubt Mario 64 is an important game, mainly for the camera and control schemes, but you shouldn't deny Jumping Flash's importance just to exaggerate SM64's importance.

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

 

That Star Fox pic you posted actually looks suspiciously similar to Jumping Flash... :P

Of course, Jumping Flash still had better graphics as it was running on a much more capable system, but I think that with the SFX GSU2 chip and some compromise here and there (less textures, lower resolution, view distance and framerate), the game could be done on the SNES and retain it's base playability. (which I would not dare to claim about SM64)

You're incorrect that Jumping Flash is comparable to SM64 in gameplay mechanics.

It's a first-person 3D platformer with shooter elements whereas SM64 is more an "adventure, open-world" 3rd person 3D platformer.

GreySeal9

Uh, no...

Star Fox (1993, SNES)

Jumping Flash (1995, PS1)

Super Mario 64 (1996, N64)

If you can't tell the difference between the flat-shaded polygons of Star Fox and the fully texture-mapped polygons of Jumping Flash, then I'd have to question your eyesight. And if you think Jumping Flash, a first-person open-world platformer, has more in common with a third-person rail shooter like Star Fox than it does with a third-person open-world platformer like Mario 64, then I really don't know what to make of that.

Going by the screenshots you posted, Jumping Flash does look more similar to Starfox than Mario 64. But then again, I'm only going off your screenshots.

Couple more Mario 64 screenshots

Considering how that Jumping Flash screenshot clearly has more detailed textures than the Super Mario 64 screenshot, then Super Mario 64 must look even more similar to Star Fox according to your logic.Jag85

I'm not even going to go into the detail of the textures.

I'm just saying that for whatever reasons, the Jumping Flash screenshot looks more like Star Fox. It could be the art style, the colors, the particular instance that is captured by the shot, etc. but Mario 64 sticks out like a sore thumb when looking at those screenshots.

At this point, I give up with Super Mario 64. You guys have been pointed out multiple consoles, and arcades that had fully 3D graphics, good looking graphics, and open-levels (as you've argued all 3 points separately). You guys can't decide which reason Super Mario 64 is revolutionary for, so you've gone with all 3. And all 3 have been debunked.

Now to be clear, I don't hate Super Mario 64. It's a great freaking game. But it's not this huge revolutionary step, IMO. Plenty of companies and systems were doing the 3D thing before Super Mario 64 came out. The original Super Mario Bros. was a huge revolutionary step, as it changed the industry forever, without a shadow of a doubt. Super Mario 64 was revolutionary for the Super Mario series because it brought Mario into 3D, but it didn't really change anything for anyone else as other companies were already doing that with their games.

But if you guys want to just buy the hype and ignore all the evidence, be my guest.

I do however concede on the N64 controller point. You guys are absolutely right on that one. It was pointed out on this thread that I had no clue what an analog stick was, as I thought it just referred to a thumbstick in general.

Emerald_Warrior

Wait, so if you admit it's all been debunked than why do you keep saying it was revolutionary when it wasn't?

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

 

That Star Fox pic you posted actually looks suspiciously similar to Jumping Flash... :P

Of course, Jumping Flash still had better graphics as it was running on a much more capable system, but I think that with the SFX GSU2 chip and some compromise here and there (less textures, lower resolution, view distance and framerate), the game could be done on the SNES and retain it's base playability. (which I would not dare to claim about SM64)

You're incorrect that Jumping Flash is comparable to SM64 in gameplay mechanics.

It's a first-person 3D platformer with shooter elements whereas SM64 is more an "adventure, open-world" 3rd person 3D platformer.

nameless12345

Uh, no...

Star Fox (1993, SNES)

Jumping Flash (1995, PS1)

Super Mario 64 (1996, N64)

If you can't tell the difference between the flat-shaded polygons of Star Fox and the fully texture-mapped polygons of Jumping Flash, then I'd have to question your eyesight. And if you think Jumping Flash, a first-person open-world platformer, has more in common with a third-person rail shooter like Star Fox than it does with a third-person open-world platformer like Mario 64, then I really don't know what to make of that.

Well, thanks for proving my point again. ;)

Early PS1 games like Jumping Flash looked just like a small step up from the SNES Super FX and Sega 32X games.

I do believe that with some compromises in the graphics, it would run on both of them.

And if were arguing what was the first 3D platformer, then we could include Alpha Waves, which was a 3D platformer way back in 1990.

Not that it would affect the importance and influence of SM64 in any way, though.

You need to prove this or I am going to force you to wear the glasses I just ordered for you eyesight.

Couple more Mario 64 screenshots

Domino_slayer

That second screenshot reminds me a lot of Jumping Flash...

[QUOTE="Jag85"]Considering how that Jumping Flash screenshot clearly has more detailed textures than the Super Mario 64 screenshot, then Super Mario 64 must look even more similar to Star Fox according to your logic.GreySeal9

I'm not even going to go into the detail of the textures.

I'm just saying that for whatever reasons, the Jumping Flash screenshot looks more like Star Fox. It could be the art style, the colors, the particular instance that is captured by the shot, etc. but Mario 64 sticks out like a sore thumb when looking at those screenshots.

At this point, I give up with Super Mario 64. You guys have been pointed out multiple consoles, and arcades that had fully 3D graphics, good looking graphics, and open-levels (as you've argued all 3 points separately). You guys can't decide which reason Super Mario 64 is revolutionary for, so you've gone with all 3. And all 3 have been debunked.

Now to be clear, I don't hate Super Mario 64. It's a great freaking game. But it's not this huge revolutionary step, IMO. Plenty of companies and systems were doing the 3D thing before Super Mario 64 came out. The original Super Mario Bros. was a huge revolutionary step, as it changed the industry forever, without a shadow of a doubt. Super Mario 64 was revolutionary for the Super Mario series because it brought Mario into 3D, but it didn't really change anything for anyone else as other companies were already doing that with their games.

But if you guys want to just buy the hype and ignore all the evidence, be my guest.

I do however concede on the N64 controller point. You guys are absolutely right on that one. It was pointed out on this thread that I had no clue what an analog stick was, as I thought it just referred to a thumbstick in general.

Emerald_Warrior

Youve debunked nothing. Any example before mario 64 began as more like a bunch of tech demos rather than an actual game. People didnt have a friggin clue what to do with 3D games before Mario 64. Other than just make 3D versions of games and genres that already existed, like racing games, fighters, light gun games, etc. They were all pretty much the same as games that came before them just with polygons. 

There really is no 2D game that plays like Mario 64. The controls factored in things like weight and inertia, you could build up mario's speed to gamebreaking levels. No longer was it just static jump after jump with the same result every time. It all depended on how fast you were going, how high you were, where you came from the jump before it that factored into your movement which did not happen before. it had a fully controlable 3D camera. I could go on. I get that some games get too much credit for the things they did buy Mario 64 is not one of them. 

Anyways if we are going by singleplayer experience, it isnt even a fair fight. The dreamcast destroys the n64. The N64s library for good singleplayer games borders on pathetic, especially considering how many years it was out for. The DC was only around for half as long and probably has twice as many singleplayer experiences worth playing. 

But if we are going local multiplayer. (I know the dreamcast had online, but it doesn't anymore so it doesn't really count when comparing them now) Id say the n64 is better for that type of experience. 

You'll most likely have a better time with a bunch of friends with an n64 than a dreamcast. I know the dreamcast has powerstone and a monster library of 2D fighters..and a lot of other really fun local multiplayer games but I just think the n64 did that better. The DC just lacked in overall good multiplayer variety which was the n64s biggest strength

Anyways if we are going by singleplayer experience, it isnt even a fair fight. The dreamcast destroys the n64. The N64s library for good singleplayer games borders on pathetic, especially considering how many years it was out for. The DC was only around for half as long and probably has twice as many singleplayer experiences worth playing. 

But if we are going local multiplayer. (I know the dreamcast had online, but it doesn't anymore so it doesn't really count when comparing them now) Id say the n64 is better for that type of experience. 

You'll most likely have a better time with a bunch of friends with an n64 than a dreamcast. I know the dreamcast has powerstone and a monster library of 2D fighters..and a lot of other really fun local multiplayer games but I just think the n64 did that better. The DC just lacked in overall good multiplayer variety which was the n64s biggest strength

VendettaRed07

you have no clue what your talking about. you say that the n64's singleplayer library is pathetic?? what games does the dreamcast have that tops Super mario 64, OOT,MM, or the banjo series and DK 64

[QUOTE="VendettaRed07"]

Anyways if we are going by singleplayer experience, it isnt even a fair fight. The dreamcast destroys the n64. The N64s library for good singleplayer games borders on pathetic, especially considering how many years it was out for. The DC was only around for half as long and probably has twice as many singleplayer experiences worth playing.

But if we are going local multiplayer. (I know the dreamcast had online, but it doesn't anymore so it doesn't really count when comparing them now) Id say the n64 is better for that type of experience.

You'll most likely have a better time with a bunch of friends with an n64 than a dreamcast. I know the dreamcast has powerstone and a monster library of 2D fighters..and a lot of other really fun local multiplayer games but I just think the n64 did that better. The DC just lacked in overall good multiplayer variety which was the n64s biggest strength

conkertheking1

you have no clue what your talking about. you say that the n64's singleplayer library is pathetic?? what games does the dreamcast have that tops Super mario 64, OOT,MM, or the banjo series and DK 64

Sonic Adventure, Shenmue, Resident Evil: Code Veronica & RE 3, Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver, Maken X, Elmental Gimmick Gear, Phantasy Star Online. Grandia II. I don't think one decisively trumps the other in single-player games.

However I do disagree with there not being enough good multiplayer games on Dreamcast: Unreal Tournament, Quake III, GigaWing 2, Gauntlet: Legends, House of the Dead 2, Power Stone 1 & 2, Marvel vs. Capcom 1 & 2, Soul Calibur, Dead or Alive 2, Street Fighter III, WWF & ECW wrestling games, and of course all the racing games.

Ooga Booga, Chu Chu Rocket, Toy Commander, and Power Stone 2 are all awesome multiplayer games

Outtrigger, Worms World Party, Re-Volt & Vigilante 8 2nd Offense (both much better than N64 versions), Rush 2049 (N64 game is 2-player only), Armada, Fur Fighters etc, Pen Pen is good for a laugh.

N64 has waay more platform games than Dreamcast for single-player though.

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

At this point, I give up with Super Mario 64. You guys have been pointed out multiple consoles, and arcades that had fully 3D graphics, good looking graphics, and open-levels (as you've argued all 3 points separately). You guys can't decide which reason Super Mario 64 is revolutionary for, so you've gone with all 3. And all 3 have been debunked.

Now to be clear, I don't hate Super Mario 64. It's a great freaking game. But it's not this huge revolutionary step, IMO. Plenty of companies and systems were doing the 3D thing before Super Mario 64 came out. The original Super Mario Bros. was a huge revolutionary step, as it changed the industry forever, without a shadow of a doubt. Super Mario 64 was revolutionary for the Super Mario series because it brought Mario into 3D, but it didn't really change anything for anyone else as other companies were already doing that with their games.

But if you guys want to just buy the hype and ignore all the evidence, be my guest.

I do however concede on the N64 controller point. You guys are absolutely right on that one. It was pointed out on this thread that I had no clue what an analog stick was, as I thought it just referred to a thumbstick in general.

VendettaRed07

Youve debunked nothing. Any example before mario 64 began as more like a bunch of tech demos rather than an actual game. People didnt have a friggin clue what to do with 3D games before Mario 64. Other than just make 3D versions of games and genres that already existed, like racing games, fighters, light gun games, etc. They were all pretty much the same as games that came before them just with polygons. 

There really is no 2D game that plays like Mario 64. The controls factored in things like weight and inertia, you could build up mario's speed to gamebreaking levels. No longer was it just static jump after jump with the same result every time. It all depended on how fast you were going, how high you were, where you came from the jump before it that factored into your movement which did not happen before. it had a fully controlable 3D camera. I could go on. I get that some games get too much credit for the things they did buy Mario 64 is not one of them. 

This is the dumbest thing I ever rad. Nobody gave to craps about Marios formula, that no one even used the template outside a few games and lazy developers. Off the top of my haed, Mario, Gex 2, and 5 others used what Mario 64 had provided. 3D platforming got better through ignoring that game.

Also your second point is beyond insane actiong like other genres didn't improve.

[QUOTE="VendettaRed07"]

Anyways if we are going by singleplayer experience, it isnt even a fair fight. The dreamcast destroys the n64. The N64s library for good singleplayer games borders on pathetic, especially considering how many years it was out for. The DC was only around for half as long and probably has twice as many singleplayer experiences worth playing. 

But if we are going local multiplayer. (I know the dreamcast had online, but it doesn't anymore so it doesn't really count when comparing them now) Id say the n64 is better for that type of experience. 

You'll most likely have a better time with a bunch of friends with an n64 than a dreamcast. I know the dreamcast has powerstone and a monster library of 2D fighters..and a lot of other really fun local multiplayer games but I just think the n64 did that better. The DC just lacked in overall good multiplayer variety which was the n64s biggest strength

conkertheking1

you have no clue what your talking about. you say that the n64's singleplayer library is pathetic?? what games does the dreamcast have that tops Super mario 64, OOT,MM, or the banjo series and DK 64

I didn't say its good games were pathetic its library depth certainly was. The games you mentioned were amazing, but there just wasn't enough games that were good on your own. There are just more dreamcast games, especially if you import. 

What bothered me about the N64 is that there was no middleground in its library. There were the great games that everyone loved and talked about. And then there was the crap. The dreamcast I just think there is more for people to choose from for people who want to play different genres and types of games. 

[QUOTE="VendettaRed07"]

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

At this point, I give up with Super Mario 64. You guys have been pointed out multiple consoles, and arcades that had fully 3D graphics, good looking graphics, and open-levels (as you've argued all 3 points separately). You guys can't decide which reason Super Mario 64 is revolutionary for, so you've gone with all 3. And all 3 have been debunked.

Now to be clear, I don't hate Super Mario 64. It's a great freaking game. But it's not this huge revolutionary step, IMO. Plenty of companies and systems were doing the 3D thing before Super Mario 64 came out. The original Super Mario Bros. was a huge revolutionary step, as it changed the industry forever, without a shadow of a doubt. Super Mario 64 was revolutionary for the Super Mario series because it brought Mario into 3D, but it didn't really change anything for anyone else as other companies were already doing that with their games.

But if you guys want to just buy the hype and ignore all the evidence, be my guest.

I do however concede on the N64 controller point. You guys are absolutely right on that one. It was pointed out on this thread that I had no clue what an analog stick was, as I thought it just referred to a thumbstick in general.

Eddie-Murphy48

Youve debunked nothing. Any example before mario 64 began as more like a bunch of tech demos rather than an actual game. People didnt have a friggin clue what to do with 3D games before Mario 64. Other than just make 3D versions of games and genres that already existed, like racing games, fighters, light gun games, etc. They were all pretty much the same as games that came before them just with polygons. 

There really is no 2D game that plays like Mario 64. The controls factored in things like weight and inertia, you could build up mario's speed to gamebreaking levels. No longer was it just static jump after jump with the same result every time. It all depended on how fast you were going, how high you were, where you came from the jump before it that factored into your movement which did not happen before. it had a fully controlable 3D camera. I could go on. I get that some games get too much credit for the things they did buy Mario 64 is not one of them. 

This is the dumbest thing I ever rad. Nobody gave to craps about Marios formula, that no one even used the template outside a few games and lazy developers. Off the top of my haed, Mario, Gex 2, and 5 others used what Mario 64 had provided. 3D platforming got better through ignoring that game.

Also your second point is beyond insane actiong like other genres didn't improve.

You should probably proofread your posts before talking about the intelligence contained in other people's posts.

Not to mention that anybody who thinks that Final Fantasy V is impossible to find probably shouldn't be calling other people's comments dumb in the first place.

[QUOTE="VendettaRed07"]

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

At this point, I give up with Super Mario 64. You guys have been pointed out multiple consoles, and arcades that had fully 3D graphics, good looking graphics, and open-levels (as you've argued all 3 points separately). You guys can't decide which reason Super Mario 64 is revolutionary for, so you've gone with all 3. And all 3 have been debunked.

Now to be clear, I don't hate Super Mario 64. It's a great freaking game. But it's not this huge revolutionary step, IMO. Plenty of companies and systems were doing the 3D thing before Super Mario 64 came out. The original Super Mario Bros. was a huge revolutionary step, as it changed the industry forever, without a shadow of a doubt. Super Mario 64 was revolutionary for the Super Mario series because it brought Mario into 3D, but it didn't really change anything for anyone else as other companies were already doing that with their games.

But if you guys want to just buy the hype and ignore all the evidence, be my guest.

I do however concede on the N64 controller point. You guys are absolutely right on that one. It was pointed out on this thread that I had no clue what an analog stick was, as I thought it just referred to a thumbstick in general.

Eddie-Murphy48

Youve debunked nothing. Any example before mario 64 began as more like a bunch of tech demos rather than an actual game. People didnt have a friggin clue what to do with 3D games before Mario 64. Other than just make 3D versions of games and genres that already existed, like racing games, fighters, light gun games, etc. They were all pretty much the same as games that came before them just with polygons. 

There really is no 2D game that plays like Mario 64. The controls factored in things like weight and inertia, you could build up mario's speed to gamebreaking levels. No longer was it just static jump after jump with the same result every time. It all depended on how fast you were going, how high you were, where you came from the jump before it that factored into your movement which did not happen before. it had a fully controlable 3D camera. I could go on. I get that some games get too much credit for the things they did buy Mario 64 is not one of them. 

This is the dumbest thing I ever rad. Nobody gave to craps about Marios formula, that no one even used the template outside a few games and lazy developers. Off the top of my haed, Mario, Gex 2, and 5 others used what Mario 64 had provided. 3D platforming got better through ignoring that game.

Also your second point is beyond insane actiong like other genres didn't improve.

After mario 64 they obviously did improve. But I was talking about the period before its release. What came before it that was so different than what had already been done? Virtua Cop, Star Fox, Virtual Racing?. All those games did was just add polygons to similar games that had already been made. They were all simplistic kind of shallow, arcade type games. Mario 64 was the first 3d game that played completely differently to anything else that had come before it. In that regard it was a revolution. 

No, not every game cloned the mario 64 collect x formula, but it set the standard for what a 3D game should feel and play like. 

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

Uh, no...

Star Fox (1993, SNES)

Jumping Flash (1995, PS1)

Super Mario 64 (1996, N64)

If you can't tell the difference between the flat-shaded polygons of Star Fox and the fully texture-mapped polygons of Jumping Flash, then I'd have to question your eyesight. And if you think Jumping Flash, a first-person open-world platformer, has more in common with a third-person rail shooter like Star Fox than it does with a third-person open-world platformer like Mario 64, then I really don't know what to make of that.

Eddie-Murphy48

Well, thanks for proving my point again. ;)

Early PS1 games like Jumping Flash looked just like a small step up from the SNES Super FX and Sega 32X games.

I do believe that with some compromises in the graphics, it would run on both of them.

And if were arguing what was the first 3D platformer, then we could include Alpha Waves, which was a 3D platformer way back in 1990.

Not that it would affect the importance and influence of SM64 in any way, though.

You need to prove this or I am going to force you to wear the glasses I just ordered for you eyesight.

Jumping Flash was hardly graphically impressive:

SNES Super FX:

Sega 32X:

I'm not sure why this is even being discussed.

I went to a friend's house the day Super Mario 64 came out, and it might be the most blown away I've ever been by a video game.  Sure, you guys mention how there were 3D games and even 3D platformers out there already, but none like Super Mario 64. 

Like Herrien said, the way that the controls were implemented in Super Mario 64 were groundbreaking, unheard of, and flat out amazing.  The way you could control Mario seamlessly throughout a 3D world was just something I had never done on any video game before.  Sure, SM64 isn't open world, but it has that open world feel.  There's the hub world that you choose which world to go to, but the point is is that it's not level based and the levels were enormous (for the time). It's no secret that the Nintendo 64's strong point, and its main advantage over the PlayStation, was that it was able to render massive 3D worlds.  What it lacked in storage capacity, texture detail and audio quality, it made up for in its ability to do 3D like no one had ever seen, at least on consoles. 

As someone already pointed out, it was the true analog capabilities of the N64 controller and its implementation in SM64 that was truly ground breaking.  You move the analog slightly, mario walks super slow.  A little harder push on the analog, he walks.  A little harder, a jog, and then finally, a run.  That combined with the precision of moves like the flying cartwheel, the Z-vault jump, the triple jump, just the complete overall preciseness of the controls, combined with the fact that they worked in a 3D world perfectly, is something that no one had ever seen.  3D levels that huge that looked that good were basically unheard of, and controls that precise on a 3D plane were too. 

Also, the camera is worth noting as well.  The camera in SM64 worked amazingly well at the time.  Sure, it's been improved in games like Galaxy, but back then it was groundbreaking.  The complete package, the huge 3D worlds that looked so good, the level design, the implementation of true analog 3D control, the camera, it was all a recipe for success and laid the foundation for all future 3D platformers.  Whether it be Spyro the Dragon, Banjo Kazooie, Conker's Bad Fur Day, Rayman 2, Donkey Kong 64, the list goes on and on, especially if you list games all the way up to the present.

It's not about who made the very first 3D platformer.  It's not just about who was the first to do it.  It's inevitable that when 3D technology became available that there was going to be a 3D platformer.  A 3D First Person Shooter, a 3D sports game, a 3D fighting game, it just comes with the territory.  The important thing, the most important thing that people are losing sight of, is who was the first to truly do 3D platforming right.  So right that it was the foundation for everything to follow.  So right that it laid the blueprints for video games still being made to this very day.  Just like Ocarina of Time and its Z targeting, these games aren't recognized for being the very first 3D adventure or platformer, they're recognized for their design, the winning design formula that changed gaming as we know it to this very day.

I love Super Mario 64 and I know how groundbreaking it was.  To discredit it is really bitter, IMO.  To compare it to games like Jumping Flash is even more foolish. 

arkephonic

Well put.

And also something some posters on here have problems dealing with. ;)

Tough call, and the votation is 28 for each.

[QUOTE="Eddie-Murphy48"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

 

Well, thanks for proving my point again. ;)

Early PS1 games like Jumping Flash looked just like a small step up from the SNES Super FX and Sega 32X games.

I do believe that with some compromises in the graphics, it would run on both of them.

And if were arguing what was the first 3D platformer, then we could include Alpha Waves, which was a 3D platformer way back in 1990.

Not that it would affect the importance and influence of SM64 in any way, though.

nameless12345

You need to prove this or I am going to force you to wear the glasses I just ordered for you eyesight.

Jumping Flash was hardly graphically impressive:

SNES Super FX:

Sega 32X:

I'm not sure why this is even being discussed.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

I'm not sure why this is even being discussed.

Jag85

Well, the thead is about N64 vs DC, not which was the first 3D platformer, so...

edit: ^cool emulated bullshot btw.

I find that there are alot of sega fanboys in this online community, and this community is also so quick to make fanboy remarks.

Controller: Easily Dreamcast, I hardly ever had a controller which I despised more than the N64 controller.

Game Library: Dreamcast wins easily. Since, for some reason, the first party games are not really interesting to me, there's  hardly 10 games left I'm interested in, which I can't play on the Dreamcast.

n64 easily more controller color choices more games that are fun to play and it has goldeneye!

n64 easily more controller color choices

mariokart64fan

Because that's what's most important about a console, LMAO!

And the Dreamcast had multi-colored controllers, anyways.

[QUOTE="mariokart64fan"]

n64 easily more controller color choices

Emerald_Warrior

Because that's what's most important about a console, LMAO!

And the Dreamcast had multi-colored controllers, anyways.

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="mariokart64fan"]

n64 easily more controller color choices

Heirren

Because that's what's most important about a console, LMAO!

And the Dreamcast had multi-colored controllers, anyways.

Um, he was talking about the N64 controllers have more colors to choose from. It was never about which controller was better.

But, the N64 may be the most hated controller I've ever used. I never have used the notorious Atari 5200 joystick, though. Which I hear is by far the worst. Just so cumbersome and uncomfortable. Not that the Dreamcast was had a fantastic controller or anything. But at least the buttons and thumbstick were placed in the traditional controller areas, which made it more comfortable than the N64 controller, IMO.

[QUOTE="Heirren"][QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

Because that's what's most important about a console, LMAO!

And the Dreamcast had multi-colored controllers, anyways.

Emerald_Warrior

Um, he was talking about the N64 controllers have more colors to choose from. It was never about which controller was better.

But, the N64 may be the most hated controller I've ever used. I never have used the notorious Atari 5200 joystick, though. Which I hear is by far the worst. Just so cumbersome and uncomfortable. Not that the Dreamcast was had a fantastic controller or anything. But at least the buttons and thumbstick were places in the traditional controller areas, which made it more comfortable than the N64 controller, IMO.

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="Heirren"] There was nothing better about the dc pad. It's probably the cheapest controller ever produced. Odd considering the console itself is pretty solid.Heirren

Um, he was talking about the N64 controllers have more colors to choose from. It was never about which controller was better.

But, the N64 may be the most hated controller I've ever used. I never have used the notorious Atari 5200 joystick, though. Which I hear is by far the worst. Just so cumbersome and uncomfortable. Not that the Dreamcast was had a fantastic controller or anything. But at least the buttons and thumbstick were places in the traditional controller areas, which made it more comfortable than the N64 controller, IMO.

I agree.

But in a way I understand why many people didn't like it.

The PS Dual Shock was more of a evolution of the SNES pad than the N64 pad was.

And the DC pad was the un-official predecessor of the Xbox and Xbox 360 pad.

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="Heirren"] There was nothing better about the dc pad. It's probably the cheapest controller ever produced. Odd considering the console itself is pretty solid.Heirren

Um, he was talking about the N64 controllers have more colors to choose from. It was never about which controller was better.

But, the N64 may be the most hated controller I've ever used. I never have used the notorious Atari 5200 joystick, though. Which I hear is by far the worst. Just so cumbersome and uncomfortable. Not that the Dreamcast was had a fantastic controller or anything. But at least the buttons and thumbstick were places in the traditional controller areas, which made it more comfortable than the N64 controller, IMO.

[QUOTE="Heirren"][QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

Um, he was talking about the N64 controllers have more colors to choose from. It was never about which controller was better.

But, the N64 may be the most hated controller I've ever used. I never have used the notorious Atari 5200 joystick, though. Which I hear is by far the worst. Just so cumbersome and uncomfortable. Not that the Dreamcast was had a fantastic controller or anything. But at least the buttons and thumbstick were places in the traditional controller areas, which made it more comfortable than the N64 controller, IMO.

critorkong

This is a very easy decision for me, unlike the Dreamcast vs. XBox thread which was a close call for me.

Dreamcast all the way. Fantastic game library, with lots of unique titles, and pretty much perfect arcade ports. And Sega Net was the first easily accessible, popular and widely used online console gaming network out there. Yeah, there was Saturn Link, but I wouldn't call that a healthy online gaming community outside of Japan.

With the N64, the controller really makes the console take a big hit, in my book. That awkward hunk of junk is one of the worst designed controllers ever made. Not THE worst, but it's up there.

Emerald_Warrior