Tiptup said:
C3PX said:
The N64 was on top as far as graphics went, PS couldn't touch it. But PS could do video and audio that the N64 could never dream of, not thanks to more power but thanks to a CD drive and 650mb of space. Even with PS's beautifully pixelated videos, the N64 still kicked the PS pathetic little ass.
The N64 did not kick the ass of the PSX (despite the fact that I would have wanted it to). In terms of sales, the Playstation won that generation of the console wars and that wasn't just a fluke. The CD drive afforded more than just easy video and audio capabilities. For instance, games with complicated textures or other pre-rendered images were simply not possible on the N64 without their detail being reduced to crap. What was the point of having solid rendering and softened graphics to display blurry textures? It was also rare to see an N64 game that was long and involved. CD was the format of choice at that time and Nintendo made a huge mistake. After the first few generations of PSX titles it was very rare to find a game that wasn't well optimized for quick load times. Nintendo was just being stupid.
I wasn't saying the 64 kicked its ass in terms of sales, obviously the PSX did better.
I still think PlayStation games looked like crap. As for it being rare to see an N64 game that was long and involved? What do you mean? Maybe I am not quite understanding what you mean by "long and involved". In fact, I cannot think of too many of the games I owned that were not pretty long and pretty involved.
I haven't played through too many PSX games, one of them I have played through was Tomorrow Never Dies, it was pretty linear and extremely short. I also played some of The World is Not Enough. I never beat it, but I remember reading the list of levels, and it seemed very short. It too was also pretty straight forward without a whole lot of variety. Oh yeah, and they both looked like total shit as far as graphics were concerned. Finally, I played 007 Racing, need less to say, it is not very involved at all, about as simple and uninvolved as they get.
Goldeneye for the N64 on the other hand, was very long, and I would consider it far more involved than the three James Bond games for the PlayStation. Different level objectives, and even sections of the level were availible on different difficulty levels. Four players could play simultaniously in multiplayer. I forget how many levels Goldeneye has, but I remember it having a very decent length. Certainly better than the PSX Bond games longevity. For every level there were also achievements you could complete in order to unlock secrets. Oh yeah, and unlike the PSX Bond games, Goldeneye didn't look like a pile of crap.
Both Zelda games had some pretty complex systems in them and were quite involved. In fact, I'd be interested to hear what PSX games are that involved beyond FF7. Perfect Dark was even longer than Goldeneye. Most of my friends who were PSX obsessed, tended to be into fighting games and sports games. Two of the least involved and complicated genres out there. Metal Gear Solid was pretty long and involved, I'll give that one credit, but you might as well have played it on the PC, as I, an N64 owner, did without needing to buy a PSX to play an inferior version of the game.
The PS2 outsold The GameCube, and I think even the Xbox (though I could be wrong), sales is not always an indicator of which console packs the most power or looks the best. The PS2 was an under powered piece of crap compared to its contemporaries, yet it is an awesome system and has an impressive library of games, and is the only one left from the last gen that is still selling decently today.
I still thing the 64's biggest problem lay in the fact that it lacked games. But as for the games it did have... well, Tomorrow Never Dies on the PSX may have wowed me with its opening sequence complete with title song ripped right out of the film, but at least Goldeneye was longer, fun to play through more than once, and the characters didn't look like they were built out of cinderblocks.