Crash bandicoot Vs. Mario 64

[QUOTE="Koi-Neon-X"]

[QUOTE="jakandsig"] Can you please tell me WHAT GAMES play like Mario 64 to THIS day other than Mario games? Noen! Spyro was made b Crash, Jak was made to play like crash, Ratchet played its own way. Now back on topic, Mario was more open ended. but shorter than Crash, especially when trying to get 100%. Crash is also harder than Mario and you will be going through several unique levels with new challenges and all kinds of **** going on. Mario seems to be a tad lacking in activity, but that's not my problem with it, my problem is that the games has you doing the same things to get a star the majority of the game in SIMILLAR looking levels IMO. Crash games became better per game. The fact you can have a good playing game tha's linear get better 3 time in a row is impressive. Crash 1 did a lot in showing what the PS1 could do, and the result was great games in other genres coming out with even better results. Excluding the GTA that is. But Crash has its own problems. I would say a tie between the two, but crash was more fun and had better boss'' IMO. It also had beautiful levels that matched the theme and music almost ever level. However the bad collisions on the bridges will irritate you a little.

jakandsig

Super Mario Galaxy is a pretty decent game and from the looks of it has some shades of Mario 64. As for the length of the game Mario 64 gave me plenty to do with many different levels to explore (since when did length make a game bad?) I've played shorter games that packed enough punch to make me go "WOW! that was awesome!"video games don't need to be 1000 hourslong to be good.Crash harder than Mario? I guess that would depend on the player now wouldn't it? I breezed through all the Crash Bandicoot games (must have been from all the experience I racked up playing those Super Mario Bros. games) You're saying the Super Mario Bros. games didn't get better with each installment? really?! okay so I suppose the jump from Super Mario Bros. to Super Mario Bros. 2 to Super Mario Bros. 3, on to Super Mario World, Sunshine, Galaxy and all the rest was just not that great? hmm...okay but that's YOUR opinion.

Crash Bandicoot was an enjoyable series I give it a ton of credit for being imaginative and above all else fun. I did the same thing over and over again in Super Mario Bros. and I loved it! lacking in activity? does that apply to all of them or just Mario 64 because I played that game for days on end and didn't seem to run out of things to do until I collected every single star.

Sentences. Only Mario games play like Mario 64? Banjo-Tooie? that didn't play like Mario 64? maybe I'm wrong. Sorry, but the first couple of Mario games were NOT like Mario 64 and that's what made Mario 64 unique. I'm sure if I experienced Mario 64 back in the 80s and90smy mind would have been completely blown! so yeah I'm paying attention. Did I ever say that I thought you said it "suckes"? NO! I did not. I never said you weren't entitled to your opinion either. I think the Super Mario Bros. games have improved over the years and you think otherwise which is all fine and good. I'm not here to make you laugh that's for sure. Not sure how one of the most influential games/series ever created got "worse" as you put it (??), but as you said: it's your opinion. Oh, and by the way: your fact about Crash is harder than Mario to get 100% is NOT a fact-it's just another opinion.

[QUOTE="jakandsig"][QUOTE="Koi-Neon-X"]

Super Mario Galaxy is a pretty decent game and from the looks of it has some shades of Mario 64. As for the length of the game Mario 64 gave me plenty to do with many different levels to explore (since when did length make a game bad?) I've played shorter games that packed enough punch to make me go "WOW! that was awesome!"video games don't need to be 1000 hourslong to be good.Crash harder than Mario? I guess that would depend on the player now wouldn't it? I breezed through all the Crash Bandicoot games (must have been from all the experience I racked up playing those Super Mario Bros. games) You're saying the Super Mario Bros. games didn't get better with each installment? really?! okay so I suppose the jump from Super Mario Bros. to Super Mario Bros. 2 to Super Mario Bros. 3, on to Super Mario World, Sunshine, Galaxy and all the rest was just not that great? hmm...okay but that's YOUR opinion.

Crash Bandicoot was an enjoyable series I give it a ton of credit for being imaginative and above all else fun. I did the same thing over and over again in Super Mario Bros. and I loved it! lacking in activity? does that apply to all of them or just Mario 64 because I played that game for days on end and didn't seem to run out of things to do until I collected every single star.

Koi-Neon-X

Sentences. Only Mario games play like Mario 64? Banjo-Tooie? that didn't play like Mario 64? maybe I'm wrong. Sorry, but the first couple of Mario games were NOT like Mario 64 and that's what made Mario 64 unique. I'm sure if I experienced Mario 64 back in the 80s and90smy mind would have been completely blown! so yeah I'm paying attention. Did I ever say that I thought you said it "suckes"? NO! I did not. I never said you weren't entitled to your opinion either. I think the Super Mario Bros. games have improved over the years and you think otherwise which is all fine and good. I'm not here to make you laugh that's for sure. Not sure how one of the most influential games/series ever created got "worse" as you put it (??), but as you said: it's your opinion. Oh, and by the way: your fact about Crash is harder than Mario to get 100% is NOT a fact-it's just another opinion.

Yes, only MARIO games have played like MARIO 64. If you read all posts, a user said that "HE defined platforming for generations" Yet no game since that generation plays like it since it's own games. Mario has also not been INFLUENCIAL since the end of that generation.

Mario 64 was not UNIQUE. That actually may e opinion based, but I find it hard to believe that it's unique simply because it's the same as other 3D platforming attempts and its previous games except in 3D with more room to run. Was it slightly innovative? Perhaps. Unique? Debatable.

Getting 100% in Crash is factually harder. The Mario 64 guys even in a magazine back then (I think it was EGM) said that the aim was to make the game more acessible with lower difficulty then previous games but still has a few areas where you have to be on your toes. Crash makes you not die get all crates in levels that were made to be challenging and in some cases, more chalenging than expected. Crash is more irritating/Harder than Mario64. It is not opinion based, it is fact. Only main Story playthrough is subjective.

Overall this doesn't seem to be a very good comparison, and SM64 would be better compaered to Spyro in terms of game design. This being said, I'd choose Spyro over SM64, and SM64 over Crash.

[QUOTE="Koi-Neon-X"]

[QUOTE="jakandsig"] The first 2 or so senteces of your post was already said clearly in my post. Only Mario games play like Mario64. pay attention Crash is Harder than Mario to get 100% is a fact. Notice I said 100%. But of ocurse, you were not looking. The Gem challenges were made difficult on purpose. If not hard, then more irritating, either way, Mario is easier/less irritating. I never said shorts games were bad. I just sait Crash was longer ad that was why I thought it was better. Notice I said I? No? Oh to busy thinking I said Mario 64 suckes. Wait, I never said that. Mario games got better with each installment? I love how you replaced it with me saying SUPER MARIO games. Even so, it stilll does not IMPROVE per game. That''s like saying Call of Duty Black Ops is better game then WAW or MW2 despite the fact the game to its core is exactly the same other than 2 gimmicks. Wonderful example, Mario Galaxy 2. Is in no way different from the first except Yoshi which was the MAIN difference mentioned. Replace Mario with Sonic riding a tiger, or Cloud riding a Chocobo and the game would have been criticized for exactly what I just said. The game may still e fun for some people, the it's the same formula and the same gameplay. Is that a bad thing? That's subjective, but saying Mario has IMPROVED? Don't make me laugh. Crash changes the game with all 5 of its PS1 installments. SUPER MARIO (As you said) didn't. However, that's not the point though. I said MARIO games, because none of the other Mario games on the N64 were SUPER MARIO games. MARIO games got worse and worse on the system. But hey I even said that was MY OPINION> Which you didn't read. Back on topic, I believe Mario to be god in a way, but I just felt like a bland experience to me.jakandsig

Sentences. Only Mario games play like Mario 64? Banjo-Tooie? that didn't play like Mario 64? maybe I'm wrong. Sorry, but the first couple of Mario games were NOT like Mario 64 and that's what made Mario 64 unique. I'm sure if I experienced Mario 64 back in the 80s and90smy mind would have been completely blown! so yeah I'm paying attention. Did I ever say that I thought you said it "suckes"? NO! I did not. I never said you weren't entitled to your opinion either. I think the Super Mario Bros. games have improved over the years and you think otherwise which is all fine and good. I'm not here to make you laugh that's for sure. Not sure how one of the most influential games/series ever created got "worse" as you put it (??), but as you said: it's your opinion. Oh, and by the way: your fact about Crash is harder than Mario to get 100% is NOT a fact-it's just another opinion.

Yes, only MARIO games have played like MARIO 64. If you read all posts, a user said that "HE defined platforming for generations" Yet no game since that generation plays like it since it's own games. Mario has also not been INFLUENCIAL since the end of that generation.

Mario 64 was not UNIQUE. That actually may e opinion based, but I find it hard to believe that it's unique simply because it's the same as other 3D platforming attempts and its previous games except in 3D with more room to run. Was it slightly innovative? Perhaps. Unique? Debatable.

Getting 100% in Crash is factually harder. The Mario 64 guys even in a magazine back then (I think it was EGM) said that the aim was to make the game more acessible with lower difficulty then previous games but still has a few areas where you have to be on your toes. Crash makes you not die get all crates in levels that were made to be challenging and in some cases, more chalenging than expected. Crash is more irritating/Harder than Mario64. It is not opinion based, it is fact. Only main Story playthrough is subjective.

Again, it's YOUR opinion and because you think it's harder does not make it a fact!! doesn't matter what the Mario 64 guys said in EGM (the best video game magazine on the planet). You saying Crash IS more irritating than Mario 64 IS opinion based because you're basing it on YOUR experience!!!! to me it's not harder or irritating and I'm sure there are others that will agree. There! I just turned your "fact" into swiss cheese. I think I'm going to go have a conversation with my two cats as I see an intelligence in them that I didn't quite appreciate...until now.

Overall this doesn't seem to be a very good comparison, and SM64 would be better compaered to Spyro in terms of game design. This being said, I'd choose Spyro over SM64, and SM64 over Crash.

Beard_

These games are the best comparison even back then as they were released basically at the same time. Whcih is what this comparison is about. Othere have given their intelligent opinion on the matter.

In this case, you like Mario 64 more than Crash.

Not played Mario 64 yet but will soon. I think I might still prefer Crash, although it was actually tough as nails to get 100% on.

I'm playing Crash Bandicoot 3: Warped, played like 20 minutes, i think. Never played any of the predecesors before, and it's .. different. Tons of variety, great colourful artst yle, funny characters, sometimes challenging. But kinda linear. Though i like it.

Crash has held up way more than Mario 64 has. Mario 64 has held up as badly as OoT and really, at this point, only fans of the game deny this from what I have seen.

jakandsig

I don't know about that. I recieved my N64, and a few games for it yesterday (OoT, Mario64 'n Wave Racer). Never owned one, or played the games before.

I'm 2 hours in OoT, and it's addictive. The boss battles up until now have ben easy, but the artst yle, the fluid controls, the colourful atmosphere.. i love them. I'm gonna finish this game. Story got me hooked.

I played Mario 64 for like 30 minutes, i think. The music themes are so damn cool (that water level, man.. damn). The visuals are very simplistic, but, like before, the colourful artst yle makes up for it. The controls are solid, a bit of variety in the platforming.. I like it, the camera sometimes is a issue, but i like this game.

Overall, i am not disappointed in the least.

Not played Mario 64 yet but will soon. I think I might still prefer Crash, although it was actually tough as nails to get 100% on.

Lex224

I'm playing Crash Bandicoot 3: Warped, played like 20 minutes, i think. Never played any of the predecesors before, and it's .. different. Tons of variety, great colourful artst yle, funny characters, sometimes challenging. But kinda linear. Though i like it.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Crash is more of a "2.5D" platformer whereas Mario 64 was the first true (let's leave some early tries shall we?) 3D platformer. I think it's undeniable that Mario 64 did a whole lot more to evolve the genre than Crash. Crash just built upon what made platformers like Earthworm Jim fun and set in into 3D graphics. Mario 64, on the other hand, made a whole new genre (again, counting out some early trys). The level design and control in Mario 64 I also feel is superior to Crash and the graphical minimalism in Mario 64 does not bother me at all.

However, I liked Banjo-Kazooie a lot more than Mario 64. And I also think Crash 3 is much better than the first one.

Emerald_Warrior

There were some 2.5D levels on Crash Bandicoot, sure, but it wasn't nearly the whole game. A ton of the levels were 3D, no doubt 3D. It just wasn't as open-world feeling as Super Mario 64.

Like I said, Crash was more of a "2.5D" platformer whereas Mario 64 was a "full-fledged" 3D platformer.

[QUOTE="CaptianPeachfuz"]

How can you even put Crash Bandicoot and Mario 64 in the same sentence? Crash Bandicoot was popular, yes. Crash was even the mascot for the Sony Playstation in the late 90's. However, it didn't really change how we viewed 3D platforming games like Mario 64. Mario 64 revolutionized the way 3-D games would be made and played.

jakandsig

Banjo-Kazooie, Donkey Kong 64 and Rayman 2 all copied Mario 64.

And I think Ape Escape on the PS1 also played much like Mario 64.

You gotta get Crash credit for making 3 Linear games in a row and do enough in each of them to make each one massively better than the one before. Heck, even a great racing and Party game there. (Although the Party games was not made by Naughty dogg.)jakandsig

Yeah, i think Bandicoot 3 is one of the best looking games on the PS1, i really am digging that artst yle and wacky characters, it's so much damn fun. And even though linear, so far from what i played, a few stages offered a good deal of challenge, man. I think i'm gonna be a fan of Bandicoot.

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Crash is more of a "2.5D" platformer whereas Mario 64 was the first true (let's leave some early tries shall we?) 3D platformer. I think it's undeniable that Mario 64 did a whole lot more to evolve the genre than Crash. Crash just built upon what made platformers like Earthworm Jim fun and set in into 3D graphics. Mario 64, on the other hand, made a whole new genre (again, counting out some early trys). The level design and control in Mario 64 I also feel is superior to Crash and the graphical minimalism in Mario 64 does not bother me at all.

However, I liked Banjo-Kazooie a lot more than Mario 64. And I also think Crash 3 is much better than the first one.

There were some 2.5D levels on Crash Bandicoot, sure, but it wasn't nearly the whole game. A ton of the levels were 3D, no doubt 3D. It just wasn't as open-world feeling as Super Mario 64.

Like I said, Crash was more of a "2.5D" platformer whereas Mario 64 was a "full-fledged" 3D platformer.

[QUOTE="jakandsig"]You gotta get Crash credit for making 3 Linear games in a row and do enough in each of them to make each one massively better than the one before. Heck, even a great racing and Party game there. (Although the Party games was not made by Naughty dogg.)Lucianu

Yeah, i think Bandicoot 3 is one of the best looking games on the PS1, i really am digging that artst yle and wacky characters, it's so much damn fun. And even though linear, so far from what i played, a few stages offered a good deal of challenge, man. I think i'm gonna be a fan of Bandicoot.

Both were awesome games.

I have more memories of Super Mario 64 than Crash though.

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Crash is more of a "2.5D" platformer whereas Mario 64 was the first true (let's leave some early tries shall we?) 3D platformer. I think it's undeniable that Mario 64 did a whole lot more to evolve the genre than Crash. Crash just built upon what made platformers like Earthworm Jim fun and set in into 3D graphics. Mario 64, on the other hand, made a whole new genre (again, counting out some early trys). The level design and control in Mario 64 I also feel is superior to Crash and the graphical minimalism in Mario 64 does not bother me at all.

However, I liked Banjo-Kazooie a lot more than Mario 64. And I also think Crash 3 is much better than the first one.

nameless12345

There were some 2.5D levels on Crash Bandicoot, sure, but it wasn't nearly the whole game. A ton of the levels were 3D, no doubt 3D. It just wasn't as open-world feeling as Super Mario 64.

Like I said, Crash was more of a "2.5D" platformer whereas Mario 64 was a "full-fledged" 3D platformer.

No. 2.5D is where a game is mostly played on a 2D field, but occasionally the screen turns and suddenly your playing on a new 2D field from a different perspective than before, or you can fade in and out of the foreground and backgrounds.

In Crash Bandicoot, you can move in all directions, 360 degrees. All objects are 3D. You play on a 3D field, not a 2D field. It's not 2.5D, it's 3D. It's just not huge open areas like in Super Mario 64. Small areas do not equal 2.5D. 2.5D is stuff like Klonoa or Metroid: Other M.

Yes, there are some levels that fit the 2.5D description in Crash Bandicoot. But they are only a handful of the levels. And even Super Mario 64 has some of the same 2.5D things sprinkled in it when you go through those underworld obstacle courses.

I was a big crash fan. Mario 64 was alright, but in my opinion not only Mario 64, but none of the Mario 3D games are as good as the 2D Super Mario's on NES/SNES

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

There were some 2.5D levels on Crash Bandicoot, sure, but it wasn't nearly the whole game. A ton of the levels were 3D, no doubt 3D. It just wasn't as open-world feeling as Super Mario 64.

Emerald_Warrior

Like I said, Crash was more of a "2.5D" platformer whereas Mario 64 was a "full-fledged" 3D platformer.

No. 2.5D is where a game is mostly played on a 2D field, but occasionally the screen turns and suddenly your playing on a new 2D field from a different perspective than before, or you can fade in and out of the foreground and backgrounds.

In Crash Bandicoot, you can move in all directions, 360 degrees. All objects are 3D. You play on a 3D field, not a 2D field. It's not 2.5D, it's 3D. It's just not huge open areas like in Super Mario 64. Small areas do not equal 2.5D. 2.5D is stuff like Klonoa or Metroid: Other M.

Yes, there are some levels that fit the 2.5D description in Crash Bandicoot. But they are only a handful of the levels. And even Super Mario 64 has some of the same 2.5D things sprinkled in it when you go through those underworld obstacle courses.

Spyro 2 was better than all the Crash games because it brought so many cool new elements to the series. We had to wait till Crash 3 for a massive change.

Spyro 2 was better than all the Crash games because it brought so many cool new elements to the series. We had to wait till Crash 3 for a massive change.

chocolate1325

I noticed this is your first post. Welcome to gamespot.

(Slightly less ignorant then IGN but still ignorant.)

I noticed this is your first post. Welcome to gamespot.

(Slightly less ignorant then IGN but still ignorant.)

jakandsig

[QUOTE="chocolate1325"]

Spyro 2 was better than all the Crash games because it brought so many cool new elements to the series. We had to wait till Crash 3 for a massive change.

jakandsig

[QUOTE="jakandsig"][QUOTE="chocolate1325"]

Spyro 2 was better than all the Crash games because it brought so many cool new elements to the series. We had to wait till Crash 3 for a massive change.

chocolate1325

[QUOTE="chocolate1325"]

[QUOTE="jakandsig"] Crash Bandicoot 2 and 1 were so un-related to each other that I am going to say play them again because it was a "Massive Change." However, I do agree Spyro 2 owned until Crash 3. (First Spyro needed some work.jakandsig

[QUOTE="jakandsig"][QUOTE="chocolate1325"]I know Crash 2 brought Crystal collecting and the slide but Spyro 2 brought abilities like swimming and some better tasks to do than just freeing dragons. Spyro 3 I felt was not as good as number 3.

chocolate1325

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

There were some 2.5D levels on Crash Bandicoot, sure, but it wasn't nearly the whole game. A ton of the levels were 3D, no doubt 3D. It just wasn't as open-world feeling as Super Mario 64.

Emerald_Warrior

Like I said, Crash was more of a "2.5D" platformer whereas Mario 64 was a "full-fledged" 3D platformer.

No. 2.5D is where a game is mostly played on a 2D field, but occasionally the screen turns and suddenly your playing on a new 2D field from a different perspective than before, or you can fade in and out of the foreground and backgrounds.

In Crash Bandicoot, you can move in all directions, 360 degrees. All objects are 3D. You play on a 3D field, not a 2D field. It's not 2.5D, it's 3D. It's just not huge open areas like in Super Mario 64. Small areas do not equal 2.5D. 2.5D is stuff like Klonoa or Metroid: Other M.

Yes, there are some levels that fit the 2.5D description in Crash Bandicoot. But they are only a handful of the levels. And even Super Mario 64 has some of the same 2.5D things sprinkled in it when you go through those underworld obstacle courses.

"2.5D" is a relative term. Shooters like Doom and Duke 3D were deemed "2.5D" because they didn't have "real" 3D graphics. Kirby 64 was said to be "2.5D" because it was a 3D game played on a two-dimensional plane.

Crash has a lot of "2D" gameplay. It's also pretty linear and limited.

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Like I said, Crash was more of a "2.5D" platformer whereas Mario 64 was a "full-fledged" 3D platformer.

nameless12345

No. 2.5D is where a game is mostly played on a 2D field, but occasionally the screen turns and suddenly your playing on a new 2D field from a different perspective than before, or you can fade in and out of the foreground and backgrounds.

In Crash Bandicoot, you can move in all directions, 360 degrees. All objects are 3D. You play on a 3D field, not a 2D field. It's not 2.5D, it's 3D. It's just not huge open areas like in Super Mario 64. Small areas do not equal 2.5D. 2.5D is stuff like Klonoa or Metroid: Other M.

Yes, there are some levels that fit the 2.5D description in Crash Bandicoot. But they are only a handful of the levels. And even Super Mario 64 has some of the same 2.5D things sprinkled in it when you go through those underworld obstacle courses.

"2.5D" is a relative term. Shooters like Doom and Duke 3D were deemed "2.5D" because they didn't have "real" 3D graphics. Kirby 64 was said to be "2.5D" because it was a 3D game played on a two-dimensional plane.

Crash has a lot of "2D" gameplay. It's also pretty linear and limited.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

No. 2.5D is where a game is mostly played on a 2D field, but occasionally the screen turns and suddenly your playing on a new 2D field from a different perspective than before, or you can fade in and out of the foreground and backgrounds.

In Crash Bandicoot, you can move in all directions, 360 degrees. All objects are 3D. You play on a 3D field, not a 2D field. It's not 2.5D, it's 3D. It's just not huge open areas like in Super Mario 64. Small areas do not equal 2.5D. 2.5D is stuff like Klonoa or Metroid: Other M.

Yes, there are some levels that fit the 2.5D description in Crash Bandicoot. But they are only a handful of the levels. And even Super Mario 64 has some of the same 2.5D things sprinkled in it when you go through those underworld obstacle courses.

jakandsig

"2.5D" is a relative term. Shooters like Doom and Duke 3D were deemed "2.5D" because they didn't have "real" 3D graphics. Kirby 64 was said to be "2.5D" because it was a 3D game played on a two-dimensional plane.

Crash has a lot of "2D" gameplay. It's also pretty linear and limited.

Oh please, the gameplay in Crash either constitutes of running upward into the screen and moving within a very limited area or side-scrolling platform gameplay. It's not even near the complexity of Mario 64.

Probably Mario./ but i loved Crash at the time

[QUOTE="jakandsig"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

"2.5D" is a relative term. Shooters like Doom and Duke 3D were deemed "2.5D" because they didn't have "real" 3D graphics. Kirby 64 was said to be "2.5D" because it was a 3D game played on a two-dimensional plane.

Crash has a lot of "2D" gameplay. It's also pretty linear and limited.

nameless12345

Oh please, the gameplay in Crash either constitutes of running upward into the screen and moving within a very limited area or side-scrolling platform gameplay. It's not even near the complexity of Mario 64.

Agreed, I've been saying basically the same thing by saying Mario 64 is more open-area feeling. But what I'm saying is that doesn't equal 2.5D. It's 3D no matter how limited the space may be.

mario 64

Its a tough choice.. I think Mario64 is slightly better

Crash Bandicoot was great. I still enjoy it. However, I think Super Mario 64 is the clear winner. It was such an innovation for it's time and is also still a whole lot of fun to play. Amnesiac23

[QUOTE="Amnesiac23"]Crash Bandicoot was great. I still enjoy it. However, I think Super Mario 64 is the clear winner. It was such an innovation for it's time and is also still a whole lot of fun to play. jakandsig

Like what? Jumping Flash?

Totaly different game and more of a first-person platformer/shooter hybrid.

Do you do any research at all or do you just believe what the nintendo people tell you> (Like the N64 inventing the analog stick. BS.)

[QUOTE="jakandsig"][QUOTE="Amnesiac23"]Crash Bandicoot was great. I still enjoy it. However, I think Super Mario 64 is the clear winner. It was such an innovation for it's time and is also still a whole lot of fun to play. nameless12345

Like what? Jumping Flash?

Totaly different game and more of a first-person platformer/shooter hybrid.

Alas I return to these boards and its funny to see somethings have not changed. Ahh Nameless how incorrect you are....One game that many people consider to be the first 3D open world games is Hunter. Ever heard of it? I doubt it but it predated Mario 64 by five years, you could swim, drive vehicles and do many things that are norm to the genre these days. So yes, 3D openworlds were done before, its just as usual that Nameless never did his research. Ahh how I have missed this.

Here is info on Hunter

Do you do any research at all or do you just believe what the nintendo people tell you> (Like the N64 inventing the analog stick. BS.)

jakandsig

No he does no research, as you can tell I have totally proved his argument wrong. But of course Nameless will come up with some poor attempt to invalidate any real arguments. He will try to back up and say he said something different, but he did not. He said what he said, and he is wrong.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="jakandsig"] There was no INNOVATION. It was already done, just with worse camera angles.TheTrueMagusX1

Like what? Jumping Flash?

Totaly different game and more of a first-person platformer/shooter hybrid.

Alas I return to these boards and its funny to see somethings have not changed. Ahh Nameless how incorrect you are....One game that many people consider to be the first 3D open world games is Hunter. Ever heard of it? I doubt it but it predated Mario 64 by five years, you could swim, drive vehicles and do many things that are norm to the genre these days. So yes, 3D openworlds were done before, its just as usual that Nameless never did his research. Ahh how I have missed this.

Here is info on Hunter

No I haven't. You can't expect me to know about every obscure game out there. If we are to be nitpickers we could also mention Alpha Waves as a pioneer of the 3D platfomer subgenre.

Jakandsig said there was no innovation in Mario 64. If you agree with this you have to be an anti-Nintendo/Mario-hater type of guy yourself.

There were a lot of things that Mario 64 redefined even if they were pioneered by various games before.

Anyway, thanks for the link. It's always interesting to find out about yet unknown interesting vintage games.

By the way: analogue sticks didn't play a huge role in gamepads before the N64, so yes, we can say they reinvented it.

An another thing: Wolfenstein 3D is considered to be the first "proper" FPS despite similar games preceeding it. Does that make it any less important for the FPS genre? I think not.

[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Like what? Jumping Flash?

Totaly different game and more of a first-person platformer/shooter hybrid.

Alas I return to these boards and its funny to see somethings have not changed. Ahh Nameless how incorrect you are....One game that many people consider to be the first 3D open world games is Hunter. Ever heard of it? I doubt it but it predated Mario 64 by five years, you could swim, drive vehicles and do many things that are norm to the genre these days. So yes, 3D openworlds were done before, its just as usual that Nameless never did his research. Ahh how I have missed this.

Here is info on Hunter

No I haven't. You can't expect me to know about every obscure game out there. If we are to be nitpickers we could also mention Alpha Waves as a pioneer of the 3D platfomer subgenre.

Jakandsig said there was no innovation in Mario 64. If you agree with this you have to be an anti-Nintendo/Mario-hater type of guy yourself.

There were a lot of things that Mario 64 redefined even if they were pioneered by various games before.

Anyway, thanks for the link. It's always interesting to find out about yet unknown interesting vintage games.

By the way: analogue sticks didn't play a huge role in gamepads before the N64, so yes, we can say they reinvented it.

nameless12345

You never said they reinvented it, you said they invented it....wow...you never cease to amaze me!

[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Like what? Jumping Flash?

Totaly different game and more of a first-person platformer/shooter hybrid.

nameless12345

Alas I return to these boards and its funny to see somethings have not changed. Ahh Nameless how incorrect you are....One game that many people consider to be the first 3D open world games is Hunter. Ever heard of it? I doubt it but it predated Mario 64 by five years, you could swim, drive vehicles and do many things that are norm to the genre these days. So yes, 3D openworlds were done before, its just as usual that Nameless never did his research. Ahh how I have missed this.

Here is info on Hunter

No I haven't. You can't expect me to know about every obscure game out there. If we are to be nitpickers we could also mention Alpha Waves as a pioneer of the 3D platfomer subgenre.

Jakandsig said there was no innovation in Mario 64. If you agree with this you have to be an anti-Nintendo/Mario-hater type of guy yourself.

There were a lot of things that Mario 64 redefined even if they were pioneered by various games before.

Anyway, thanks for the link. It's always interesting to find out about yet unknown interesting vintage games.

No its not nitpicking its called facts. If a game is obscure it does not negate the fact that it is first or not. Thats just plain silly....As for Mario64, for a platformer yes it was innovated for its time mostly cause it was the break out 3D game, but the game never really aged well. Thats the problem....I have, and while Mario 64 is the break 3D game, does not mean it was the first. Other games did it before....Mario 64 for its time just did it better, but it was not hte first with these concept

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

By the way: analogue sticks didn't play a huge role in gamepads before the N64, so yes, we can say they reinvented it.

TheTrueMagusX1

You never said they reinvented it, you said they invented it....wow...you never cease to amaze me!

I think I never wrote that and even if I did it wasn't in this thread and is of little to no relevance.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"]

Alas I return to these boards and its funny to see somethings have not changed. Ahh Nameless how incorrect you are....One game that many people consider to be the first 3D open world games is Hunter. Ever heard of it? I doubt it but it predated Mario 64 by five years, you could swim, drive vehicles and do many things that are norm to the genre these days. So yes, 3D openworlds were done before, its just as usual that Nameless never did his research. Ahh how I have missed this.

Here is info on Hunter

TheTrueMagusX1

No I haven't. You can't expect me to know about every obscure game out there. If we are to be nitpickers we could also mention Alpha Waves as a pioneer of the 3D platfomer subgenre.

Jakandsig said there was no innovation in Mario 64. If you agree with this you have to be an anti-Nintendo/Mario-hater type of guy yourself.

There were a lot of things that Mario 64 redefined even if they were pioneered by various games before.

Anyway, thanks for the link. It's always interesting to find out about yet unknown interesting vintage games.

No its not nitpicking its called facts. If a game is obscure it does not negate the fact that it is first or not. Thats just plain silly....As for Mario64, for a platformer yes it was innovated for its time mostly cause it was the break out 3D game, but the game never really aged well. Thats the problem....I have, and while Mario 64 is the break 3D game, does not mean it was the first. Other games did it before....Mario 64 for its time just did it better, but it was not hte first with these concept

So now because a game from an entirely different time period has some similar gameplay mechanics you're gonna say that makes an important game (in this case Mario 64) any less important?

It's not just about who was to make something first but also how he puts that to use.

By this logic Battlezone from 1980 is the first FPS and Wolfenstein 3D is just a insignificant clone.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"]

Alas I return to these boards and its funny to see somethings have not changed. Ahh Nameless how incorrect you are....One game that many people consider to be the first 3D open world games is Hunter. Ever heard of it? I doubt it but it predated Mario 64 by five years, you could swim, drive vehicles and do many things that are norm to the genre these days. So yes, 3D openworlds were done before, its just as usual that Nameless never did his research. Ahh how I have missed this.

Here is info on Hunter

jakandsig

No I haven't. You can't expect me to know about every obscure game out there. If we are to be nitpickers we could also mention Alpha Waves as a pioneer of the 3D platfomer subgenre.

Jakandsig said there was no innovation in Mario 64. If you agree with this you have to be an anti-Nintendo/Mario-hater type of guy yourself.

There were a lot of things that Mario 64 redefined even if they were pioneered by various games before.

Anyway, thanks for the link. It's always interesting to find out about yet unknown interesting vintage games.

Well that's your opinion but from my prespective you're wrong on almost everything you said.

I find Croc 2 very boring btw.