Top 5 best-looking games on the N64?

  • 92 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by GreekGameManiac (6439 posts) -

Apparently,Conker's Bad Fur Day's the best one graphically,but the what about the rest?>

#2 Posted by Blueresident87 (5339 posts) -

I remember Resident Evil 2 being awesome when I first saw it.

#3 Posted by Shenmue_Jehuty (5207 posts) -

In my opinion:

1. Perfect Dark

2. Zelda MM

3. Zelda OoT

4. Banjo Kazooie

5. Super Mario 64

#4 Posted by Darkman2007 (17929 posts) -

Perfect Dark would be on that list, as would Conker of course, Banjo Tooie and to a certain extent Wave Race would get the award for the best looking early game.

#5 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

- Donkey Kong 64 (best-looking N64 game imo)

- Majora

- PD

- Conker

- Jet Force Gemini

Honorable mentions: Banjo-Tooie, Rush 2049, Turok 2 (very slow in hi-res mode tho), Rogue Squadron (foggy), Kirby 64, Wave Race 64, Diddy Kong Racing, Yoshi's Story (yes, I like it)

#6 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

Apparently,Conker's Bad Fur Day's the best one graphically,but the what about the rest?>

GreekGameManiac

Conker was the best-looking non-Expanion Pak supporting game but not the best-looking N64 game overall.

Also Resident Evil 2 was impressive only because they managed to stuff it into a cartridge. I believe N64 was strong enough for a true 3D Resident Evil game (if it made extensive use of the Exp. Pak of course).

#7 Posted by magnax1 (4605 posts) -

DK64

Banjo tooie

Majora's mask

Those are probably the three best looking IMO. Not many others are that close. Conker might be, but I haven't played it.

#8 Posted by Eikichi-Onizuka (8022 posts) -
1. Donkey Kong 64 2. Perfect Dark 3. Conker's Bad Fur Day 4. Banjo Tooie 5. The Legend Of Zelda: Majora's Mask
#9 Posted by Branmuffin316 (1200 posts) -

Perfect Dark, Majora's Mask, Jet Force Gemini, Star Fox 64, Conker

#10 Posted by Kaszilla (1718 posts) -
Every rare game, super mario 64, spider man.
#11 Posted by GreekGameManiac (6439 posts) -

So,what i got from you guys....

Perfect Dark

TLoZ MM

DK64

Jet Force Gemini

Conker's Bad Fur Day.

Is that correct?

#12 Posted by wiifan001 (18418 posts) -
I'm going with the following of Perfect Dark, Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, Super Mario 64, and Conker's Bad Fur Day.
#13 Posted by Heirren (17109 posts) -

-Super Mario 64

-Wave Race

-Blast Corps

-Ocarina

-Turok 2

#14 Posted by bultje112 (1867 posts) -

I remember Resident Evil 2 being awesome when I first saw it.

Blueresident87

this

#15 Posted by Darkman2007 (17929 posts) -

-Super Mario 64

-Wave Race

-Blast Corps

-Ocarina

-Turok 2

Heirren
forgot about Turok 2 , its indeed a good looking game , though the frame rate chuggs along sometimes when things get busy . unless of course its a result of a poor PAL optimization.
#16 Posted by Heirren (17109 posts) -

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

-Super Mario 64

-Wave Race

-Blast Corps

-Ocarina

-Turok 2

Darkman2007

forgot about Turok 2 , its indeed a good looking game , though the frame rate chuggs along sometimes when things get busy . unless of course its a result of a poor PAL optimization.

The framerate hiccups in hi-rez mode in the US version as well. It was still a good looking game in low res as well, at least for the time, and it ran much smoother.

I disagree with a lot of the choices people are making--Conker is rather ugly imo. It is just a choppy mess.

#17 Posted by Darkman2007 (17929 posts) -

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Heirren"]

-Super Mario 64

-Wave Race

-Blast Corps

-Ocarina

-Turok 2

Heirren

forgot about Turok 2 , its indeed a good looking game , though the frame rate chuggs along sometimes when things get busy . unless of course its a result of a poor PAL optimization.

The framerate hiccups in hi-rez mode in the US version as well. It was still a good looking game in low res as well, at least for the time, and it ran much smoother.

I disagree with a lot of the choices people are making--Conker is rather ugly imo. It is just a choppy mess.

Conker's frame rate is decent most of the time (Id say around 20 fps), but indeed there are sometimes when the frame rate goes below the acceptable line. not as bad as Hybrid Heaven though , try the game on high res, and watch the frame rate go to 5fps (and thats on average) , on low res its literally 5 times the speed, though obviously it then its not as sharp. its actually a problem with some of the other games I have with optional high res, like C&C (though it doesn't run too well in low res either) and Rogue Squadron.
#18 Posted by Heirren (17109 posts) -

its actually a problem with some of the other games I have with optional high res, like C&C (though it doesn't run too well in low res either) and Rogue Squadron.Darkman2007

I feel the same way. There's a fine line as to what is acceptable. I find the earlier games looked and hold up much better than the ones that used the expansion and pushed the system too hard. I could never get into conker/donkey64 for this very reason, which is unfortunate. It is too bad that the need to slap on "high rez mod" was used in favor of perhaps creating more complex/larger worlds. Imagine a Mario64-2 game that used the expansion pack for simply making the worlds a little more inhabited.

#19 Posted by Darkman2007 (17929 posts) -

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] its actually a problem with some of the other games I have with optional high res, like C&C (though it doesn't run too well in low res either) and Rogue Squadron.Heirren

I feel the same way. There's a fine line as to what is acceptable. I find the earlier games looked and hold up much better than the ones that used the expansion and pushed the system too hard. I could never get into conker/donkey64 for this very reason, which is unfortunate. It is too bad that the need to slap on "high rez mod" was used in favor of perhaps creating more complex/larger worlds. Imagine a Mario64-2 game that used the expansion pack for simply making the worlds a little more inhabited.

well , the expansion pack is just RAM , 4MB to be exact, just so as to not hold back the CPU and allow more things to be loaded into RAM (ie, anybody claiming it was going to give a massive improvement is wrong) Mario64 is designed very much to the N64's strengths, it doesn't use many textures (alot of repeating textures), and in fact the polygon counts aren't sky high either. though because of that it runs well , and it can use some anti aliasing to make the polygons look better. a Mario64-2 would look better with or without an expansion pack , simply due to being a later game.
#20 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

So,what i got from you guys....

Perfect Dark

TLoZ MM

DK64

Jet Force Gemini

Conker's Bad Fur Day.

Is that correct?

GreekGameManiac

That's a good list. Perhaps add Banjo-Tooie and Wave Race 64 (still nice water effects).

#21 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Heirren"]

-Super Mario 64

-Wave Race

-Blast Corps

-Ocarina

-Turok 2

Heirren

forgot about Turok 2 , its indeed a good looking game , though the frame rate chuggs along sometimes when things get busy . unless of course its a result of a poor PAL optimization.

I disagree with a lot of the choices people are making--Conker is rather ugly imo. It is just a choppy mess.

It's one of the most impressive N64 games, technically. The frame rate drops don't make it ugly altho I understand the desire for smooth framerates.

Let's just say that by disabling Z-buffering, the N64 got a big performance boost (examples of N64 games which use no Z-buffer: World Driver Championship, Indy The Infernal Machine, ect.).

#22 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] its actually a problem with some of the other games I have with optional high res, like C&C (though it doesn't run too well in low res either) and Rogue Squadron.Heirren

I feel the same way. There's a fine line as to what is acceptable. I find the earlier games looked and hold up much better than the ones that used the expansion and pushed the system too hard. I could never get into conker/donkey64 for this very reason, which is unfortunate. It is too bad that the need to slap on "high rez mod" was used in favor of perhaps creating more complex/larger worlds. Imagine a Mario64-2 game that used the expansion pack for simply making the worlds a little more inhabited.

That's not quite true. The RAM pack wasn't used just for hi-res graphics but also for better lighting (DK64), more objects (Majora) and better textures (PD).

Also Conker does not use it.

#23 Posted by Darkman2007 (17929 posts) -

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] its actually a problem with some of the other games I have with optional high res, like C&C (though it doesn't run too well in low res either) and Rogue Squadron.nameless12345

I feel the same way. There's a fine line as to what is acceptable. I find the earlier games looked and hold up much better than the ones that used the expansion and pushed the system too hard. I could never get into conker/donkey64 for this very reason, which is unfortunate. It is too bad that the need to slap on "high rez mod" was used in favor of perhaps creating more complex/larger worlds. Imagine a Mario64-2 game that used the expansion pack for simply making the worlds a little more inhabited.

That's not quite true. The RAM pack wasn't used just for hi-res graphics but also for better lighting (DK64), more objects (Majora) and better textures (PD).

Also Conker does not use it.

and note the pattern , all of the games you mentioned require the RAM pack. its one thing to design a game around the RAM pack , its another to make a normal game with an optional use of the expansion. its matter of time and money.
#24 Posted by Heirren (17109 posts) -

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] forgot about Turok 2 , its indeed a good looking game , though the frame rate chuggs along sometimes when things get busy . unless of course its a result of a poor PAL optimization.nameless12345

I disagree with a lot of the choices people are making--Conker is rather ugly imo. It is just a choppy mess.

It's one of the most impressive N64 games, technically. The frame rate drops don't make it ugly altho I understand the desire for smooth framerates.

Let's just say that by disabling Z-buffering, the N64 got a big performance boost (examples of N64 games which use no Z-buffer: World Driver Championship, Indy The Infernal Machine, ect.).

The frame rate does make it ugly. I'm not the only one that shares this view. It is a muddy mess with choppy framerates. I swear I would not doubt if that game was pushed just to present box-shot-art in an attempt to compete with dreamcast.

#25 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

I feel the same way. There's a fine line as to what is acceptable. I find the earlier games looked and hold up much better than the ones that used the expansion and pushed the system too hard. I could never get into conker/donkey64 for this very reason, which is unfortunate. It is too bad that the need to slap on "high rez mod" was used in favor of perhaps creating more complex/larger worlds. Imagine a Mario64-2 game that used the expansion pack for simply making the worlds a little more inhabited.

Darkman2007

That's not quite true. The RAM pack wasn't used just for hi-res graphics but also for better lighting (DK64), more objects (Majora) and better textures (PD).

Also Conker does not use it.

and note the pattern , all of the games you mentioned require the RAM pack. its one thing to design a game around the RAM pack , its another to make a normal game with an optional use of the expansion. its matter of time and money.

Of course, the best usage was in games that required it.

Contrary to popular belief, the N64's biggest weaknesses weren't the foggy graphics and small texture cache, but the small storage space and limiting microcodes.

Would the system launch with the extra 4 meg RAM pack and the 64DD and wouldn't have any limiting microcodes, it would be interesting to see what they could do with it.

#26 Posted by kittensRjerks (3802 posts) -

DK 64

Banjo & Kazooie

Conkers

Perfect Dark

Zelda OoT

#27 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

I disagree with a lot of the choices people are making--Conker is rather ugly imo. It is just a choppy mess.

Heirren

It's one of the most impressive N64 games, technically. The frame rate drops don't make it ugly altho I understand the desire for smooth framerates.

Let's just say that by disabling Z-buffering, the N64 got a big performance boost (examples of N64 games which use no Z-buffer: World Driver Championship, Indy The Infernal Machine, ect.).

The frame rate does make it ugly. I'm not the only one that shares this view. It is a muddy mess with choppy framerates. I swear I would not doubt if that game was pushed just to present box-shot-art in an attempt to compete with dreamcast.

Well, the most impressive things about Conkers are the cut-scenes, nice lighting and facial animation with recorded speech. Otherwise the in-game graphics look worse than DK64.

#28 Posted by Darkman2007 (17929 posts) -

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

That's not quite true. The RAM pack wasn't used just for hi-res graphics but also for better lighting (DK64), more objects (Majora) and better textures (PD).

Also Conker does not use it.

nameless12345

and note the pattern , all of the games you mentioned require the RAM pack. its one thing to design a game around the RAM pack , its another to make a normal game with an optional use of the expansion. its matter of time and money.

Of course, the best usage was in games that required it.

Contrary to popular belief, the N64's biggest weaknesses weren't the foggy graphics and small texture cache, but the small storage space and limiting microcodes.

Would the system launch with the extra 4 meg RAM pack and the 64DD and wouldn't have any limiting microcodes, it would be interesting to see what they could do with it.

the N64's problem wasn't polygon counts (microcodes or otherwise), it was good at manipulating large polygons and you needed less polygons due to the pseudo 3D acceleration (for instance, PS1 games sometimes to use more polygons on walls to hide warping, N64 games didn't need that) the real problem was indeed the textures , and storage space. I can assure you that with with more texture memory and maybe a larger storage capacity, the N64 would have been just fine (well , it was fine anyways, but you get the point)
#29 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] and note the pattern , all of the games you mentioned require the RAM pack. its one thing to design a game around the RAM pack , its another to make a normal game with an optional use of the expansion. its matter of time and money.Darkman2007

Of course, the best usage was in games that required it.

Contrary to popular belief, the N64's biggest weaknesses weren't the foggy graphics and small texture cache, but the small storage space and limiting microcodes.

Would the system launch with the extra 4 meg RAM pack and the 64DD and wouldn't have any limiting microcodes, it would be interesting to see what they could do with it.

the N64's problem wasn't polygon counts (microcodes or otherwise), it was good at manipulating large polygons and you needed less polygons due to the pseudo 3D acceleration (for instance, PS1 games sometimes to use more polygons on walls to hide warping, N64 games didn't need that) the real problem was indeed the textures , and storage space. I can assure you that with with more texture memory and maybe a larger storage capacity, the N64 would have been just fine (well , it was fine anyways, but you get the point)

The texture cache is the same as on the PS1, yet many PS1 games have better texture detail. The carts were too small to hold large amounts of data which big textures require. The RAM pack helped but it would help even more if it had more storage space. And not only the graphics would benefit with more storage space.

The 64DD's initial disk size of 64 megs may not seem much, but it's as much as the biggest 64 carts can hold (like the one RE 2 uses) and it could allow for multiple disks and perhaps would see an increase in storage with time (much like the carts' sizes increased with time) and all that at a smaller cost.

If a CD drive would increase the costs of the 64, the 64DD surely would not since there was no extra hardware in there (predisposing it would be built-in into the console).

And the microcodes did really limit it's potential. Not only it took a lot of time to get good results out of it, 3rd parties started getting good results by the end of the console's life cycle and that's due to Nintendo finaly giving them their tools. Compare Rush 2049 to the first Rush and you'll understand what I'm saying.

Nintendo and Rare had a slight monopoly on the 64 due to their dev tools being much better than the other devs'.

And finaly the advanced effects the 64 could do of course slowed it down. People who think the frame rate issues with some 64 games steem from the console being too weak do not know how it works.

You just try making the PS1 (or Sega Saturn for that matter) doing bi-linear texture filtering. They would explode so to speak.

#30 Posted by Darkman2007 (17929 posts) -

1) texture cache is the same, but you need more if youre going to use filters and anti aliasing, so its not enough.

2) did I deny the N64 would benefit from more space? I did not, it certainly would, though its not the only thing holding it back.

3) any extra parts would raise the price of the console, 64DD included

4) its not just a matter of microcodes, a developer has to want and be able to do dig as deep as that into a console, frankly most devs simply didn't have the time or money for that.

Rush 2049 looks much better because its 4 years newer , thats alot of time , thats the difference between Ridge Racer and Ridge Racer 4 , another leap in visuals (within the red lines). its not abnormal for tools to be improved over time, early dev kits tend to be more primitive because sometimes the very people writing them don't know everything.

5) Nintendo and Rare are 1st/2nd party devs, they aren't working on any other system (other than the GBC, but the budgets for small games like that is much smaller), they can afford to develop the best tools and engines for themselves.

moreover, both Nintendo and Rare are very talented, they are obviously going to do better than 9/10 of devs out there.

6) frame rate issues can come from a number of things, poor programming can be one of them , a weak link in the hardware could be another.

7) sure, every console had its good points, the PS1 or Saturn can't do texture filtering or perspective correction, but the N64 can't render 2D floors on a hardware level or multi layer scrolling in hardware (or sprites for that matter) , nor does it have a soundchip, nor does it have the extreme popularity of the PS1 which meant everybody and their grandma were making games for it, and getting 110% out of the system in the process.

every console had its good points, the trick is to use those good points to make a game that looks , runs and plays well.

#31 Posted by glassjawbox (148 posts) -

c'mon people, POKEMON SNAP.

#33 Posted by bultje112 (1867 posts) -

I find it funny that neo geo aes cartridges were bigger than n64 cartridges, in fact the biggest n64 cartridge ever was resident evil 2 which was 1.5 time smaller than the biggest neo geo cartridge king of fighters 2003(I think it was)

nintendo made a horrible decision going with cartridges that EVERYONE saw coming as a huge mistake

#34 Posted by Heirren (17109 posts) -

I find it funny that neo geo aes cartridges were bigger than n64 cartridges, in fact the biggest n64 cartridge ever was resident evil 2 which was 1.5 time smaller than the biggest neo geo cartridge king of fighters 2003(I think it was)

nintendo made a horrible decision going with cartridges that EVERYONE saw coming as a huge mistake

bultje112

Yes and no. I feel people completely forget loading times. Loading times were a problem for me, at least a little bit. I remember waiting MINUTES for some of the sports games to load up. Also, Neo Geo games cost around $150, no?

#35 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

Well, Miyamoto did say he couldn't do Mario 64 and Ocarina on a CD but I'm not sure if I should believe him.

If anything, Ocarina would only benefit from it since they could add CGI cut-scenes, speech, more diverse textures, extra dungeons, ect.

Of course there would be loading times but it wouldn't be any different from PS1 and Saturn.

And there's some old SGI promotion where they say N64's filtered graphics wouldn't be possible on a CD but I believe that even less (since the graphics chip does that and not the carts).

#36 Posted by Darkman2007 (17929 posts) -

Well, Miyamoto did say he couldn't do Mario 64 and Ocarina on a CD but I'm not sure if I should believe him.

If anything, Ocarina would only benefit from it since they could add CGI cut-scenes, speech, more diverse textures, extra dungeons, ect.

Of course there would be loading times but it wouldn't be any different from PS1 and Saturn.

And there's some old SGI promotion where they say N64's filtered graphics wouldn't be possible on a CD but I believe that even less (since the graphics chip does that and not the carts).

nameless12345
he just says that, I mean do you honestly expect him to say "yeah ,I think the decision taken by my boss is a bad decision"? as important as Myamoto is at Nintendo I don't think he could have said something like that. and those SGI promotions are CGI , with the exception of the shark demo , and again, they were talking nonsense.
#37 Posted by Heirren (17109 posts) -

Well, Miyamoto did say he couldn't do Mario 64 and Ocarina on a CD but I'm not sure if I should believe him.

If anything, Ocarina would only benefit from it since they could add CGI cut-scenes, speech, more diverse textures, extra dungeons, ect.

Of course there would be loading times but it wouldn't be any different from PS1 and Saturn.

And there's some old SGI promotion where they say N64's filtered graphics wouldn't be possible on a CD but I believe that even less (since the graphics chip does that and not the carts).

nameless12345

I believe the claims. Nintendo is notorious for spending a lot of cash on R&D.

#38 Posted by Darkman2007 (17929 posts) -

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Well, Miyamoto did say he couldn't do Mario 64 and Ocarina on a CD but I'm not sure if I should believe him.

If anything, Ocarina would only benefit from it since they could add CGI cut-scenes, speech, more diverse textures, extra dungeons, ect.

Of course there would be loading times but it wouldn't be any different from PS1 and Saturn.

And there's some old SGI promotion where they say N64's filtered graphics wouldn't be possible on a CD but I believe that even less (since the graphics chip does that and not the carts).

Heirren

I believe the claims. Nintendo is notorious for spending a lot of cash on R&D.

whenever a developer says "this game can't be done on this system" , always take it with a grain of salt, unless it goes to the absurd, its usually not 100% true. in fact,sometimes its just there to cover up for the reason of why they are not doing the game on that platform.
#39 Posted by Heirren (17109 posts) -

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Well, Miyamoto did say he couldn't do Mario 64 and Ocarina on a CD but I'm not sure if I should believe him.

If anything, Ocarina would only benefit from it since they could add CGI cut-scenes, speech, more diverse textures, extra dungeons, ect.

Of course there would be loading times but it wouldn't be any different from PS1 and Saturn.

And there's some old SGI promotion where they say N64's filtered graphics wouldn't be possible on a CD but I believe that even less (since the graphics chip does that and not the carts).

Darkman2007

I believe the claims. Nintendo is notorious for spending a lot of cash on R&D.

whenever a developer says "this game can't be done on this system" , always take it with a grain of salt, unless it goes to the absurd, its usually not 100% true. in fact,sometimes its just there to cover up for the reason of why they are not doing the game on that platform.

What is the time stamp on that quote, though? See, even before the N64 launched, a lot of developers had negative things to say in regards to the cart format.

#40 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Heirren"]

I believe the claims. Nintendo is notorious for spending a lot of cash on R&D.

Heirren

whenever a developer says "this game can't be done on this system" , always take it with a grain of salt, unless it goes to the absurd, its usually not 100% true. in fact,sometimes its just there to cover up for the reason of why they are not doing the game on that platform.

What is the time stamp on that quote, though? See, even before the N64 launched, a lot of developers had negative things to say in regards to the cart format.

I read that in some old N64 mag once. Apparently he was a big hater of loading times so his statement may be connected with that.

#41 Posted by Darkman2007 (17929 posts) -

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Heirren"]

I believe the claims. Nintendo is notorious for spending a lot of cash on R&D.

Heirren

whenever a developer says "this game can't be done on this system" , always take it with a grain of salt, unless it goes to the absurd, its usually not 100% true. in fact,sometimes its just there to cover up for the reason of why they are not doing the game on that platform.

What is the time stamp on that quote, though? See, even before the N64 launched, a lot of developers had negative things to say in regards to the cart format.

Im not quite sure but I would imagine it would have been at the time or somewhat before the game was launched. and developers were unhappy with carts by that time because for them there were more benefits with CDs, yes they had loading, but as far as devs were concerned, CDs gave them alot of storage for cheap , which cut down costs. I mean ,carts were still a decent format in the late 80s and early 90s, when games were still small ,and CD players were very expensive, but by 1995-96, not so much. the reason Nintendo went with carts was because they were scared of piracy, even with Gamecube and Wii they went with specialised formats, rather than the standard DVD for the very same reason.
#42 Posted by Darkman2007 (17929 posts) -

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] whenever a developer says "this game can't be done on this system" , always take it with a grain of salt, unless it goes to the absurd, its usually not 100% true. in fact,sometimes its just there to cover up for the reason of why they are not doing the game on that platform.nameless12345

What is the time stamp on that quote, though? See, even before the N64 launched, a lot of developers had negative things to say in regards to the cart format.

I read that in some old N64 mag once. Apparently he was a big hater of loading times so his statement may be connected with that.

though if he did reject CDs based on that alone that leads me to 2 questions 1) how much and why was he involved in hardware development 2) did he take into account the fact he is limiting his games?
#43 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

What is the time stamp on that quote, though? See, even before the N64 launched, a lot of developers had negative things to say in regards to the cart format.

Darkman2007

I read that in some old N64 mag once. Apparently he was a big hater of loading times so his statement may be connected with that.

though if he did reject CDs based on that alone that leads me to 2 questions 1) how much and why was he involved in hardware development 2) did he take into account the fact he is limiting his games?

Well, the counter-argument could be that Ocarina was better with game engine cut-scenes instead of "dead" CGI and that there is no need for speech in Zelda games and even that the content they had to cut out developed into the great Majora's Mask (rather than an add-on disk for the 64DD as was originally planned).

#44 Posted by Darkman2007 (17929 posts) -

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

I read that in some old N64 mag once. Apparently he was a big hater of loading times so his statement may be connected with that.

nameless12345

though if he did reject CDs based on that alone that leads me to 2 questions 1) how much and why was he involved in hardware development 2) did he take into account the fact he is limiting his games?

Well, the counter-argument could be that Ocarina was better with game engine cut-scenes instead of "dead" CGI and that there is no need for speech in Zelda games and even that the content they had to cut out developed into the great Majora's Mask (rather than an add-on disk for the 64DD as was originally planned).

just because you put a game on CD, doesn't mean you need CG , in fact Metal Gear had no CG, all in game. the problem is though , are they designing the console for one game? Nintendo are not dumb , they knew what developers wanted, they were just repeating the mistake Sega made.
#45 Posted by bultje112 (1867 posts) -

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Well, Miyamoto did say he couldn't do Mario 64 and Ocarina on a CD but I'm not sure if I should believe him.

If anything, Ocarina would only benefit from it since they could add CGI cut-scenes, speech, more diverse textures, extra dungeons, ect.

Of course there would be loading times but it wouldn't be any different from PS1 and Saturn.

And there's some old SGI promotion where they say N64's filtered graphics wouldn't be possible on a CD but I believe that even less (since the graphics chip does that and not the carts).

Heirren

I believe the claims. Nintendo is notorious for spending a lot of cash on R&D.

nintendo were once again aholes about licensing. the only reason they went for cartridges was more powers over 3rd party developpers, sinc e not all could produce cartridges and piracy that was looming on the horizon

#46 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] though if he did reject CDs based on that alone that leads me to 2 questions 1) how much and why was he involved in hardware development 2) did he take into account the fact he is limiting his games?Darkman2007

Well, the counter-argument could be that Ocarina was better with game engine cut-scenes instead of "dead" CGI and that there is no need for speech in Zelda games and even that the content they had to cut out developed into the great Majora's Mask (rather than an add-on disk for the 64DD as was originally planned).

just because you put a game on CD, doesn't mean you need CG , in fact Metal Gear had no CG, all in game.

That's also true.

Of course they didn't make the console for just one game, but I read the N64 gamepad was designed with Mario 64 and 3-D gaming in mind (hence the analoge stick and C-buttons for camera control).

#47 Posted by Darkman2007 (17929 posts) -

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Well, the counter-argument could be that Ocarina was better with game engine cut-scenes instead of "dead" CGI and that there is no need for speech in Zelda games and even that the content they had to cut out developed into the great Majora's Mask (rather than an add-on disk for the 64DD as was originally planned).

nameless12345

just because you put a game on CD, doesn't mean you need CG , in fact Metal Gear had no CG, all in game.

That's also true.

Of course they didn't make the console for just one game, but I read the N64 gamepad was designed with Mario 64 and 3-D gaming in mind (hence the analoge stick and C-buttons for camera control).

then the question is , if they knew what developers wanted, why go the opposite way, at least in terms of storage which I can assure you cost them support.
#48 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] just because you put a game on CD, doesn't mean you need CG , in fact Metal Gear had no CG, all in game.Darkman2007

That's also true.

Of course they didn't make the console for just one game, but I read the N64 gamepad was designed with Mario 64 and 3-D gaming in mind (hence the analoge stick and C-buttons for camera control).

then the question is , if they knew what developers wanted, why go the opposite way, at least in terms of storage which I can assure you cost them support.

They did plan to enter the CD market with SNES CD which they developed together with Sony but after that fell into water (out of SNES CD's ashes the PlayStation was born as you most probably know) they went back to carts. They knew it's gonna limit the console on the long run so they started working on 64DD which they bet a lot in. Unfortunately that didn't go quite well and the 64DD came out too late, just in Japan and flopped bad. Since then they use optical discs for their base consoles.

#49 Posted by Darkman2007 (17929 posts) -

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

That's also true.

Of course they didn't make the console for just one game, but I read the N64 gamepad was designed with Mario 64 and 3-D gaming in mind (hence the analoge stick and C-buttons for camera control).

nameless12345

then the question is , if they knew what developers wanted, why go the opposite way, at least in terms of storage which I can assure you cost them support.

They did plan to enter the CD market with SNES CD which they developed together with Sony but after that fell into water (out of SNES CD's ashes the PlayStation was born as you most probably know) they went back to carts. They knew it's gonna limit the console on the long run so they started working on 64DD which they bet a lot in. Unfortunately that didn't go quite well and the 64DD came out too late, just in Japan and flopped bad. Since then they use optical discs for their base consoles.

I still don't understand the logic behined the 64DD, its no different than the logic behined the Mega CD never expect a large scale add on to be successful , it didn't work with the Mega CD (though the Mega CD has its share of good games) and it didn't work with 32X. now if the 64DD would have been built in from the start, that might ber a better idea.
#50 Posted by magnax1 (4605 posts) -

I dont think cartridges were honestly such a bad idea. It lost them developer support, but I don't think that's really what lost them sales. They lost sales because they went up against a marketing giant in Sony that no one had really competed against before in the market.

Also, the 64DD just doesn't make sense because those drives and floppy disks were very expensive. Anyone remember zip drives? They cost insane amount of $ at the time....