PS3 totally rips off N64!

[Bucket]

Here's an editorial piece I just submitted to a blog site. I figured I'd get you guys' opinions on it.

"PS3 totally rips off N64!!"

 

Those of us who have been witness to the Internet Next-Gen Fanboy Wars have probably come across some sort of comment about how Sony happens to have a penchant for ripping off features that Nintendo invented. Those debates are never long without someone having the keen insight to proclaim, "N64 had an analog controller first!" or "N64 invented rumble!"

 

Well-- as a service to my fellow PS3 fans, so that you may be more informed and thus more prepared for your many trials, I've managed to compile a list of yet more concepts that were first introduced with the N64 to share with your Wii-playing friends:

 

1) A completely underwhelming launch, attempting to coast on the success of the previous console.

2) A proprietary and expensive data storage format, reviled by the general public.

3) Ridiculously-shaped controllers.

4) Comically bulky design.

5) Hemmorhaging market share and 3rd-party support the moment they were presented with another viable option.

6) Superior hardware to its competition, ironically limited by its seemingly counter-intuitive architecture and lack of development tools.

 

Can you think of any more?

[Nukey Shay]

Pong had an analog controller first. So all modern consoles ripped off Pong.

[ninjarabbit]

Actually the N64 had a pretty good launch with Super Mario 64, the problem was it was something like 6 months before the next decent game come out for the N64.

 

And I did like the N64 controller for games that were built with the controller in mind like SM64 and Goldeneye

[8th lutz]

What is the meaning of this!

 

The N64 had a good Launch. That was the saturn, about 1 year 4 months earlier for having a bad Launch in the United States. The N64 started strong in Japan and in the States. The n64's problem was the time length between the next good game. The N64 had problems with the lack of 3rd party support.

[spacecadet]

Don't feed the troll, guys. Some of the things in that list don't even make sense in relation to the N64, let alone the PS3.

Edited March 25, 2007 by spacecadet

[Bucket]

OK, so there are no actual PS3 fans in the PS3 board who appreciate the humor in this. (Especially with the rampant fanboyism we've been subjected to.)

 

Incidentally, I don't know how "had to wait a while for the next decent game" DOESN'T translate to an underwhelming launch.

 

But apparently I'm trolling, so...

[+swlovinist]

I would not compare the PS3 to the N64. Here are my reasons why

 

1) A completely underwhelming launch, attempting to coast on the success of the previous console.

 

The N64 had a very good launch and sold out during the Holiday. It was not until a couple of years after the launch did the system start to have problems.

 

2) A proprietary and expensive data storage format, reviled by the general public.

 

The cart format was a bad idea. I have to agree with this one, although Blue Ray is leading the race for the next format. Walmart is already tossing in the towel on HD DVD, Heck even Disney will not make for the Format.

 

3) Ridiculously-shaped controllers.

 

I actually enjoy the N64 controllers, but I am left handed. As far as the PS3 having any issues with controllers, I dont see that at all unless you count the rumble feature.

 

4) Comically bulky design.

 

The PS3 looks like a forman grill, but the N64 had a sleek design and was not bulky at all. In fact, even the chipset for the system was very slick.

5) Hemmorhaging market share and 3rd-party support the moment they were presented with another viable option.

 

Ummm, this is not any different than any other console on the market. This is not a point.

 

6) Superior hardware to its competition, ironically limited by its seemingly counter-intuitive architecture and lack of development tools.

 

The N64 actually had inferior hardware limitations due to its cart format. Dude, the PS3 has only been out 5 months. We need to give it about a year and a half to really show what it can do.

[Atariman]

While pong had the "first analog controller", lets not forget that the 5200 had (what I think is) the first analog joystick. Everyone else is a ripoff! Some of these arguments can be so petty...

[kevincal]

Actually the N64 had a pretty good launch with Super Mario 64, the problem was it was something like 6 months before the next decent game come out for the N64.

 

And I did like the N64 controller for games that were built with the controller in mind like SM64 and Goldeneye

 

Uh...PilotWings 64 and a certain "masterpiece" called Waverace 64 don't count as "decent" games!?!?

[kevincal]

Also didn't Mario Kart 64 come out sooner than 6 months after the N64 release? Or was that StarFox 64...Meh, can't remember!

[AtariJr]

What is the meaning of this!

 

The N64 had a good Launch. That was the saturn,

 

 

HEY , screw yoU! lol

[Bucket]

Well, OK, since it's turned into an actual conversation...

 

The N64 launched with 3 games in the U.S. as opposed to PS3's 5 games. Nevertheless, it was months before N64 released another "system-seller" and even after, they were few and far between (Mario Kart 64, Zelda OOT, Goldeneye, a handful of others). PS3 so far has Resistance: FOM, Ridge Racer 7, they just got MotorStorm are waiting for Final Fantasy or Killzone 2 as well as a couple of 1st-party offerings. Metal Gear 4 is out the window (but ironically, the N64 was when Square jumped ship).

 

Both systems had respectable launches, but the hype soon dried up as their offerings did.

 

N64 did indeed have superior hardware to the Playstation (their biggest competitor), but the architecture had a bunch of quirks. For example, the N64's graphics processor could handle plenty of geometry but had a crippling problem with fillrate, and the system only had 4k of texture cache. As a result, it took programmers years to properly take advantage of the hardware. Similarly, people are saying the same about the PS3 and its PPU architecture (as well as the strange way Sony decided to relegate resources to the machine's OS).

 

I must not have heard about N64's "sleek" design because I was too occupied hearing about how it could double as a doorstop.

 

N64's cart format was considered antequated at the time of its release and gamers railed against it in favor of the PS1's and Saturn's CD format. Of course, there were advantages and disadvantages to the cart format, but I'm referring to public opinion (which of course did have an affect on sales). Likewise, Blu-Ray is an unpopular format for non-Sony fans; before the PS3's release, they'd commonly say "HD-DVD will win, Blu-Ray will fail". Naturally, now that Blu-Ray is gaining in the market, most of them have resorted to saying "Well, we really don't need HD yet anyway". Naturally.

Edited March 25, 2007 by Bucket

[Steril707]

While pong had the "first analog controller", lets not forget that the 5200 had (what I think is) the first analog joystick. Everyone else is a ripoff! Some of these arguments can be so petty...

 

Nope, sorry to have to correct you, but the GCE Vectrex had the first analog ->joystick<-...

[shadow460]

N64 most powerful of that era!? It had the most powerful CPU, running at ~96 MHx comapred to the Saturn's twin Hitachis running at ~25 MHz each. Now if my facts are straight, both systems had 4 MB of system RAM, upgradeable to 8 MB. Didn't the N64's memory expansion go primarily to graphics, though?

The Saturn, however, contained five other processors besieds the twin CPUs. IMO, the Saturn was stronger than the N64 and the PlayStation 1 both.

Edited March 30, 2007 by shadow460

[Punisher5.0]

Now if my facts are straight, both systems had 4 MB of system RAM, upgradeable to 8 MB. Didn't the N64's memory expansion go primarily to graphics, though?

 

 

The N64 used Rambus RAM so the developers could use the extra RAM for whatever they wanted.

[Room 34]

YAPT

[agradeneu]

N64 most powerful of that era!? It had the most powerful CPU, running at ~96 MHx comapred to the Saturn's twin Hitachis running at ~25 MHz each. Now if my facts are straight, both systems had 4 MB of system RAM, upgradeable to 8 MB. Didn't the N64's memory expansion go primarily to graphics, though?

The Saturn, however, contained five other processors besieds the twin CPUs. IMO, the Saturn was stronger than the N64 and the PlayStation 1 both.

 

Yeah get your facts straight.

[shadow460]

N64 most powerful of that era!? It had the most powerful CPU, running at ~96 MHx comapred to the Saturn's twin Hitachis running at ~25 MHz each. Now if my facts are straight, both systems had 4 MB of system RAM, upgradeable to 8 MB. Didn't the N64's memory expansion go primarily to graphics, though?

The Saturn, however, contained five other processors besieds the twin CPUs. IMO, the Saturn was stronger than the N64 and the PlayStation 1 both.

 

Yeah get your facts straight.

 

I'll get right on that.

[Pixelboy]

The N64 only failed because Sony offered third-party developers and publishers a better, more profitable deal, and because the CD format was the logical evolution of gaming at the time. If the PlayStation hadn't been such a logical business choice, the N64 would have fared much better. Nintendo only has itself to blame for missing the boat.

 

I always shake my head when I see people enumerating technical flaws in game consoles, and trying to peg a console's failure ("failure" being a VERY relative term) on its hardware shortcomings. Game programmers are first and foremost problem-solvers, and are usually smart enough to work with (or around) hardware limitations on any system. Having more powerful and well-balanced hardware is always a plus, but the overall quality of games depend more on creative and artistic talent than on pushing the limits of the machine.

 

Personally, I found the N64 technically impressive, but I quickly rejected it completely because of a simple yet unforgiveable flaw: The Z trigger button (under the controller) was WAY too sensitive, and whenever things got hectic in a game, I often got carried away and squeezed that Z button unintentionally just a tad too much, and in games like Super Mario 64, this usually resulted in a mistake that cost me a life. I know most N64 gamers never had a problem with this, but I could never accept such a glaring flaw. (Note that I was never a big fan of the PlayStation controller either, because I've always had a thing against shoulder buttons...)

[ManShowBoy]

N64 is probaley the only system who's graphics got worst as the console aged

[ManShowBoy]

N64 most powerful of that era!? It had the most powerful CPU, running at ~96 MHx comapred to the Saturn's twin Hitachis running at ~25 MHz each. Now if my facts are straight, both systems had 4 MB of system RAM, upgradeable to 8 MB. Didn't the N64's memory expansion go primarily to graphics, though?

The Saturn, however, contained five other processors besieds the twin CPUs. IMO, the Saturn was stronger than the N64 and the PlayStation 1 both.

 

Saturn was so ahead of it's time with the first dual-core processors.

[Bruce Tomlin]

I think the lack of 3rd party games was what killed the N64. Everybody + dog jumped to the PS1 which (unlike the PS3) was easy to develop for, and surely had lower manufacturing royalties. Saturn lost out because it was originally designed to be the best 2D system ever, just as 3D was about to become important, in addition to a botched launch. In the end, the only people left who cared were the ones who switch-modded their Saturns to play (non-3D) imports. And the DC died because Sega just didn't have enough life left in them after the failures of the Sega CD, 32X, and Saturn.

 

But after the SNES CD fiasco, there was no way N was going to come out with a CD-based system. There may even have been secret contract issues with Sony that prevented it or made it too much trouble, for all I know. At the very least it was Not Invented Here syndrome.

 

The N64 only failed because Sony offered third-party developers and publishers a better, more profitable deal, and because the CD format was the logical evolution of gaming at the time. If the PlayStation hadn't been such a logical business choice, the N64 would have fared much better. Nintendo only has itself to blame for missing the boat.

Which I think makes the PSP even more ironic, since cartridge/flash is clearly the proper format for portable gaming. UMD will forever be 1.8 gig, while the size of cheap semiconductor memory goes up and up. And UMD doesn't benefit from the economies of scale that "real" consumer formats like CD and DVD that made CD/DVD-based games so cheap to manufacture.

 

N64 most powerful of that era!? It had the most powerful CPU, running at ~96 MHx comapred to the Saturn's twin Hitachis running at ~25 MHz each. Now if my facts are straight, both systems had 4 MB of system RAM, upgradeable to 8 MB. Didn't the N64's memory expansion go primarily to graphics, though?

The Saturn, however, contained five other processors besieds the twin CPUs. IMO, the Saturn was stronger than the N64 and the PlayStation 1 both.

The problem is that it was and still is hard to make good use of multiple processors when most of them are different. The Jaguar was a total mess. I know the Saturn had twin SH3s (sounds like some kind of sportscar engine, eh?), and a 68K that was normally used for sound, so what were the other two processors? The CD drive controller? Even the Xbox has "extra processors", like a PIC to handle the power control.

Edited April 15, 2007 by Bruce Tomlin