Terramax said:
Except that reviewing games on the basis of "their entire criteria" involves weighing gameplay more significantly than other attributes, since, by definition, it comprises the epicentre of the experience. Proceeding from this line of thought, it's hard to dismiss tites like Super Mario 64 or GoldenEye - which are uniformly acknowledged as possessing some of the best gameplay of their generation - as being any other than "deep", "original", or "well-presented".Terramax said:
Take the charge of N64 games not being innovative, for example. While it is true of some of the console's titles, there was also a myriad of games that bucked tradition released on the system in its heyday, including:
- Super Mario 64, which after a string of lackluster 3D platformers in the mid-90s set the precedent for its genre
- Blast Corps, which for its blending of different genres was widely praised by critics as setting a benchmark for innovation
- GoldenEye 007, which, arriving the same year as Quake II, expanded on the conventions of the FPS genre to incorporate mission objectives, detailed levels, character development, dozens of weapons, etc.
- Super Smash Bros., which included gameplay utterly different than that of the 2D and 3D fighters which preceded it
- Space Station Silicon Valley, which allowed you to take control of virtually every enemy included in the game, and was widely heralded by critics as being perhaps the most innovative 3D platformer of its generation
- Conker's Bad Fur Day, which was hailed as creativity for a number of reasons, including its off-beat plot, parodying of pop culture, blending of disparate genre elements, etc.
...And the list goes on. I should add, too, that all of the games listed above are more innovative than, say, Final Fantasy VII, which is essentially just a retread of its predecessors with updated visuals and an array of new art assets. Super Mario 64 and Zelda: Ocarina of Time, by contrast, actually reinvent their respective franchises in full 3D, and are thus indisputably more innovative than the former. Of course, the same can be said for alot of the PS1's premier franchises: the RPGs Square released rarely pushed boundaries, and series' like Mega Man hardly add to the PS1's credibility as a system "more innovative" than the N64. Not that it didn't have its fair share of creative franchises, mind you, but the point is: both consoles had their stalwarts, and both had their innovators - and frankly, trying to suggest otherwise of the N64 is patently ludicrous.
Actually, while there's four or five games on the N64 that IGN, to give an example of one publication, has ranked among the top 100 ever (with two in the top ten), the system itself has dozens upon dozens of great games. I can attest to this personally: I own over forty myself, very few of which I would describe as less than 'good'.Terramax said:
So sure, the PS1 has zillions of games, but if your game collection has between 10-20 titles (I figure I presume to be an average) than the N64 has more than enough in its roster to keep you occupied - and atleast as well as the competition, given the greatness of its best entries.
Just so you know, I'm not a Nintendo fangirl, by any means. My console-owning lineage goes from the NES to the Gen the N64 to the Dreamcast to the Xbox (so far). I loved the Dreamcast - games like Marvel vs. Capcom 2, Shenmue, Power Stone, and Skies of Arcadia I still play - and I decided not to buy a Gamecube because I found it hard to sum up enthusiasm to trod through another Zelda or lackluster Mario iteration (not to mention Rareware's auctioning off to Microsoft). But in its day, I still feel the N64 was a better console than the PS, and, for its ten or twenty best titles, it's the one I typically revisit more than the others.Terramax said:
As for now? I'm looking to buy a Saturn off eBay so I can own copies of NiGHTS into Dreams, Shining Force III, and Panzer Dragoon Saga, and am debating whether to buy an XBox 360 - Bio-Shock, Mass Effect, and Oblivion all have me giddy.
