Why is Mario 64 praised as one of the best games ever if Crash and Spyro were better platformers and games at the time, and also looked much better and had superior level design and musical score?
I mean, I liked Mario 64 and I know it was a pioneer and all but the camera angle stuff was wacky and it had little going for it against its competition.
Because Super Mario 64 was one of the first games to actually do 3D worlds properly.
>>319712329
So being innovative automatically makes you better than objectively better and more polished games?
>>319711882
movement in Mario 64 was better really
Crash was literally moving in a line
>>319711882
>had superior musical scoreabsolutely delusional
because most people tend to like games better when they're part of a popular franchise, even if they haven't played any of the previous games in that franchise. If modern Zelda games didn't have the Zelda name attached to them, they wouldn't get half as much praise as they get with the name.
>camera angle stuff was wacky and it had little going for it against its competition.
That wasn't really a problem back then, as it was the first of its kind. Spyro wasn't unexcused either.
>>319712769
Spyro controls and camera were much better tho.
Because it came out before the crash and spyro, and the controls weren't fucking shit compared to the other 3d games that had come out before it.
>>319711882
Crash was DKC from behind, basically a glorified 2d game.
Spyro was a collectathon and didnt emphasize physics or platform precision.
I prefer both to Mario and think they hold up much more though. Mario gets free points for being the "first" of its kind.
>>319712862
Its the same thing except N64 games required spamming the c-buttons to rotate and PS1 games required holding the shoulder buttons which is much nicer.
>Crash
>superior level design
Actual 3D levels >>>>> corridors
>>319711882
Even if it's far less ambitious I do prefer the Crash trilogy over SM64. It's straightforward but I get my fair share of kicks just playing a level. SM64 is exploring worlds and doing unexciting things to find the next star, with some exception (Bowser levels come to mind).
>>319712703
Well, there was Z Targeting. However, Mega Man Legends and Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon both came out in 1997 and sorta did what OoT did.
>>319713003
Well crafted levels that test your speed and movement in varied ways > big empty area with a few props spread around
>>319713003
>Gimmicky 3D worlddesign that makes the game easy
>Making a better platformer that a true platformer
Even the original NES Marios were better at that.
because nintendo fans will never grow up
you can't argue with manchildren
>>319712769
>That wasn't really a problem back then
and that would be perfectly fine if the thread was about back then, but the OP is asking about why it's considered a better game today
a game's problems can be explained by the fact that it's old, but being old doesn't excuse those problems
Why are there no Crash styled platformers? Mario 64 was shit. Corridor platforming was actually really cool.
>>319713469
Someone didn't play this gem
>>319713003
You sound like the kind of person who demands all games become open world. There is a reason a lot of devs are going back to making linear and/or 2D games, being open doesnt necessarily make a game better.
Mario 64 killed the AAA platform genre
>Best comfy factor
Spyro
>Best world design
Mario
>Best "this is why I love vidya"
Crash
>>319711882
The linearity of Crash games makes them kind of different to Mario 64 etc. - Spyro was a more apt comparison, and yes I preferred both Crash and Spyro to Mario games.
The thing that gets me is how there are people who think any Mario Kart game (especially MK64) is better than Crash Team Racing. I know CTR effectively ripped the 'kart racing' formula off, without bringing much or anything new to the style, but holy fuck did they perfect it. I still play that game all the fucking time, its amazing.
>>319714292
CTR is still my favorite kart racer to this day. It shits all over MK64
>>319712683
It's sluggish compared to Crash which is much more tight and responsive.
>>319713242
This
Mario 64 should be called an adventure game rather than a platformer because Crash is much more of an actual platformer.
>>319712329
It's stupid to say that this is the reason cause if it was so then all the Atari bullshit would be still adored nowadays. Fuck off you nintendofag.
>>319712438
It's the iron triangle anon. Nintendo blows so much on being "innovative", and sometimes that compensates for not having high quality products. Sometimes it doesn't.
Tbh, Crash is great, but definitely not as open as Mario. Spyro def can compete though.
>>319711882
Because the looseness and openness of SM64 allows all kinds of shit you can't do in those games. If you actually get good with it and don't play it superficially like a baby, the game gets ridiculously wild and technical.
>>319713975
Today people see Mario 64 for what it is. Not an EPIC MARIO ADVENTURE IN THREEDEE but the first N64 collect-a-thon. Miyamoto's theory was that in a 3D world players would need to be guided through it by finding collectables instead of moving to the right like in 2D games.
Also a convenient way to reuse the same levels because cartridges hadnostorage
Today's designers haven't figured out that collecathon design doesn't work when your open world is massive and you hide the collectables in the scenery, in the middle of fucking nowhere (see GTA V)
>>319715262
>If you actually get good with it and don't play it superficially like a baby, the game gets ridiculously wild and technical.
But I had 100% in both the N64 and DS versions and it was easy as fuck.
Meanwhile Spyro was just as easy but had a lot more stuff to do than Mario 64 and it improved and added new things and minigames each new game.
>>319714814
Someone gets it.
>>319711882
I love Crash, but especially 1 is so simple it's not even comparable to Mario 64. It's also barely a 3D game, even the levels where you move forard have essentially 2D design.
Spyro is much closer though. It took Mario 64's control scheme and expanded on it with dashing and gliding, although the jumping mechanics are greatly simplified. I'd say if Spyro had come before Mario 64, people would regard it just as highly, but the fact is Spyro wouldn't even exist without Mario
>>319715648
>but the fact is Spyro wouldn't even exist without Mario
Spyro actually began development in 1976.
>>319711882
spyro is good but was more of like a 3D sidescroller, mario 64 was a better platformer
it really just boils down to nostalgia at this point, both were good but most kids either had a ps1 or a 64 cause games were expensive as shit
>>319716478
>Spyro
>Sidescroller
m8 Spyro resembled nothing to a sidescroller, Mario 64 it's more platformery but Spyro focused more on open world dynamics and collectables, it was almost a sandbox, very far from being a sidescroller.
