To even pose the question, lol. Mario 64 and it isn't even close. Sonic Adventure was a mess and that doesn't even take into account the disc errors that plagued the game when it released on the DC.
Just pointing out Mario 64 was the only Mario game on the system. If they had made more Mario mainline games for the system it wouldn't have sold 10 million. Crash 1 did 6 million but franchise sells were split between three mainline games and two spinoffs. If Crash 1 were the only Crash game the whole gen it would have done more than 6 million.
Threads about the better game transition to 3D not your war stroking. You are irrationally upset at a Sonic and Mario game being in the same thread, a simple thread that most users have answered without angrily having meltdowns about what's in it.
If you didn't like one vote for the other, if you dislike both then find a different thread you like.
You are looking at things through the same lens that had you thinking Starcraft 2 was enough to represent the franchise in your other poll. You appear to be coming in with no context or experience.
This is another example of you disliking others views, I didn't play a third of the games in that thread, those were compiled from multiple sites from gamers and reviewers.
I'm not the one who didn't include Starcraft one, most other people didn't, and preferred listing Starcraft II. I also can't put every strategy game in the thread, there are hundreds. If you didn't like many peoples views that they prefer Starcraft II over one I have nothing to do with it, dont blame me for your lack of ability to disagree with them and continue your day. The thread even makes that clear, I even said within the same thread I only played C&C and should probably play Red Alert at some point.
Objectively Mario is better but I enjoyed Sonic immensely and using VGA output from my DC was lightyears ahead of the shitty composite/SCART from PS2 and N64.
Just pointing out Mario 64 was the only Mario game on the system. If they had made more Mario mainline games for the system it wouldn't have sold 10 million. Crash 1 did 6 million but franchise sells were split between three mainline games and two spinoffs. If Crash 1 were the only Crash game the whole gen it would have done more than 6 million.
For example, Crash Bandicoot sold 6 million on PSX and Sonic Adventure on DC sold just about 1 million. Mario 64 sold approx. 10 million on N64, a further 10 on DS, and ANOTHER 10 million within the past year as part of the 3D Mario All-Stars. So, even back then, you can't say not that many people got to play it. More people were playing it than any other 3D platform game. It was the most successful 3D platforming game of the decade -suggesting that not too many people played it because of PSX or whatever is silly. It definitely made an impact.
Sonic Adventure sold over 2 million. Crash was more popular worldwide than M64, most of the 10 million were N64 giveaways with the console in NA.
It's not the best comparison. Also not sure why you brought up the DS or All Stars, are we comparing to Crash millions in PS3 and PSP PSN numbers and 10 million plus in N.sane trilogy? What are you compensating for? Crash isn't even part of the thread.
Threads about the better game transition to 3D not your war stroking. You are irrationally upset at a Sonic and Mario game being in the same thread, a simple thread that most users have answered without angrily having meltdowns about what's in it.
If you didn't like one vote for the other, if you dislike both then find a different thread you like.
This is another example of you disliking others views, I didn't play a third of the games in that thread, those were compiled from multiple sites from gamers and reviewers.
I'm not the one who didn't include Starcraft one, most other people didn't, and preferred listing Starcraft II. I also can't put every strategy game in the thread, there are hundreds. If you didn't like many peoples views that they prefer Starcraft II over one I have nothing to do with it, dont blame me for your lack of ability to disagree with them and continue your day. The thread even makes that clear, I even said within the same thread I only played C&C and should probably play Red Alert at some point.
My point stands tbh. Ok, so you got the names of these games from a bunch of websites. So, like I said, it reveals that you are coming in without context or experience.
In this case, most people into strategy games at all, will be aware that Starcraft 1 is just about single-handedly responsible for the entire e-sports scene. Starcraft 1 was S. Korea's national sport. It turned playing a game, for prize money, into a big deal shown on TV with a live cheering audience. Come on, just because it wasn't on a list on a website, forgetting this game reveals your level of experience with the subject matter. So acting like some authority in the thread that opens up is not a great idea.
I feel it's the same here, it's okay to not agree that Mario 64 isn't the best game ever, but trying to downplay its reputation as if most of the world agrees with you, come on man.
Whole I recognize Mario 64 is the more polished, important, and innovative game, I have to admit, I probably have more fun with Sonic Adventure and I have certainly spent more time replaying it.
I will admit without the rapidness of your fanatism you Mario fans wouldn't have barely saved the N64 and Gamecube. Guess you were needed to keep Nintendo alive. If Only Sega fans tried as hard as you guys did.
Super Mario 64 is one of the most important game of all time and it's well deserved, the enormous obstacles it had to overcome were the most frightening in the short history of the medium as a whole :
The jump from 2D to 3D, it was the far west, the technology was capable enough but the tools were lacking, the experienced programmers in 3D a rarity and every studios struggled during the transition, the temptation of going the easy route by transposing 2D gameplay into a 3D world, building a controller that allow 360° freedom of motions and camera controls.
Succeeding to Super Mario bros 1, (3) and world, each were crowning achievements at their time, 1 and world were launch titles too and system sellers, these games re invented platforming games and video games.
The cartridge format was a huge problem, not only cartridge data space was expensive and thus resulted in early games being 4MB to 8MB, the textures, sound were vastly impacted due to the lack of space available, considering SEGA and SONY had the CD format with 700MB available for their games NINTENDO were loosing the battle of 3rd party devs (SQUARESOFT) and their motives for keeping this old format was viewed as a desperate attempt to keep their high royalties fees and control.
I once had a contract for N64 development.
Nintendo set minimum production amounts, normally 15,000 copies at minimum. You get to choose who does the packaging of the carts.
Production costs: First you have the production costs. Nintendo makes the carts in Japan at their factory, so they get the money from production.
Then nintendo takes a royalty, say $7 each cart for logos, nintendo seal of approval, etc.
Packaging runs you about $150,000 for the 15,000 carts. This includes manuals, the boxes, and shrink wrapping. This does not include delivery fees.
In the end on a $55 cartridge, a profit of $6-7 was made by the developer. Nintendo got all the rest. This is why nintendo didn't abandon cartridges for CDS. They were addicted to the money.
This continues until today, as all 3ds and dsi games are made by... nintendo.
WiiU uses a proprietary disc. This is so the only ones who can make the media are.... nintendo.
That's one of the reasons 3rd parties dislike nintendo platforms, it is always closed production, double dipping.
For playstation costs were much less and profits much higher, sometimes as much as $27 per disc for the developer/publisher. Typically a retail store makes $4-5 profit on a game. They make no money selling consoles at all, that's what they push accessories especially chinese super high margin garbage.
I can maybe post some documents showing exact costs as I plan on never working on a nintendo platform ever again.
The NINTENDO 64 took way too long, from it's "ULTRA 64" teasing in arcades with far better specs, the prospect of a SILICON GRAPHICS workstation power in a home console for just 249$ (then 199$ !) , the various delays, the hype from the various magazines, speculations... the PLAYSTATION and SATURN were months old at that point, with incredible leaps from their early titles to what they got in 1996, VIRTUA FIGHTER 2, PANZER DRAGOON ZWEI, WIPEOUT 2097(XL) RESIDENT EVIL !
SUPER MARIO 64 took 3 years to develop, an absurd amount of time for 1996, it was unheard of, the N64 controller was conceived around it (the analogue stick and C-buttons.)
The entire NINTENDO 64 plan was : SUPER MARIO 64, the success and future of the company was put behind it, from early as Nintendo Space World '95 when they decided to delay the system to '96 to have the game ready at launch, to the declaration of then Nintendo president Hiroshi Yamauchi that "it would be the best video game ever created", it had massive expectations, even more when considering the Virtual Boy fiasco and the aging Super Nintendo, the CD-add-on debacle with SONY and PHILIPS.
And then, the game released, I remember at that time seeing on news at TV kids playing it, the fascination for the controller and what Mario could do, then seeing it in action at a friend house, the hub world castle with the paintings, the stars to collect, the objectives, the different effects from metal Mario to the weird ripples effect of the entry to hazy maze cave, the brilliant game design for each "puzzles" it was a revolution and the template for every game since, hell TOMB RAIDER came a few week after, but it was too late history had been made and everyone had Mario 64 to thank for it.
If you want to capture this particular era in great details I highly suggest you to read EDGE magazines from November '95 to July '96 or if you want to make it shorter just the preview and review of Mario 64 in EDGE 34 and EDGE 35, EDGE was THE magazine at the time, nothing like EDGE of today, and Super Mario 64 earned the first 10/10 from the magazine, truly a time capsule and thankfully we had plenty of scans of it archived in the website I linked from 1993 to 2002 every issue is available.
The millennial generation runs from the early 80s to the mid 90s. Lots of millennials, myself included, grew up with Mario 64. No, OP is likely something far worse: a zoomer.
We never had an argument about 3D sonics quality, we had an argument of you lying most 3D Sonic games were boost games when there were only 4. You are still trying to compensate for that complete beat down. It's ok go play that new Metroid Prime 4 game they annou- ohhhhhhh. Guess that wasn't Metroid Prime 4 huh?
It's great Nintendo still releases N64 games in 2021. Dont he so DREADful.
Both haven't aged too well but both of these games were the first time Sonic and Mario transitioned to 3D platforming. Each are also often said to be the best 3D entries in each franchise, though Galaxy 2 gets many nods often.
So which mascot had a better transition to 3D title, Sonic or Mario?
I beat Sonic adventure and had to look it up to remember it. I could tell you how to get every star in Mario 64 to this day and I hadn't played it since launch year. Think that says enough.
Mario 64 is the only notable game in the list, Sonic adventure started strong with the beach level, but it was rushed and it showed... The camera was broken, the levels did not allow for smooth traversal (you kept getting stuck).
Crash Bandicoot was just a boring game with a character that had attitude.
Mario had giant levels with satisfying traversal and exploration, enough variety so that it did not feel too samey, it felt pretty modern look wise because of the N64. I played it quite a lot, but never to the end either, I am not a big Mario fan, but I can see what others see in many of the series games.
Hi, it has been in development for 3 years "Director Shigeru Miyamoto conceived a 3D Mario game during the production of Star Fox (1993). Super Mario 64's development lasted approximately three years; one was spent on designing, the next two on direct work." source wikipedia
My whole post is to re-contextualize what was the video game landscape at the time and why Mario 64 success in the end was well deserved.
See i didn't even talk about Sonic Adventures in my post, because it wasn't the point, i don't have to throw shades at another game to make the other better, by comparing the two you put Sonic Adventure in a difficult position because now on top of defending the game against arguably one of the GOAT, you'd have to make a similar post detailing what was the situation of SEGA at the time, what were the goals, the hardships and the video game landscape in '98 to prove your point.
That reminds me of a similar post comparing Syphon Filter and Metal Gear, that kind of comparaison never work in favor of the underdog, this isn't the right way to do it, if you want to bring light on a game you think deserves more recognition or praise, just write an article with your points illustrated with screenshots or exemples.
The whole medium is guilty of this, remember "halo killer" ? How many projects, games tried to position themselves as a "???-killer" and failed miserably. Well turns out halo killed itself in the end trying to do COD instead of keeping it's formula.
I'm no fanboy, I've always wanted to had each systems for playing all the games that interested me, it's that simple.
Now if you want to talk about the SATURN or the DREAMCAST and how they deserved more light and praises, hell yeah I'm on board with you, Sonic Adventures too we can discuss plenty of it, from it's SONIC X-treme days to it's release and what graphical marvel it was at the time, even the lackluster GAMECUBE port of DX was shit compared to the original DREAMCAST release, but please, don't RE-write history just to convey your opinions.
Alright. Let put their legacy behind and look at the games itself.
Sonic looked impressive, especially that orca scene, but it was also one big buggy mess. I can forgive the poor physics, but not the many bugs. Or what about the animations of the characters? They move very spastic and it looks just bad, even back then. But do you want to know what the worst part is of Sonic Adventure? Knuckles and his story. That shit is just unforgivable.
Mario 64 may look visually way worse, the story was a lot more simple and the maps are a lot smaller, but it was definitely more polished. And let be honest here. Gameplay is far more important than visuals.
And seeing how Nintendo had no games they could use at the time as a reference and how had to deal with very little storage space of the cartridges do I consider Mario 64 a true work of art. This was not the case with Sonic Adventure.
You're view of the threads intentions is incorrect, these are two games often brought up as the best 3D entries in each series and both were the first transitions to 3D for both series. All I'm asking is which did better and that's it, almost every argument are upset fanatics that are making assumptions without information or not liking that I didn't think either game is one of the best games of all time.
This has nothing to do with Sonic itself or making it competitive.
No I just didn't agree with it being one of the best games of all time. For some reason you guys can't cope with that opinion and make up your own assumptions based off nothing. Or swing the topic to me thinking SA is better without any information to come to that conclusion.
I will admit without the rapidness of your fanatism you Mario fans wouldn't have barely saved the N64 and Gamecube. Guess you were needed to keep Nintendo alive. If Only Sega fans tried as hard as you guys did.
Mario 64 is a masterpiece. It basically informed all 3D games in terms of design following it's release. The fact that Nintendo nailed it on their first attempt is incredible. Especially when you look at other 3D games, particularly platformers, of the time. All of this is to say, Sonic Adventure sucks in comparison.
Crash and Mario 64 were turning many heads at events back in the day. Today I can't find myself replaying them, Mario 64 for the bad camera and terrible controller, and Crash 1 for the bad camera and terrible controls.
Sonic Adventure was always a wreck and I never understood why people liked it or the sequel until the Gamecube reviews came out, and showed I wasn't crazy. It was a good looking tech demo then but that novelty is lost.
This thread was never about this, this is a mistake people keep making, it's just a thread asking which transitional game you liked, and both are often considered the best 3D entries in both series.
I really love Sonic Adventure and I'd personally prefer playing it over Mario 64 (just because i enjoy the more arcade style of gameplay), but this is such a silly question.
Sonic Adventure is a good game, but its presentation has aged extremely poorly and its only real "cutting edge" feature was its graphics. Its a very overhated game nowadays, like sure the cutscenes are a joke, but just like the whole "Sonic was never good" crowd, its pretty disingenuous to say the game is bad, the gameplay is quite good aside from Big. If SA2 focused on exploration even more than SA1 did, it would have easily been the definitive 3D Sonic game.
Mario 64 was a groundbreaking game and proved that seamless 3D gameplay was possible and inspired a million games. It also hasnt dated itself much at all.
Its pretty clear that Mario 64 is the better game.
Imo the only Sonic titles that could be arguably better than Mario is the classic 2D games.
2D Sonic > 2D Mario imo
I believe that this is factually incorrect. I do not think that you will be able to provide any proof of this (such as a box art).
I can't help but wonder if Speedwagon's memory is fuzzy having simply gotten Mario 64 on the same day.
I am 99.99999% sure it never happened in the U.S. and fairly confident it didn't happen anywhere else. I mean was it a pack in 4 years into the N64's life in Europe? I dunno about that, could have been I suppose!
I want to note that I lived through this time and hardly missed anything going on lol. I remember when the first revision to the N64 SKU was the addition of the second Atomic Purple controller. Later there was the DK bundle with the expansion pack and banana controller. The first systems I'd had before the 64 included iconic pack in games like Mario Bros, World, and Sonic. It seemed sort of like a wrong that should have been corrected that Mario didn't come with the system -I noticed it! Point being I'm exactly the type of weird that would know if Mario became a pack in even if I had beaten the game already. (I also thought Sonic should have been packed in with Dreamcast, but I was getting used to it by then! Good thing they weaned me off the pack in games because then GCN came out without even a Mario game to pack!)
So, I'm not asking for a proof of this just to be difficult. I mean that if this happened, I want to know about it lol.
I believe that this is factually incorrect. I do not think that you will be able to provide any proof of this (such as a box art).
I can't help but wonder if Speedwagon's memory is fuzzy having simply gotten Mario 64 on the same day.
I am 99.99999% sure it never happened in the U.S. and fairly confident it didn't happen anywhere else. I mean was it a pack in 4 years into the N64's life in Europe? I dunno about that, could have been I suppose!
I want to note that I lived through this time and hardly missed anything going on lol. I remember when the first revision to the N64 SKU was the addition of the second Atomic Purple controller. Later there was the DK bundle with the expansion pack and banana controller. The first systems I'd had before the 64 included iconic pack in games like Mario Bros, World, and Sonic. It seemed sort of like a wrong that should have been corrected that Mario didn't come with the system -I noticed it! Point being I'm exactly the type of weird that would know if Mario became a pack in even if I had beaten the game already. (I also thought Sonic should have been packed in with Dreamcast, but I was getting used to it by then! Good thing they weaned me off the pack in games because then GCN came out without even a Mario game to pack!)
So, I'm not asking for a proof of this just to be difficult. I mean that if this happened, I want to know about it lol.
It's funny when you read/listen to the development for Crash Bandicot. They were terrified that Sega was going to release something very similar, the true Sonic Ass game. Because really Crash Bandicot was the next logical evolution for Sonic, before Adventure. If Sega had released a Sonic game in the style of Crash Bandicot in 1995, that would have been a killer and legendary title. Crash was much of that already and loved by many, don't get me wrong. But if that had been a Sega effort, history would have looked very different. Sonic at times feels like more of a crazy racer/rails game anyhow.
I believe that this is factually incorrect. I do not think that you will be able to provide any proof of this (such as a box art).
I can't help but wonder if Speedwagon's memory is fuzzy having simply gotten Mario 64 on the same day.
I am 99.99999% sure it never happened in the U.S. and fairly confident it didn't happen anywhere else. I mean was it a pack in 4 years into the N64's life in Europe? I dunno about that, could have been I suppose!
I want to note that I lived through this time and hardly missed anything going on lol. I remember when the first revision to the N64 SKU was the addition of the second Atomic Purple controller. Later there was the DK bundle with the expansion pack and banana controller. The first systems I'd had before the 64 included iconic pack in games like Mario Bros, World, and Sonic. It seemed sort of like a wrong that should have been corrected that Mario didn't come with the system -I noticed it! Point being I'm exactly the type of weird that would know if Mario became a pack in even if I had beaten the game already. (I also thought Sonic should have been packed in with Dreamcast, but I was getting used to it by then! Good thing they weaned me off the pack in games because then GCN came out without even a Mario game to pack!)
So, I'm not asking for a proof of this just to be difficult. I mean that if this happened, I want to know about it lol.
It's funny when you read/listen to the development for Crash Bandicot. They were terrified that Sega was going to release something very similar, the true Sonic Ass game. Because really Crash Bandicot was the next logical evolution for Sonic, before Adventure. If Sega had released a Sonic game in the style of Crash Bandicot in 1995, that would have been a killer and legendary title. Crash was much of that already and loved by many, don't get me wrong. But if that had been a Sega effort, history would have looked very different. Sonic at times feels like more of a crazy racer/rails game anyhow.
This is a very good point. I have always wished that we could have 3D Sonic but with the very direct 2D design philosophy that is very "gamey" (levels, tilesets, bosses, repeat with little cruft or filler in between.) I never thought of what a good example Crash was of that, though. The camera style/corridor type design is perfect. Sega could have wiped the floor with that shit.
This is the Sonic that should have been on Saturn. Really, I think the world was ready and waiting for more SEGA awesomeness but they just dropped the ball.
Sonic Adventure (and 2) gets a bit better if you can just beat the game and then use the level select to play straight through Sonic's levels from the beginning. It feels a bit closer to the gameplay experience of a Genesis game because it's just straight on action and grabbing rings all the time. No cutscenes, no VA, no hub world puzzles. But a title that was designed like that from the get-go would be way better lol. Damn HOW many years later and we're still sour Saturn Sonic didn't happen?
One of Mario's great strengths is that they smartly avoided getting over ambitious with intense storyline, cast of characters, voice acting, superfluous gameplay modes (fishing in Sonic? WTF) and all that over the top cruft that ages poorly. Mario just focused on pure gameplay. Had Sonic retained that focus with a Crash-inspired formula it could have been like another SNES vs. Genesis fight.
Now that is interesting! So I googled around trying to explain that and seems it's a PAL console that is a bit rare -it's estimated that no more than 50k were made.
Certainly very cool, I LOVE the art of Mario they used on the box like he means business lol. But, 50k is not really a big number when you are talking about the millions of units Mario sells. This is more of a cool curiosity than a reason SM64 sold so many copies (unlike Mario 1 with was bundled with nigh infinite NES systems).
