-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Crash Bandicoot Vs. Super Mario 64, 22 years later, has your opinion changed?
- Thread starter Afro Republican
- Start date
Afro Republican
Banned
SMW was basically following a safe route from SMB3, even Nintendo stated that SMW may not be the best way to show off the SNES.
Shifty
Member
BusierDonkey
Member
Didn't you hear? Liking one game means any competing games are complete shit now /s. I like both too, but I do like one more. That said despite being platformers they are very different games. I preferred Mario 64 more owing to it's literal go-anywhere gameplay and how you could be creative getting Stars. I got 103 Stars without activating any hat blocks, it's just about the only thing I've accomplished in life I'm truly proud of.
JareBear: Remastered
Banned
Things can go BUMP in the night
93xfan
Banned
No. Not even slightly close. Banjo is a collect-a-thon that doesn't even begin to compare with the brilliance and fun of Mario 64. Banjo is about turning the camera over and over to see if maybe you missed something, whereas Mario 64 is not at all about tedious gameplay.
Mario 64 is so much more fun to move around in, whether it's running, swimming or flying.
Donkey Dong
Banned
Yeah, but Sonic 1 shows no depth. It's just focused on raw platforming and speed. By the time you end up getting hit by an opponent, you're stopped in your tracks. It was mainly created to show off the graphical complexities of the Genesis.
Meanwhile, SMW focuses on exploration, and secrets. The game is hidden with coins, power-ups, and secret levels. You can either go on a slow pace by yourself, or use Yoshi and secret levels (ie. Star Road) and complete the game faster. SMW blew my mind at the time of release, where I felt Sonic was just a pointless show-off.
Sonic is still lightyears ahead of what Crash has ever done.
Donkey Dong
Banned
Agreed. I got sick of reading this thread when OP claimed that Crash was "more iconic" than Mario.
Afro Republican
Banned
That doesn't mean anything, Sonic became popular because it showed off an actual leap with the Genesis (3 years late) and spectacle or not, the pinball fast moving level design attracted eyes and it worked. SMW in comparison did no such thing and wasn't even the show stopper game for the hardware.
You also have to consider the Genesis came out in 88 technically, 89 in NA. That means the SNES came out with a less impressive title to the NA product with stronger hardware for its mascot title, and the Genesis somehow beat them at that game after not really going anywhere for 2 years?
Whether or not you like one game over another is a different topic altogether, but like I said even Nintendo stated SMW wasn't the best show-off game for the SNES.
Which was never said. The OP said that Crash was a bigger brand during the 90's, and it was.
Donkey Dong
Banned
Which was never said. The OP said that Crash was a bigger brand during the 90's, and it was.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely not. I don't care if Mario was bundled or not. Crash Bandicoot was nowhere near as good as Mario. it was never bigger, or better than Mario. Mario 64, while showing rough edges is still considered to be widely one of the greatest video games of all time. No Crash game has even come close to achieving that reputation. Bigger than mario? Is that why his series died in the 2000s, only to be revived by a mere remake?
I respect opinions, but saying that Crash was a bigger brand than Mario is just stupid. Stupid as fuck.
Absolutely not. I don't care if Mario was bundled or not. Crash Bandicoot was nowhere near as good as Mario. it was never bigger, or better than Mario. Mario 64, while showing rough edges is still considered to be widely one of the greatest video games of all time. No Crash game has even come close to achieving that reputation. Bigger than mario? Is that why his series died in the 2000s, only to be revived by a mere remake?
I respect opinions, but saying that Crash was a bigger brand than Mario is just stupid. Stupid as fuck.
Afro Republican
Banned
Absolutely not. I don't care if Mario was bundled or not. Crash Bandicoot was nowhere near as good as Mario. it was never bigger, or better than Mario. Mario 64, while showing rough edges is still considered to be widely one of the greatest video games of all time. [/QUOTE]
That's nice, N64 sold really well in one country, Most of Mario 64's sales came from one country, Crash was a world wide brand, it wasn't bundled, it was all over the place, it made more money, it was pushed as an unofficial mascot, Crash broke more ground for a western game in Japan than any attempt before, 3 times in a row. It's the kind of series that can go on a 8 year break come back with remakes of the first 3 games and sell 10 million.
The thing that's absurd are people trying to pretend Mario was big in mid and late 90's, when it wasn't as big as Crash. This is an objective issue, people put in their opinion about which game they "like"as if that has anything to do with real world statistics. There was a time Nintendo wasn't as big, and not only that, it continued into their NEXT console. Where on their opponents home consoles, well both of their opponents home consoles, GTA rained supreme, are you going to tell me Mario was bigger than GTA in the early 2000's? That's just as crazy a statement.
#Phonepunk#
Banned
Super Mario 64 easily takes this. he did back then and he does now. Crash games are great and all but they have a 2.5D mindset. they are closer to something like Bug. Super Mario 64 is a genuine look into the future. it looks great, it has tons of secrets, it has a nonlinear open world style gameplay, and it controls like a dream. hard to top that.
lol & "Crash was bigger than Mario" you realize there was a poll in the 90s where Mario was more recognized around the world than Mickey Mouse?
lol & "Crash was bigger than Mario" you realize there was a poll in the 90s where Mario was more recognized around the world than Mickey Mouse?
Last edited:
Yoshi
Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt
That's nice. Mario has been a much larger brand than one game in 1996. One year before, Yoshi's Island released, one year later, Mario Kart 64 released. Maro had a strong presence on NES, SNES, N64 and Game Boy. Even outside the US, Mario was a bigger brand than Crash Bandicoot. I know for certain in Germany - which was a stronghold for PlayStation over Nintendo - Mario was more well-known.
I have also already demonstrated to you that taking the money made in the generation by the whole franchise is not making you any good, because Mario on N64 over its various games easily dominated Crash franchise sales - and this still holds true if you restrict Mario to just its top five best sellers (for parity with Crash). Hell you can throw away Party 2 and Tennis and stil end up with stronger sales on a weaker platform.
Afro Republican
Banned
You keep using personal feelings and I have no idea why you continue to do that in a variety of topics and not just this one.
Mario was "more known" then Crash back then because Crash was "new", but more known has nothing to do with market popularity which Crash was bigger. Not to mention that a new huge chunk of gamers, that weren't in the market before, or where alienated by the NES/SNES, all came to the PSX, and Crash was the pillar game along with GT (which was heavily bundled) at that time.
Sales, Numbers, popularity, Crash was higher than Mario during that 96-2000 time frame. Like I said before, this is just as flawed as an argument to say Mario was "bigger" than GTA from 2001-2005, which no one on this forum will make. It's the same flawed logic, and in that case for most gamers, starting with GTA 3, GTA would be a "newer" franchise to them as Mario would be more "known" because it was older, yet NO ONE is dumb enough to argue that Mario was bigger than GTA in that time frame. Just like no one's going to argue GTA VS. Mario from 2013-2018. That's not how objectivity works.
V
Vader1
Unconfirmed Member
I didn't play them back then. From playing them recently, Crash is the more fun game.
Donkey Dong
Banned
That's nice, N64 sold really well in one country, Most of Mario 64's sales came from one country, Crash was a world wide brand, it wasn't bundled, it was all over the place, it made more money, it was pushed as an unofficial mascot, Crash broke more ground for a western game in Japan than any attempt before, 3 times in a row. It's the kind of series that can go on a 8 year break come back with remakes of the first 3 games and sell 10 million.
The thing that's absurd are people trying to pretend Mario was big in mid and late 90's, when it wasn't as big as Crash. This is an objective issue, people put in their opinion about which game they "like"as if that has anything to do with real world statistics. There was a time Nintendo wasn't as big, and not only that, it continued into their NEXT console. Where on their opponents home consoles, well both of their opponents home consoles, GTA rained supreme, are you going to tell me Mario was bigger than GTA in the early 2000's? That's just as crazy a statement.[/QUOTE]
Mario was bigger than GTA in the 2000s. WTF are you even talking about? I'm not even being subjective here. I'm telling the truth. The Mario franchise is the best-selling Franchise in video game history. Millions of people recognize and idolize Mario for over 30 years with his face plastered on t-shirts, merchandise, foods, and electronics. Nintendo has cultivated Mario into a long-running, successful franchise for decades. What has Sony done with Crash? Threw it in the garbage disposal.
Everyone has their own entitled opinions, but whats truly "absurd" is saying Crash was let alone a bigger brand than Mario.
Painskiller
Banned
Still Crash is the best platform game ever IMO. But I love Mario, too.
Afro Republican
Banned
You can have a popular franchise have down times you do know that right? Also game output and bundling had to do with it's status as well.
The idea that Mario was "bigger" than GTA in the 2000's doesn't match the market at all in any category during that time-frame. GTA was the big seller, it inspired tons of clones, tons of games in different genre's took it's mechanics in games, it sold PS2's, Xbox's, and even PC's, (but not GBA's) and brought in a crap ton of money and WOM. Media outside gaming also huge.
What did Mario have in the 2000's a few underselling spin-offs on the GC, and the goof selling Sunshine. Some decent selling ports of the SNES SMB remakes, and a few decent spin-offs. Wasn't exactly setting the world on fire though. people weren't talking massively about Mario on the streets, the outside gaming media didn't really go crazy... Uh, not much influential stuff going on just really iterations. Some sold well some didn't well, relatively. Narrative around Halo/Halo 2 seemed to be more of a thing as well.
Wasn't really that big of a franchise during that time frame really.
but it always seems that when this subject comes up people will always use a generic metric that has nothing to do with the time frame, or they'll put in some personal antidote ignoring what was taking over the gaming market at the time.
Heck COD was a bigger franchise than Mario for years until odyssey came out (which also had help with COD's franchise fatigue). But hey the markets just wrong right?
Afro Republican
Banned
V
Vader1
Unconfirmed Member
Crash 1 and 2 are my favorites personally.
Redneckerz
Banned
Lets put it this way:
Crash refined the ''2D Platformer'' gameplay everyone knew and applied it to a threedimensional playing field.
Mario 64 took the concept of platforming and applied it to a 3D world, creating a new style of gameplay.
Both games come from different angles. Crash is what you would get if you take a more classical approach to the platforming concept and putting it to 3D, whilst Mario 64 is what you would get if you throw the existing idea of platformers away and start to think in 3D.
Both these games/series are equally brilliant relative to their time frame. The thing with Mario 64 being referred more in later years is because it was an succesfull attempt at innovation. Crash is much more a classical platformer applied to a 3D world, with all the restrictions that you have in 2D.
That does not mean any one of these games is worse than the other: Mario 64's successful appeal to innovation ended up being more kind to the minds of people in time than Crash did. But both games are pristine classics.
Thus, it does not really matter which one is better. All i am explaining here is what the difference is between the two.
Crash refined the ''2D Platformer'' gameplay everyone knew and applied it to a threedimensional playing field.
Mario 64 took the concept of platforming and applied it to a 3D world, creating a new style of gameplay.
Both games come from different angles. Crash is what you would get if you take a more classical approach to the platforming concept and putting it to 3D, whilst Mario 64 is what you would get if you throw the existing idea of platformers away and start to think in 3D.
Both these games/series are equally brilliant relative to their time frame. The thing with Mario 64 being referred more in later years is because it was an succesfull attempt at innovation. Crash is much more a classical platformer applied to a 3D world, with all the restrictions that you have in 2D.
That does not mean any one of these games is worse than the other: Mario 64's successful appeal to innovation ended up being more kind to the minds of people in time than Crash did. But both games are pristine classics.
Thus, it does not really matter which one is better. All i am explaining here is what the difference is between the two.
Donkey Dong
Banned
COD, and GTA were big franchises, don't get me wrong. I never said they weren't big, but they simply don't have the same legacy and brand name that Mario does. Think about it. When you ask a 7-year old kid who their favorite video game character is, they might as well say Mario. Little boys aspire to be Mario. THAT'S what iconic means to me. None of the franchises have ever outdone Mario in that sense. Mario Sunshine was obviously a misstep but that doesn't diminish such a huge franchise. That's like saying Zelda: Wand of Gamelon, or Link's Adventure ruined Zelda, and now the Zelda franchise is not as big as Metroid, or Kid Icarus. The legacy that cemented a franchise will always carry on the franchise, no matter the sheer amount of missteps.
Anyways, I'm out of this garbage thread.
Donkey Dong
Banned
BUMP!
Fuck this thread.
Fuck this thread.
Donkey Dong
Banned
Why are you still here then? Just ignore the post. I did so too until I saw the obnoxious garbage that AfroRepublican keeps regurgitating.
lame gag1990
Member
lol What the hell was this thread? It's not even close. Crash has never and will never be better. Some people hold Crash in high regard because it was baby's first platformer. Sorry people but it's an average game at best.
Last edited:
Afro Republican
Banned
Sounds like you may be too young to post on the forum. You had no reason to bump this other than to get atte-
..
Actually I'm not even sure what your reason is. Seems completely random. This also isn't the first time.
Shifty
Member
You deserve a temp ban for this.
Let that which is dead remain dead
Edit: Interesting, 21 posts in your entire account history and most of them are necros. You should find a new hobby.
Last edited:
V
Vader1
Unconfirmed Member
Ironic since Crash is the much harder and more platforming focused game.
V
Vader1
Unconfirmed Member
Crash is easily the better game for me.
Painskiller
Banned
kunonabi
Member
Crash is just as awful now as it was when it came out. I feel like im in another Bernstein Bears situation. Crash was a goddamn joke when I was young but all of a sudden that's been flipped on its head and now he isnt just another failed mascot destined for obscurity but some great childhood institution.
JLB
Banned
Oh yeah, Im OK as well, but yet on my eyes it feels like if someone tells me that prefers a Mellow Corn over a Glenfarclass.
brap
Banned
Mario is babby's first platformer.
alabtrosMyster
Member
I've never been a huge fan of Mario, but if these were the only two games I had to play on that specific year Mario is the one I would pick any day of the week.
I like Mario 64 enough to play it, and get a decent amount of stars. I also get why people love it, and can pick it as their favorite game of all time, but I normally prefer either RPGs (specifically old school JRPGs) or fast paced "arcade style" games (schumps, FPS, driving, action/adventure, etc.).
I like Mario 64 enough to play it, and get a decent amount of stars. I also get why people love it, and can pick it as their favorite game of all time, but I normally prefer either RPGs (specifically old school JRPGs) or fast paced "arcade style" games (schumps, FPS, driving, action/adventure, etc.).
Fox Mulder
Member
Crash actually has much more precision platforming and challenge. I would choose to play Crash today instead of Mario 64, but the poll is lopsided and no room for discussion anyways.
Last edited:
