the cheap non answer would be that dark souls drew mechanical inspiration from demon souls. My real answer is that since you make that claim you have to actually prove it.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Mario 64 and FF7; two revolutionary games, which shaped/impacted the industry more?
- Thread starter enigmatic_alex44
- Start date
Tomasoares
Member
Woah, you guys discuss with so much passion! I mean, mario 64 was a revolutionary game, but no way "the father of modern gaming, or even TPS". I'm sorry, but no modern TPS game is anything like Mario 64, fortunaly and unfortunately. The camera controls differently (second analog, and it's probably going to change with new stem controller), behave differently, the character moves differently, level design, evrrything else is different.
Yeah, m64 was an important step foward for console camera handling, but there were many games before, along and after that helped building the design concept. (and, surprise, it is still changing!)
Same goes for FFVII for cinematics and story-based games, but not as big as m64, IMO.
Yeah, m64 was an important step foward for console camera handling, but there were many games before, along and after that helped building the design concept. (and, surprise, it is still changing!)
Same goes for FFVII for cinematics and story-based games, but not as big as m64, IMO.
So it all comes down to lock on?
Calamari41
41 > 38
Everything about those fights is identical. Ocarina of Time doesn't have a parry system, but other than that, they have identical mechanics which were introduced by OoT 16 years ago. Lock onto the enemy, put up your shield, strafe dodge and block until there is an opening, and then attack. This is standard in 3D action games to this day.
"It all comes down to lock on?" Yes, that is a huge mechanic pioneered by OoT. Is there a reason you don't want to give this game credit?
It's kinda funny to be dismissive of this particular feature.
I mean it's not like it was THE mechanic that was pioneered in OoT or something.
Heck it made fighting foes in 3D so less of a mess than it was before.
If you were there you knew how much clunkier it was before.
darkazcura
Member
Yeah lock-on in OOT and the camera perspective/control in M64 were absolutely huge design features that have had big influences on games since then. These features were highly praised at the time of release, and everyone knew they were gamechangers back then. Nowadays they seem like little features because of how often they are implemented, but these were huge features back in 1996-1998. I'm not sure why some people are struggling to give credit where credit is due. It's so odd.
detrimental
Banned
Is there a reason you stand willingly by the statement: "...Mario 64... controlling the camera was like a seamless extension of the mind"?
Just curious. Because we both know that's not a statement grounded in reality.
Here's IGN's take on that seamless extension, way back in 1996:
Seamless extension of the mind, indeed.
Calamari41
41 > 38
Holy shit dude, give it a rest. PM Neiteio if you're that upset about it.
while superfluous hyperbole is pretty annoying, blatant disregard for simple, verifiable history is way more irritating.
it's been a while since i've played the original OoT, but, in addition to lock-in, didn't the enemy AI tend to favor one-on-one fights as to ensure the player wasn't unfairly attacked on all sides too? that's definitely a convention that wasn't really common at the time of release.
detrimental
Banned
If we're going to resort to inferring bias', we ought to keep the playing field equal.
Demon Lizardman
Banned
People who claim FF7 is more revolutionary than Mario 64 has to think for a minute. Sure FF7 had a big story (So did FF6) brought a lot of likable characters and have a big open world to explore and had cinematic cutscenes.
Mario 64 on the other hand, brought the feeling of controlling a character in a 3D environment with an analog stick which just felt right. Instead of using the limited D-pad, you could now go around in a circle without too much of a hassle. This control scheme later was implemented by Sony in the PS2 and the Xbox. It didn't revolutionize platforms, it revolutionized moving characters in a 3d space and made it feel right.
I agree, the camera controls are primitive to today's standards, but for the time, it was considered to be perfect.
Mario 64 on the other hand, brought the feeling of controlling a character in a 3D environment with an analog stick which just felt right. Instead of using the limited D-pad, you could now go around in a circle without too much of a hassle. This control scheme later was implemented by Sony in the PS2 and the Xbox. It didn't revolutionize platforms, it revolutionized moving characters in a 3d space and made it feel right.
I agree, the camera controls are primitive to today's standards, but for the time, it was considered to be perfect.
to be fair, i responded pretty critically to that initial post and to reductive historical issues w/ shitposting about FFVII.
Depends on the type of foes you're facing.
Big foes like Stalfos or Axe Knuckles tend to favor 1vs1 fights (not like the n64 could handle 100 of them after all it wasn't Twilight Princess)
but small foes like Tecktites and the likes could give less of a shit if they're alone or not in trying to kill you, check just the outside of Kakariko village toward Death Mountain and you'll see what I mean.
It's pretty elegant compared to stuffs like Fighting Force or pretty much anything before OoT really.
I mean you don't spend 10mins trying to spam moves missing by an inch or something.
Calamari41
41 > 38
I seem to recall that this was a thing, yeah.
I haven't read through it yet, but here's an Iwata Asks with the original dev team. I'm going to go through this now, I bet there's some good info in here.
Edit: Very cool, to my point about considering M64 and OoT as linked games:
Edit 2: Yup, you're right:
Having finished it, this Iwata Asks is a great read. What stood out to me is the way Z Targeting came to them: during one of these sword fighting shows they were watching, a ninja grappled the main guy with like a chain and was attached to him in that way, strafing around and always facing him. Kind of funny, but when you think about it that's exactly how the Z Targeting mechanic works. Good stuff.
Ultima says hi. And if you call any of those games small in scale I would like to ask what you are smoking and where I can get it. Give the voice acting for everyone though.
Night/Day cycle I don't even think there was anything special to the Night/Day cycle of OoT when they implemented it but seriously,
they brought it back with NPC life schedule in its sequel (heck that was the whole point of the 3 day cycle after all)
anyway NathanS is right, Ultima did it better and before anyone else.
Exactly, I think the only one you could call small could be Ultima IX in 3D but it's the least of its problem I'd guess.
Seriously it's ridiculous how much Ultima pioneered.
I mean pretty much all RPG branch from Ultima series, it's even the 1rst modern MMO!
Funnily enough, From Software themselves already made lock-on combat before OOT with Armored Core. Tomb Raider 2, Virtual On, even a shitty Reboot game on PS1 had it. Circle strafing and the works.
The difference is OOT mapped it to a button instead of auto/time locking etc. And also like you said, having enemies wait based on who you are locked on to. Whether or not OOT was the first to do those things (I'm not sure, I'd imagine lock-on with a button had to have been done before though, not sure about cycling through targets with button tapping), it certainly set a standard for how combat would work in many third person games.
Calamari41
41 > 38
Very interesting. I admit I haven't played the game, and judging by the videos of gameplay I can find online it seems to be more similar to an auto-aim mechanic than a Z Targeting style mechanic. Is that accurate? The camera doesn't seem to follow your mech's "perspective" during lock on, and the mech doesn't face the target. Again, I'm not arguing against your info, I'm just trying to verify what I'm seeing on these videos.
In Virtual On, the lock-on causes your movement to be based on the location of the opponent you're locked on to. So, without lock-on, it's free movement. With lock-on, pushing up will move you towards the opponent, back moves away and there is strafing etc.
Calamari41
41 > 38
Seems like another case of arcade games not getting the credit they deserve. Judging by the videos, this definitely looks like a solid precursor to Z Targeting style systems. It's use in Virtual On, from what I can see, kind of reminds me of like a 3D fighting game if that makes sense.
I think that the Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time team's almost obsessive focus on the camera itself is what made Ocarina's style of Z Targeting such a definitive and influential system.
To be honest, I think if you want to make the argument about what ushered in "Cinematic" gaming, I don't see how MGS1 wouldn't be the actual pioneer here over FF7. Was FF7 the actual first game to use FMVs?
MGS1 was the first game I've ever seen or played that made me honestly think," Wow, games can actually rival the story presentation of films." It also created an entirely new genre of games (3D Stealth Action Games).
FF7 was so amazing to many people because it was, for the most part, many peoples' gateway into RPG gaming. The fact that it was an incredible game severely ups the significance of it in peoples' minds. I'm not sure what it did that was revolutionary other than be the first game to have a soundtrack with digitzed vocals (and that was for only one song). They also moved to real recorded instruments instead of synthesized ones, but I'm not sure if any of the PS1 games actually used a full on orchestra.
Mario 64 actually created the template for full 3D player and camera movement in a 3rd person game (also introduced the concept of a dynamic camera in 3D space). It literally perfected analog controls on the first try and proved that tight level and gameplay design was possible in a fully navigable 3D space.
MGS1 was the first game I've ever seen or played that made me honestly think," Wow, games can actually rival the story presentation of films." It also created an entirely new genre of games (3D Stealth Action Games).
FF7 was so amazing to many people because it was, for the most part, many peoples' gateway into RPG gaming. The fact that it was an incredible game severely ups the significance of it in peoples' minds. I'm not sure what it did that was revolutionary other than be the first game to have a soundtrack with digitzed vocals (and that was for only one song). They also moved to real recorded instruments instead of synthesized ones, but I'm not sure if any of the PS1 games actually used a full on orchestra.
Mario 64 actually created the template for full 3D player and camera movement in a 3rd person game (also introduced the concept of a dynamic camera in 3D space). It literally perfected analog controls on the first try and proved that tight level and gameplay design was possible in a fully navigable 3D space.
Here's Tomb Raider 2 as well -
I think the industry was pushing and prodding, and OOT comes along and takes a bulldozer to the wall.
Calamari41
41 > 38
A great way of putting it. It's like everyone got that you had to have a lock on mechanic to make combat work in 3D, but they couldn't quite get how to take it beyond a glorified auto-aim. I think it's also worth noting that all of these examples seem to be some form of shooter. To make hand to hand combat work seems like a more difficult problem to tackle, and definitely requires much more control.
What seems kind of funny to me is that, from the interviews, it's hard to tell if the OoT team was even aware of the way the listed games handled it. It's almost like they came up with it on their own, even though other developers were halfway there when they started trying to tackle it. One of them even says in that Iwata Asks I posted earlier, he realized it was a problem because it was hard to get lined up to read signs in Mario 64.
Z-targeting was highly touted back when OoT was released and it changed the way 3D combat was handled so I'd say it's a big part of it.
I think it because it was obvious what the general players need help in 3-d space and the general idea of locking on already existed, so it was natural a bunch of people would hit on the same over all concept at the birth of full 3d gaming. but as noted how you dealt with enemies and the camera was key:
"One of the biggest obstacles in controlling your VR is keeping your enemy in your sights. Your targeting computer automatically locks onto your enemy, but the camera doesn't follow them, so the enemy is constantly running from your line of sight."
http://www.hardcoregaming101.net/virtualon/virtualon.htm
Rule of thumb, if your looking for a video game that was influential in any element of creating a living breathing world, nine time out of ten the answer is Ultima. But being a computer game from pre-2000 it gets over looked. Same way people will go on about how JRPG's were the first kind of games to really focus on stories. What's that? CRPGs and Adventure games of all stripes? Those are on those com-putors things right? So they don't count.
Seriously it's insane, Dungeon Crawler, MMO, storyline, party members....
You'll always find a Ultima game as the "did it first" or close enough.
I mean Dragon Quest the very 1rst and the basis for pretty much ALL JRPGs is pretty much Ultima III lite.
PC games should be given greater emphasis, seriously what I wouldn't give for a modern Xwing!
The story from Koichi Nakamura himself:
"A game that I have fond memories of is Wizardry, which was popular in our office, but a co-worker of mine named Yuji Horii was hooked on Ultima at the time. Yuji kept saying we should make an RPG, but while I wanted to make a game like Wizardry, he wanted it to be like Ultima. We said to ourselves that we'd combine the interesting parts from both, and what we ended up with was Dragon Quest. So if it wasn't for Wizardry and Ultima, Dragon Quest wouldn't exist -- either in Japan or in the world."
http://blog.hardcoregaming101.net/2011/05/ultima-wizardry-and-issues-of-video.html
Soulscribe
Member
Mario 64 influenced mechanics, FFVII influenced scope.
I'm not sure I remember FFVII breaking any new ground other than doing storytelling really well through fmv's, which had been done before but never as effectively. The gameplay was exactly the same I had been playing in Champions of Krynn on my 8-bit C64 way back in 1991 - in fact, I distinctly remember being disappointed playing FFVII and then FFVIII that the gameplay felt so old.
Mario 64, on the other hand.... I don't think any game previous to it showed us such a masterful example of how 3D games could be. Previous games were plagued by poor cameras and awful controls - but playing Mario in all his new 3D glory felt so natural, as if the jump from 2D had not given us the awkward experiences of before but the seamless one brought by Nintendo. I remember people going crazy in demos where the only play area was the gardens of Peach's castle. Sony may have later said the new generation doesn't start without them, but Nintendo seemed to do that earlier with Mario, without having to say anything at all. It was so far ahead of every other game out there.
It's not for nothing that when Ocarina of Time was released that people stood ready to take notice of what Nintendo might have done this time. In fact I remember a magazine staffer visiting a developer's office who saw a group of them watching someone play as they stood around him, taking notes and slowly shaking their heads. There were tiny sections of gameplay that could've made full games in their entirety - I believe one developer was doing something similar to some gameplay element and they scrapped theirs because Nintendo had already done it, and done it better.
FFVII was a game with aged gameplay and effective storytelling with fmv's. Mario 64 was the first game that truly grasped how great 3D games could be - it was the template for so many that came after it.
Mario 64, on the other hand.... I don't think any game previous to it showed us such a masterful example of how 3D games could be. Previous games were plagued by poor cameras and awful controls - but playing Mario in all his new 3D glory felt so natural, as if the jump from 2D had not given us the awkward experiences of before but the seamless one brought by Nintendo. I remember people going crazy in demos where the only play area was the gardens of Peach's castle. Sony may have later said the new generation doesn't start without them, but Nintendo seemed to do that earlier with Mario, without having to say anything at all. It was so far ahead of every other game out there.
It's not for nothing that when Ocarina of Time was released that people stood ready to take notice of what Nintendo might have done this time. In fact I remember a magazine staffer visiting a developer's office who saw a group of them watching someone play as they stood around him, taking notes and slowly shaking their heads. There were tiny sections of gameplay that could've made full games in their entirety - I believe one developer was doing something similar to some gameplay element and they scrapped theirs because Nintendo had already done it, and done it better.
FFVII was a game with aged gameplay and effective storytelling with fmv's. Mario 64 was the first game that truly grasped how great 3D games could be - it was the template for so many that came after it.
Dion Blaster
Member
I'm trying to understand that guy's complaint. What platformer can you easily run across a narrow ledge while spinning the camera? Now the camera certainly isn't perfect, but it was very easy to control and a precursor to dual-analog cameras (with the C buttons serving the purpose of the right stick).
Mario's movement itself certainly was seamless though. A joystick combined with the A and Z button allowed you to basically do anything you wanted in the game. There still hasn't been a better control setup for platformers, the Galaxy games essentially used an identical layout and moveset.
The movement was so far ahead of its time, seriously try playing other platformers from that era like Spyro or even Banjo-Kazooie, the movement is just not as seamless or smooth.
God, no. Technically the 1983 laserdisc game Dragon's Lair was first (not sure on that, it may not have been the first laserdisc game, but it was certainly the most famous), but fmv's really got started in the early 90's with the Mega CD and the early 32-bit consoles, such as the CD32, CD-I and 3D0.
Seriously play Ultima, at this point any of them will do (get the patches for VIII or IX though)
I still have fun playing Mario 64 (and other nintendo games from that era like Ocarina and Star Fox) because I find they nailed the controls. While not perfect by todays standards still very functional and fun. Final Fantasy 7 is a game I played a few years ago and had no nostalgia for. I respect it for what it did for the industry but I don't find it holds up as well. A revolutionary idea that was improved upon almost right away by the same company. Just my opinion.
GOGOheadray
Member
I can only give my personal view of this topic. I as a gamer was too young to remember or really experience the height of Mario 64 and FF7 when they were out ( the first time I really got into gaming was near the tail end of the PS1 start of the PS2 era's). With the help of emulators ( Project 64; and epsx) I was able to go back and experience both games and I would have to say I see more similarities in in terms of whats present in current games with FF7 than 64. As others have said FF7 put more emphasis on graphics, and presentation, as well as story over pure gameplay and mechanics. I would assume that even the most ardent mario fan will admit that the story in Mario 64 isn't exactly advanced by any means. Looking at games today the most popular ones ( your AC's; Skyrims; last of us's; etc.) have gone the way of big budget; presentation, spectacles a field that relative to this question was present in ff7 and not in Mario 64. In fact the only pure gameplay games present today are either from Nintendo ( and we know how well those consoles are selling....) or from niche games ( souls, indies, etc) that don't have a huge hold on the mass consumer market ( with the exception of minecraft). To me looking at what games are buzzed about on the internet today as well as what games are actually selling the answer is clear it's FF7
Skyrim influenced by FFVII?
How?
It's an elder scroll game that's heavily influenced (if not copy pasted) by Wizardry, Ultima Underground and other PC RPGS.
AC uses the character and camera movement from Prince of Persia that's heavily influenced by SM64 (instead of say Tomb Raider).
Last of Us pretty much controls like Uncharted and draws much from Tomb raider itself.
None of these games focus on expensive fmv cutscenes like Dragon Lair's and FFVII did.
there's literally nothing like FFVII these days.
In term of scope, stuffs like Ultima or wing Commander were running circles around any FF games years prior anyway.
How?
It's an elder scroll game that's heavily influenced (if not copy pasted) by Wizardry, Ultima Underground and other PC RPGS.
AC uses the character and camera movement from Prince of Persia that's heavily influenced by SM64 (instead of say Tomb Raider).
Last of Us pretty much controls like Uncharted and draws much from Tomb raider itself.
None of these games focus on expensive fmv cutscenes like Dragon Lair's and FFVII did.
there's literally nothing like FFVII these days.
In term of scope, stuffs like Ultima or wing Commander were running circles around any FF games years prior anyway.
Both games had systems with impact beyond their respective genre.
Final Fantasy ushered in the craze to insert FMVs. FMVs are pretty much a huge part of many different genres now.
Mario64 camera control became the standard to refine all future camera controls.
GOGOheadray
Member
Clearly you didn't read my post. I never said they played similar to FF7 but I did say that these games sold based mostly in part on their story; presentation elements, and graphics; which was what FF7 was marketed and sold on. Those games did not sell on gameplay which is basically what mario 64 purely is. In those games I listed alot of the fans of those respective games in fact are ranting about how the gameplay in those titles actually got worse ( skyrim, AC) or are almost nonexistant ( last of us).
You're attributing to FFVII what is rightfully Dragon's Lair (where the 's is supposed to go anyway) innovation many years before.
Cryo interactive lived and died by FMVs and it would be laughable to think they were inspired by FFVII to make stuffs like Atlantis in March 1997.
We've reached a point where use of fmv in the way FFVII used them is counterproductive anyway.
AC never sold because of its story.
It's even laughable to even imply that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjVPu4SL6Cs
That's the reveal of AC1, AC2 explorded after that but really the thing that Ubi hype with every game is more that the big city you'll explore is fully traversable.
It has more to do with GTAIII success than anything.
Skyrim is freaking Elder Scroll, it certainly never had anything to do with cutting edge tech more than the potential of ES gigantic world.
None of these games were inspired by FFVII even for the angle of their marketing.
Thanks for the insight. I completely forgot about actual FMV based games like Dragon's Lair.
Just to clarify, I wasn't relating the FMV argument to why FF7 is considered cinematic, that was just a side question.
Every time you shift the camera in a third person game, you have SM64 to thank for that.
Every time you see an analogue stick from the N64 onwards, you have SM64 to thank for that.
To your point about cinematic storytelling and presentation, both OoT and MGS were more innovative than FF7 was.
Also, you might want to read the TOS and make amendments before you get caught.
It's truly unbelievable how much hostility is directed towards Final Fantasy VII, but this is neogaf.gif.
As the thread has progressed you would think FF7 was just another game that did well. Not only is this wrong it's embarassing bias that does nothing for discussion.
Several developers including Kojima himself , praised FF7 and many here are saying MGS "did it better" which is debatable but ...no shit, he improved upon the groundwork laid out from FF7.
All I know is prior to Final Fantasy 7, Japanese games and especially RPG's were an afterthought in the area I grew up (Vancouver Canada ).
Final Fantasy is the only game to this day several of my friends who do not game, played to completion. I can also recognize the importance of Mario 64 without shitting all over it. But to think FF7 was just another game is baffling.
As the thread has progressed you would think FF7 was just another game that did well. Not only is this wrong it's embarassing bias that does nothing for discussion.
Several developers including Kojima himself , praised FF7 and many here are saying MGS "did it better" which is debatable but ...no shit, he improved upon the groundwork laid out from FF7.
All I know is prior to Final Fantasy 7, Japanese games and especially RPG's were an afterthought in the area I grew up (Vancouver Canada ).
Final Fantasy is the only game to this day several of my friends who do not game, played to completion. I can also recognize the importance of Mario 64 without shitting all over it. But to think FF7 was just another game is baffling.
It's great that this game was significant to such an extent to you and your friends.
But could you name other devs outside of Kojima or even name games that clearly used FFVII as the blueprint for their projects?
And seriously you didn't have NES or SNES in Vancouver in the 90's?
Mr_Antimatter
Member
IIRC, the dual analog flightstick (announced in 1995, released April 1996) was released previous to the N64, so they had the idea in place. But yeah, the success of it Granted, the dual analog controller was first shown in Nov 1996, a scant few months after the N64's release in June 1996. Odds are they had the concept for it then, but moved forward due to good pre-release stuff for the N64.
I love FF7. It's one of my top 3 games ever made, and I still find time to play it.
But come on. There's no contest on which is more influential. The fact of the matter is a lot of what FF7 did had been done already. Better, even. Regardless of whether it's one of our favourite games ever.
Here's Tomb Raider 2 as well -
I think the industry was pushing and prodding, and OOT comes along and takes a bulldozer to the wall.
lol
People get so defensive about games they like. I enjoy RPGs much more than platformers. Hell, I've only played Mario 64 up to ~20 stars or so before I got impatient and stopped playing. But in terms of innovation--most of which have already been detailed in this thread, so I won't bother listing them out--Mario 64 has had a much bigger impact on the industry.
Arkam
Member
from my perspective Mario 64 was significantly more impactful to the video game industry. Go look at the 3D games that came out prior and you will understand. 3D was not new, nor was the idea of moving in said space. Many games had done this in fact. But most all of them felt like crap. After Mario 64 things were MUCH better.
FF7 was and still is a FANTASTIC game! But I really do not think it was that impactful on the way we make games. It was huge for solidifying FF as an institution and making the PSX a JRPG fans Eden. But what did it actually do to change the way we think about making games?
I am sure I am overlooking some stuff from FF7, but its been almost 20 years.
FF7 was and still is a FANTASTIC game! But I really do not think it was that impactful on the way we make games. It was huge for solidifying FF as an institution and making the PSX a JRPG fans Eden. But what did it actually do to change the way we think about making games?
I am sure I am overlooking some stuff from FF7, but its been almost 20 years.
(plus I am a huge FF3/6 fan)