• 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.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Hardware Platform Nintendo 64 Vs. PlayStation: Which console was more innovative?

MikeM

Member
May 21, 2021
381
487
230
I'd say PS simply for one fact: the CD-Rom. It was used for virtually all media at one point and its form factor (blu-rays) are still being used today for physical storage of games and movies.
 
Last edited:

killatopak

Member
Aug 29, 2013
15,047
5,669
925
There was one thing Playstation showed that no other had done before.

Beat Nintendo.

Unfortunately, it came with a cost. RIP in peace Sega.
 
  • Thoughtful
  • Empathy
Reactions: Perrott and TLZ

kunonabi

Member
Dec 2, 2010
19,293
4,875
1,000
Probably a tie really. Nintendo was innovative in terms of how games were played and features but there was way more experimentation going on in terms of presentation and new genres with the Playstation.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: TLZ
Sep 29, 2011
4,464
3,190
950
Innovative how? Just from a hardware/tech perspective? If so, it's a bit of a draw, imo. But from a games perspective, I'd have to give it to PS.
 

Holammer

Member
Jan 3, 2019
1,648
2,260
440
Maybe the N64 was more "innovative", but it was a failure sales wise and its controller was an evolutionary dead end.
It had so few games it's actually within the realm of possibility to get a full game collection for it.

Nintendo was lucky to have strong handhelds carrying the company.
 

Sub_Level

wants to fuck an Asian grill.
Apr 9, 2009
31,773
11,691
1,580
What is this meme about crediting N64 with the analog stick? Nintendo themselves already did that in the 80s. NES Max is also a lot more similar to modern controllers than the clusterfuck that is the N64 pad.



Mario 64, as a videogame, absolutely deserves to be hailed as a groundbreaking moment in innovative videogame design. Of course it does. We still use the fundamentals from that game today. But the N64 console itself cannot be credited with that.
 

FingerBang

Member
Jan 17, 2020
222
459
260
How did they make any of those "mainstream", when The mainstream console was the PSone that dwarfed N64 in sales, and was sold with a Dualshock controller that as we all can see became the standard controller for all consoles.

The PlayStation didn't launch with the Dual Shock. The Analog Controller and the Dual Shock, were launched after the Nintendo 64 was launched. They made those features mainstream by creating games that used them well. Same with the rumble pack and the DualShock. Sony saw Nintendo doing that and decided to improve the formula by adding dual sticks and dual motors. It made a lot of sense since PlayStation wanted to make sure Nintendo didn't have an edge.

I wouldnt't call a win anything relative the N64 which almost shut down nintendo, they abandoned even the controller design...the choice to use the cartridge and such horrible RAM was incredible stupid. Only the CD ROM driver probably would have changed the nintendo fate with the condamn of underpowered hardware release for the rest of their existence.

The thread is about being the most innovative and I think from a hardware perspective Nintendo was more innovative overall. For everything else, Sony dominated and the race wasn't close. We can make several examples of innovative consoles that failed against the competition. Dreamcast vs PS2, PS Vita vs 3DS etc.
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
21,798
30,566
835
PS1
- CD based, so lots of content, great audio, cheap games ($60 cdn)
- Some games let you play music CDs while you played (I'd listen to Hole CDs while playing Vigilante 8)
- Smoother moving but blocky 3D
- Cut scenes (if you like that shit)
- Awesome first party games and third party games
- Flakey reliability (upside down trick, I had to do it myself and eventually it didnt work)
- $300 US

N64
- Faster loading with cartridges, but $100 games in Canada
- Antialiasing. Choppier frame rate but smoother looking 3D visuals
- Awesome first party games. Crap third party games
- I think it was a tank. Dont remember seeing gaming threads about N64s breaking
- $200 US

Overall, I go with PS. Way better games for my tastes. I'm not a Nintendo franchise gamer.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: TLZ

Hunnybun

Member
Jun 3, 2020
1,353
1,608
360
By the same logic, analog sticks weren't Nintendo's innovation, because Arcade had them long before?

Context.

CDs were in EVERY new console launched around then, going back to stuff like the Mega CD. It was the default medium.

I'm not aware that analogue sticks had EVER been used on a controller before, and coupled with the proof of concept that was Mario 64, they basically instantly showed the whole industry how 3d games should be approached from now on. I mean, really, with the camera buttons, they even went 90% of the way to defining the dual stick setup as well.

If that's not innovation, I don't know what is. It was a genius move.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AMSCD and arvfab
May 28, 2013
1,240
2,151
715
The PlayStation didn't launch with the Dual Shock. The Analog Controller and the Dual Shock, were launched after the Nintendo 64 was launched. They made those features mainstream by creating games that used them well. Same with the rumble pack and the DualShock. Sony saw Nintendo doing that and decided to improve the formula by adding dual sticks and dual motors. It made a lot of sense since PlayStation wanted to make sure Nintendo didn't have an edge.



The thread is about being the most innovative and I think from a hardware perspective Nintendo was more innovative overall. For everything else, Sony dominated and the race wasn't close. We can make several examples of innovative consoles that failed against the competition. Dreamcast vs PS2, PS Vita vs 3DS etc.
All you wrote I know. You don't know the definition of mainstream. I agree with you on the innovation part, but sadly Nintendo didn't make it mainstream, Sony did.
 
Last edited:

Kimahri

Member
Jul 27, 2020
1,417
2,254
420
The Saturn was designed primarely as a 2D console, sega put that powerfull co-processor way to late in. So only very skillfull first party devs could use that power back then. PS 3D with all the CD benefits was designed form the start.
Oh, for sure. But if your reason for picking PS is that it had a CD rom, I think a history lesson is in order, is all I'm saying 😉
 

IFireflyl

Member
Aug 22, 2020
652
1,081
355
N64 and it's not even close.

The analogue stick alone was more revolutionary than anything the PlayStation introduced. It basically determined how games would be designed for 3d graphics for decades to come.

The z trigger was also basically the forebear of the modern sticks and triggers primary control scheme, so that was another huge advance.

The rumble pak was another nice little bonus on top.

All these things were genuine innovations. Yes, the move to CDs and similar storage changed games fundamentally, but it wasn't even PlayStation's innovation. That's like saying the PS5 introduced SSDs.

The analogue stick existed in consoles prior to the N64 though. The Atari 5200 had it. So giving the N64 credit for the analogue stick is no different from giving the Playstation credit for the CD-ROM.

Playstation had the first dual analogue controller, and that is what is now the standard.

The N64 rumble pak was an addon that wasn't available with the original console, and you had to use 2 AAA batteries to power it. The first Playstation DualShock controller came out only seven months later and was far more innovative, and it was powered by the console itself.

The Playstation controller had R1, R2, L1, and L2 buttons. The N64 controller had R1/L1 buttons (whatever they called them), and the Z-Trigger. I'm not sure how the Z-Trigger (which we've never seen in a first-party controller since the N64) is somehow innovative to you. The N64 had three top/back buttons, and the Playstation had four. That seems to be a far better design to me, especially since all four buttons on the Playstation controller are easily accessible, while the Z-Trigger requires your hand to be in a certain spot which doesn't always work with that controller design.

The first Playstation DualShock controller is the foundation for all Playstation and Xbox controllers that have come out since then, as well as the Switch Pro controller. The N64 controller was idiotic. That trident truly makes no sense, and there's a reason nobody ever copied that monstrosity.
 

nkarafo

Member
Nov 30, 2012
16,725
8,502
1,070
Well PS used the CD in a meaningfull way which benefited the game worlds, before it was "just" high quality audio and FMVs.
Εven that was something the 3DO did before the PS1. Not counting PCs. And assuming the PS1 came before the Saturn.

I'd say PS simply for one fact: the CD-Rom. It was used for virtually all media at one point and its form factor (blu-rays) are still being used today for physical storage of games and movies.
Come on People, the CD-Rom was not PS1's innovation. Not in any way.

Was the PS1 your first game system or something? So many are posting this, what a weird thread.
 
Last edited:

Dream-Knife

Member
Feb 22, 2021
1,522
1,796
430
PS1 had both, for my money. The top games on N64 were absolutely outstanding but there was only about a dozen of them, and a lot of ports like THPS weren't worth the plastic they were printed on on N64.
THPS on 64 was great. Levels load immediately.

Considering to this day the main consoles use a variant of the controller layout of the Dual Shock, I'd say the PS1. I'd also say the PS1 for a lot of the audio stuff it had over the N64 but sadly no one really cares about audio, just graphics.

edit: And Nintendo didn't invent the Analog sticks, they get falsely credited it for it.
Ps1 controller was just a SNES controller with 2 extra shoulder buttons and nice handles. When they bolted two sticks on it became a rather uncomfortable controller.
What are they?
Below are some of them.
Say what now? I understand preference but don't knock PS1 games as they definitely had quality.

Metal Gear Solid
Tenchu 1 + 2
Final Fantasy 7-9
Parasite Eve 1 + 2
Einhaender
Ridge Racer Type 4
Resident Evil 1-3
Tony Hawk Pro Skater 1-2
Wipeout XL
Castlevania Symphony of the Night
Blood Omen
Soul Reaver
Tekken 3
Vagrant Story
Street Fighter Alpha 3
Oddworld Abe's Odyssey + Exodus
Final Fantasy Tactics
Chrono Cross
Silent Hill
Xenogears
The Legend of Dragoon
Twisted Metal 1 -3
Klonoa
Tomb Raider 1- 3
Suikoden 1 -2
Ape Escape
Bushido Blade 1 -2
Medal of Honor + Underground
Mega Man Legends
WWF Smackdown 1 +2
Spider-Man 1 +2
Driver 1 +2
Parappa the Rapper
Hogs of War
R-Tyoe Delta
Mr. Driller
One
Bloody Roar 1+2
Jade Cocoon
The Misadventures of Tron Bonne
Galerians
Tobal 2
Disruptor
Vandal Hearts
Alundra 1 +2
Ehrgeiz
Persona 1 +2
Heart of Darkness
Rival Schools
Tomba 1 +2
Star Ocean 1 +2
Super Puzzle Fighter 2 Turbo
Legend of Legaia
Um Jammer Lammy

Yeah, sure are "weeb" games. Whatever the hell that means.
I counted 7 games I like. Here's 8 from n64:
Perfect Dark
Goldeneye
Ocarina of Time (GOAT)
Majoras Mask
F-Zero X
Smash 64
Wave Rave 64
Wipeout 64 (lol)
Rumble Pak is the opposite of innovation. If we're talking about hardware, I don't see where N64 wins? It's arguably one of the worst controllers ever made. If we're talking about games, there were 4-5 on N64 worth mentioning.
Are you one of those people who say "HoW Do yOu hOlD It wItHoUt 3 hAnDs?"
Really? That’s ALL they were missing?
Captain America Lol GIF by mtv

You’re just going to skip over all 3D Final Fantasy games, mature games like Silent Hill, or even Resident Evil? Metal Gear Solid rings a bell? Tomb Raider? & a thousand more?

I ended only having like 7 games for N64 in the end. Quite disappointed in most of their library vs my tastes. If it weren’t for the Capcom exclusive deal for the Cube, N64 would have been my last Nintendo console
DGAF about FF after playing Xenogears, they don't even compare. MGS was good though. I have RE2 for N64. Don't care about that series though.
 
Last edited:

nkarafo

Member
Nov 30, 2012
16,725
8,502
1,070
The Playstation controller had R1, R2, L1, and L2 buttons. The N64 controller had R1/L1 buttons (whatever they called them), and the Z-Trigger. I'm not sure how the Z-Trigger (which we've never seen in a first-party controller since the N64) is somehow innovative to you. The N64 had three top/back buttons, and the Playstation had four. That seems to be a far better design to me, especially since all four buttons on the Playstation controller are easily accessible, while the Z-Trigger requires your hand to be in a certain spot which doesn't always work with that controller design.

The first Playstation DualShock controller is the foundation for all Playstation and Xbox controllers that have come out since then, as well as the Switch Pro controller. The N64 controller was idiotic. That trident truly makes no sense, and there's a reason nobody ever copied that monstrosity.
Shoulder buttons were a SNES controller innovation though. The PS1 just added more.

The Ζ-trigger was exactly that, a trigger. It worked like a trigger in every FPS game and if you used the correct control scheme, it felt like holding a gun. I thought that was quite an improvement for these types of games.

Also, the trident design allowed for FPS games to be played like a keyboard/mouse. Analog for aiming and D-pad or C-buttons for walking/strafe. All FPS games were compatible with this scheme. It's the ONLY single analog controller that allows that.
 
Last edited:

Sosokrates

Founder of western console warring.
Feb 22, 2017
3,126
2,365
645
They both had there pros and cons, playstation had the mass storage of CD which meant more space for audio, textures and other assets.

N64 had the faster storage of the game carts ehich acted like RAM which meant no loading times and larger open worlds.
 

StateofMajora

Member
Aug 7, 2020
1,684
2,121
380
About the only thing ps1 brought to the table was the possibility of higher quality cd audio. I say possibility because in fact a lot of games just used sequenced audio from the sound chip, which was also better than n64 sound because it lacked one.

Anyways, you’re a fanboy if you say playstation, full stop. Analog stick alone wins it for n64. Camera buttons. Rumble even though I don’t much care for it ; it stuck.

Mario 64, ocarina of time were revolutionary and playstation games did nowhere near that level of innovation.

Tailor made 64 games have aged much, much better overall in terms of a 3d experience.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Dream-Knife

nkarafo

Member
Nov 30, 2012
16,725
8,502
1,070
N64 had the faster storage of the game carts ehich acted like RAM which meant no loading times and larger open worlds.
Not to mention no moving, mechanical parts. Which also means less noise and things to break.

If only ROMs weren't so expensive back then.... CDs would have had no chance. Arcades still used ROMs and were quite big in size (just look as some Neo-Geo games) but the price was the only thing holding the superior, faster, solid state medium back. Thankfully, SSDs showed the mainstream how mechanical parts should be a thing of the past.
 
Last edited:

Sosokrates

Founder of western console warring.
Feb 22, 2017
3,126
2,365
645
Not to mention no moving, mechanical parts. Which also means less noise and things to break.

If only ROMs weren't so expensive back then.... CDs would have had no chance. Arcades still used ROMs and were quite big in size (just look as some Neo-Geo games) but the price was the only thing holding the superior, faster, solid state medium back.
Yes, in a way the N64 was a head of its time. If they had like 1gb carts back then it would of been superior in everyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dream-Knife

nkarafo

Member
Nov 30, 2012
16,725
8,502
1,070
Yes, in a way the N64 was a head of its time. If they had like 1gb carts back then it would of been superior in everyway.
I wouldn't say it was ahead of it's time, the only thing it did was to keep the same tech as the previous cart based consoles and bump the size at the same pace.

CDs were never really viable for gaming (adds loading and moving parts to the picture). But the low production cost was too lucrative for the industry to ignore. They didn't really need that much space early on anyway (first CD based console was released in the late 80's), most games were the same as the carts in size with FMVs or redbook audio added. But yeah, 8MB-32MB in the late 90's was too low, games evolved much faster than cart sizes in the 5th generation. Thankfully, solid state has now catch up.
 

Jubenhimer

Member
Nov 11, 2018
1,714
2,279
560
24
The popular belief is that the Wii brought gaming to the "non-gaming casuals". But the PS1 did it first.
The casual gamers the PS1 appealed to were a bit different than the casual gamers the Wii appealed to. The PS1 appealed to a hip, young crowd who previously believed gaming was a geeky hobby, like comic books. The CD format allowed for presentations that can appeal to this audience. Cinematic presentations, and licensed music in games like Tony Hawk's Pro Skater were a huge hit with this audience.

The Wii, was designed for people who saw modern gaming as too complicated, by offering a simpler, multiplayer focused alternative. Games like Wii Sports were designed to be enjoyed by both seasoned gamers and elders who never even played games before.

Are we really suggesting the CD was a PlayStation innovation?

Forgetting the Saturn released days before? Not to mention other more niche consoles with CD-ROM released years before?

But as I said, the PlayStation was arguably the first console to do the format proper justice. The problem with something like the Sega-CD for example, was that the Genesis didn't have the hardware necessary to take advantage of the format in any meaningful way. Hence the abundance of crappy FMV games. But the PlayStation was powerful enough to use the CD format in much more interesting and exciting ways.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: EruditeHobo

nkarafo

Member
Nov 30, 2012
16,725
8,502
1,070
The casual gamers the PS1 appealed to were a bit different than the casual gamers the Wii appealed to. The PS1 appealed to a hip, young crowd who previously believed gaming was a geeky hobby, like comic books. The CD format allowed for presentations that can appeal to this audience. Cinematic presentations, and licensed music in games like Tony Hawk's Pro Skater were a huge hit with this audience.

The Wii, was designed for people who saw modern gaming as too complicated, by offering a simpler, multiplayer focused alternative. Games like Wii Sports were designed to be enjoyed by both seasoned gamers and elders who never even played games before.
You are correct.

Either way, both groups were considered "non-gamers" and the PS1 was the first that brought such crowd in, for better or worse. I vividly remember people who accused me of being a nerd in school for being a gamer, becoming Playstation fanboys themselves later on.
 
Last edited:
Apr 5, 2021
1,015
1,978
355
The playstation. Dual analogue, two shoulder buttons and discs are still used today. The n64 controller is a joke by comparison.
 

KungFucius

Member
Jul 16, 2008
2,182
1,116
1,280
Nintendo brought the analog and real 3D games to the table first. Sony half-assedly added analog to their existing controller and still haven't tried moving it. Nintendo completely blew it by using carts and essentially set themselves up to have first party only machines from that point forward. I played my PS much more than my N64. They brought the modern "cinematic" feel to games because the CD format let them load games with FMV, voice tracks, and what not and it was very entertaining even if a lot of the games looked kind of shitty. I guess what I am saying is Nintendo was most innovative on the HW side and some core gameplay like SM64 and OoT, but Sony made a machine that allowed game devs to innovate of the content in games. Both had major influence on the industry.
 

YCoCg

Member
Apr 25, 2020
2,566
3,543
425
Ps1 controller was just a SNES controller with 2 extra shoulder buttons and nice handles. When they bolted two sticks on it became a rather uncomfortable controller.
And yet it's still the basis for controllers since then *shrugs*
 
  • LOL
Reactions: TLZ

lachesis

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,177
1,453
1,665
Well, back in PSX/N64 days - it felt like anything Nintendo did in H/W side, Sony copied it.

So I'd say other than moving onto CD, Nintendo was more innovative in terms of hardware.

As per the software side, I think PSX was more competent. I won't say it was more innovative - but it had a log of unique and experimental things going on - due to lots of niche & unique concept games by 3rd parties and 1st parties.
 

YCoCg

Member
Apr 25, 2020
2,566
3,543
425
Come on People, the CD-Rom was not PS1's innovation. Not in any way.

Was the PS1 your first game system or something? So many are posting this, what a weird thread.
Same way people credit Nintendo for Analog sticks and when asked "well it's because they made it popular and did it right", I'd imagine same logic is used here.
 

YCoCg

Member
Apr 25, 2020
2,566
3,543
425
For Sony.

Microsoft design is much more comfortable IMO.
MS's original design failed (though was creative) and from the 360 onwards they used the PS layout but with swapped Dpad and Left Stick placement, hey, how about Nintendo and their Pro controllers, which also use the same design.
 

Kimahri

Member
Jul 27, 2020
1,417
2,254
420
The casual gamers the PS1 appealed to were a bit different than the casual gamers the Wii appealed to. The PS1 appealed to a hip, young crowd who previously believed gaming was a geeky hobby, like comic books. The CD format allowed for presentations that can appeal to this audience. Cinematic presentations, and licensed music in games like Tony Hawk's Pro Skater were a huge hit with this audience.

The Wii, was designed for people who saw modern gaming as too complicated, by offering a simpler, multiplayer focused alternative. Games like Wii Sports were designed to be enjoyed by both seasoned gamers and elders who never even played games before.



But as I said, the PlayStation was arguably the first console to do the format proper justice. The problem with something like the Sega-CD for example, was that the Genesis didn't have the hardware necessary to take advantage of the format in any meaningful way. Hence the abundance of crappy FMV games. But the PlayStation was powerful enough to use the CD format in much more interesting and exciting ways.
Sure, but it's still not a PS innovation. Innovation means something new, it had been done before. Sony just did it better.
 

A.Romero

Member
Feb 23, 2009
3,670
2,449
1,250
Mexico
www.lavejota.com
I'd say N64 was innovative in aspects like controllers and accessories.

PlayStation was more innovative in the business side of things, they truly changed everything. We would not see innovation like that again in this space until Microsoft came in with XBL, the store, etc.

Hardware-wise I'd say it would be a tie, mainly because they chose different approaches and while the PS had some advantages, the N64 had some as well but launched later and more expensive.
 

Jubenhimer

Member
Nov 11, 2018
1,714
2,279
560
24
Sure, but it's still not a PS innovation. Innovation means something new, it had been done before. Sony just did it better.
Innovation doesn't mean invention. You can use something that's been done before, and use it in a new way. Which is what the PlayStation and Nintendo 64 did with CD and the analog stick. Both have existed before, but Sony and Nintendo used them in new and practical ways.
 

93xfan

Banned
Feb 23, 2013
3,385
2,482
765
Say what now? I understand preference but don't knock PS1 games as they definitely had quality.

Metal Gear Solid
Tenchu 1 + 2
Final Fantasy 7-9
Parasite Eve 1 + 2
Einhaender
Ridge Racer Type 4
Resident Evil 1-3
Tony Hawk Pro Skater 1-2
Wipeout XL
Castlevania Symphony of the Night
Blood Omen
Soul Reaver
Tekken 3
Vagrant Story
Street Fighter Alpha 3
Oddworld Abe's Odyssey + Exodus
Final Fantasy Tactics
Chrono Cross
Silent Hill
Xenogears
The Legend of Dragoon
Twisted Metal 1 -3
Klonoa
Tomb Raider 1- 3
Suikoden 1 -2
Ape Escape
Bushido Blade 1 -2
Medal of Honor + Underground
Mega Man Legends
WWF Smackdown 1 +2
Spider-Man 1 +2
Driver 1 +2
Parappa the Rapper
Hogs of War
R-Tyoe Delta
Mr. Driller
One
Bloody Roar 1+2
Jade Cocoon
The Misadventures of Tron Bonne
Galerians
Tobal 2
Disruptor
Vandal Hearts
Alundra 1 +2
Ehrgeiz
Persona 1 +2
Heart of Darkness
Rival Schools
Tomba 1 +2
Star Ocean 1 +2
Super Puzzle Fighter 2 Turbo
Legend of Legaia
Um Jammer Lammy

Yeah, sure are "weeb" games. Whatever the hell that means.

You forgot Jumping Flash 2. A great standout.

Owned a PS1 and glad I did. Always was jealous of Mario 64, Goldeneye and Ocarina of Time though.

MGS and FF7 were amazing for story, atmosphere and music, but the former 3 games stood out to me as the best examples of gameplay for the generation. They were just in a league of their own
 

Dream-Knife

Member
Feb 22, 2021
1,522
1,796
430
And yet it's still the basis for controllers since then *shrugs*
How so? 2 sticks? Xbox and GC had the asymmetrical layout that's now standard.
N64 confirm button is where the A button is on Xbox, and the X button on PS, which is now the standard confirm button.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: sainraja

yurinka

Member
Jan 19, 2007
13,857
5,857
1,745
Barcelona, Spain
www.capcom-town.es
From a hardware perspective, Nintendo made analog sticks, triggers and rumble mainstream. We're still using those nowadays. This is a win for the N64.

But I think PlayStation really made games mainstream and was able to kill the idea they were for kids.

Overall, I would say they were both important in shaping today's gaming landscape, though I'd give PS the edge considering how many series still alive today were born there
Analogs, triggers and rumble existed in consoles or computers since the 70s or 80s. PlayStation was the first console to sell over 100M console while N64 sold a third of that, so what became mainstream and was a big hit that influenced future ones was PlayStation, not N64.

Tech wise PSX and N64 didn't introduce any big new stuff. Not sure if to expand from L and R to keep them as thumb buttons and add triggers behind them or to include memory cards, or some kind of dual analogs but I'd bet other consoles or computers also did it before. Maybe in this generation stuff like dual analog sticks, CD, rumble, 'horns' to improve ergonomy etc became standards but they already where there.

I think the main reasons behind the fact the first PS sold way more than the other consoles of its generations plus the previous ones were:
-Sony successfully increasing and targeting the main gamer demographic back then: teenagers and young males. In previous generations the main audience were kids, but they grew so at the PSX gen they were teenagers and young adults
-Consoles reaching getting a similar tech level than arcades, enough for people to prefer to play at home instead of in the arcades
-Sony highly increasing the localization efforts for non English/Frech speaking European countries, that until then they had a very low % of properly localized console games
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Holammer

sainraja

Member
Aug 15, 2007
1,901
1,409
1,480
Nintendo brought back gaming. They pretty much brought gaming back to life. They defined how 3D games should be built.
Sony refined and popularized gaming. They added dual analogs, four shoulder buttons and the general shape of the controller we use today.
Microsoft popularized online gaming. They focused on the social aspects, connected people, etc.
 

YCoCg

Member
Apr 25, 2020
2,566
3,543
425
Ergonomic design and shape logic and with how gamers hold their controllers these days. The button placement since PS1 has pretty much remained unchanged outside of swaps, if you ask someone to mimick holding a controller they'll show their hands in the current clam hold which was popularised from the Dual Shock design.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sainraja

sainraja

Member
Aug 15, 2007
1,901
1,409
1,480
How so? 2 sticks? Xbox and GC had the asymmetrical layout that's now standard.
N64 confirm button is where the A button is on Xbox, and the X button on PS, which is now the standard confirm button.
PS1 had the DualShock controller with two sticks & four shoulder buttons (two of which are now triggers). All Xbox did was swap the position of the stick. The general shape that has been the standard started with DualShock. The original controller introduced by Xbox was a monstrosity and notice how the only thing that Xbox did differently (the black/white buttons) are no longer being used, even by them.

This part of your post shows how far you are reaching lol

"N64 confirm button is where the A button is on Xbox, and the X button on PS, which is now the standard confirm button."
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: TLZ

nkarafo

Member
Nov 30, 2012
16,725
8,502
1,070
Same way people credit Nintendo for Analog sticks and when asked "well it's because they made it popular and did it right", I'd imagine same logic is used here.
The CD was widely and properly used by older consoles before the Playstation.

I don't remember a single console game using the analog stick in such way as Mario 64. Analog controls isn't just a hardware thing, software also has to support it and the N64 was the first in that sense.

The Playstation did nothing with CDs the 3DO didn't do before it.
 

sainraja

Member
Aug 15, 2007
1,901
1,409
1,480
The CD was widely and properly used by older consoles before the Playstation.

I don't remember a single console game using the analog stick in such way as Mario 64. Analog controls isn't just a hardware thing, software also has to support it and the N64 was the first in that sense.

The Playstation did nothing with CDs the 3DO didn't do before it.
I wouldn't call the 3DO or the original Saturn popular. They didn't stick around long for a reason.
 

manzo

Member
Jan 1, 2007
3,463
364
1,355
Finland
Just fucking imagine if

- N64 would’ve launched in 1995
- The N64 would’ve had a 4x CD-ROM
- The N64 would’ve had direct memory access for the VDP and a separate video ram for it
- The N64 would’ve had the extra 4mb RDRAM accessory built-in day one

The competition wouldn’t have held a candle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dream-Knife

Dream-Knife

Member
Feb 22, 2021
1,522
1,796
430
Ergonomic design and shape logic and with how gamers hold their controllers these days. The button placement since PS1 has pretty much remained unchanged outside of swaps, if you ask someone to mimick holding a controller they'll show their hands in the current clam hold which was popularised from the Dual Shock design.

PS1 had the DualShock controller with two sticks & four shoulder buttons (two of which are now triggers). All Xbox did was swap the position of the stick. The general shape that has been the standard started with DualShock. The original controller introduced by Xbox was a monstrosity and notice how the only thing that Xbox did differently (the black/white buttons) are no longer being used, even by them.

This part of your post shows how far you are reaching lol

"N64 confirm button is where the A button is on Xbox, and the X button on PS, which is now the standard confirm button."
So the SNES made modern controllers then. Sony just bolted two sticks on the bottom of the controller because they had to do something regarding the 64.

No, actually take a look. On SNES most games started using Y and B as the main buttons. N64 confirmed it by moving A and B to those positions. PS1 had a weird mix of circle and X as confirm. Since PS is now a western company, they too have moved globally to that standard.

Black and white buttons weren't important that gen, as all four shoulder buttons largely weren't used. Just as the right stick on PS1 was barely used, but that's more of a fault of the PS1s lack of good FPS games.
 
Last edited: