Game Talk Posts
Nelson Schneider - wrote on 2011-03-07 16:30
I won't deny that it was very influential, but not over the course of the entire '90s. That decade was divided in half between the Golden Age of the SNES/Genesis rivalry and the Fall of Nintendo with the N64 and the PlayStation debacle.Mario 64 is very influential, much like many Oscar-winning movies are influential: They do a lot of things that have never been done before, but nobody really wants to play/watch them. They just aren't good entertainment. All N64 (and PS1 and Saturn) games weren't ready for prime time when it came to polygonal graphics, thus they all featured 3D graphics that looked like ass. While Sony and Sega had a variety of 2D games that still used sprites, Nintendo went whole-hog into 3D and shoehorned it into games that didn't really need it.Mario 64 defined a new genre at the expense of abandoning the genre that made Mario popular as a character. Along with this brand new genre came hideously-deformed polygonal models (I don't know how you can think that Mario 64 has good graphics compared to the games in the series that came immediately before AND after it), a camera that is flat-out broken, and touchy analog-stick controls. To the Mario series specifically, Mario 64 brought gimped, time-limited power-ups and the world's most annoying voiceacting.There's a reason Nintendo has been refining 3D Mario games to more closely resemble their 2D precursors: Mario 64 was a failed experiment. If you want to play Mario at his best, fire-up Super Mario World or New Super Mario Bros. Wii. If you want 3D Mario at his best, Mario Galaxy 2 provides a crystal clear example of what Mario 64 should have been but for lack of experience with new tech.
Alex - wrote on 2011-02-17 17:45
Tell me one logical reason why this is not the most influential game of the 90's? What an incredible adventure. Amazing graphics, awesome sound and music, cool puzzles and great battles. Simply the best (unless you prove me otherwise).
