Which game do you think was more groundbreaking? Super Mario 64 or Ocarina of time?

[Mago]

These are considered the two most important and groundbreaking games on the N64. Ocarina of time has often been listed as the greatest game of all time and is notable for its innovative Z targeting mechanic. Personally though I think Sm64 was the much more groundbreaking game of the two as it had no real predecessor with what it was doing as a 3D collectathon platformer with at the time complex controls and physics. Meanwhile Oot was largely a 3D take on what Alttp already did and was also predated by games like Mystical Ninja starring Goemon and Megaman Legends. Also feel like SM64s controllable camera was a more important than Z targeting.

Anyway pls keep things civil, and remember the question is which was more groundbreaking not which was the better game!

 

[moonbits]

That's a tough one but I'll go with Super Mario 64 because it showcased the necessity of a joystick, the fluidness, intuitive and very approachable 3D controls that were so groundbreaking everyone in the industry rushed to their house to put a stick to their controllers.

and then they did it again with Ocarina of Time.

Nintendo was doing some black magic in the 90s.

 

[Elwiwi]

That's a tough one but I'll go with Super Mario 64 because it showcased the necessity of a joystick, the fluidness, intuitive and very approachable 3D controls that were so groundbreaking everyone in the industry rushed to their house to put a stick to their controllers.

and then they did it again with Ocarina of Time.

Nintendo was doing some black magic in the 90s.

Totally agree with this

 

[redux007]

These are considered the two most important and groundbreaking games on the N64. Ocarina of time has often been listed as the greatest game of all time and is notable for its innovative Z targeting mechanic. Personally though I think Sm64 was the much more groundbreaking game of the two as it had no real predecessor with what it was doing as a 3D collectathon platformer with at the time complex controls and physics. Meanwhile Oot was largely a 3D take on what Alttp already did and was also predated by games like Mystical Ninja starring Goemon and Megaman Legends. Also feel like SM64s controllable camera was a more important than Z targeting.

Anyway pls keep things civil, and remember the question is which was more groundbreaking not which was the better game!

Going to have to give it to Mario. Zelda did so many innovative things, which were later copied dozens of times over. However, Mario 64 defined next generational movement through 3D spaces. It's hard to think of a game that isn't patterned at least in part on the design philosophies it pioneered.

 

[bjork]

It's Mario, and this is why I think so: it hit at a time where there was also Tomb Raider hit not long after, so you got to see multiple iterations on the same concept, but Mario instantly felt more fluid and playable. Tomb Raider was good too, but it felt like a flight sim in comparison, having to carefully line up jumps and the slower pace. Mario managed to be presented in this new way, but still feel like a Mario game. Similar flow, world with enemies but not too many, good secrets to find. Still a blast now, but absolutely incredible at the time.

I've always felt that Zelda didn't make that transition as smoothly, and part of that is due to the nature of the game, with the need to swap out items for puzzle solving. It's a more complex concept, but the liveliness of the world suffers as a result. It's a sleepy game that you spend a lot of time in the menus in. People have their nostalgia for it, but you rarely see anyone use that as the argument for why it's so good, it usually ends up being, "but z-targeting, it was innovative." It was in other games and would've become widespread through some other game, had Ocarina not existed. It's a well-made title except for the map being a nightmare, but 40/40 best ever? Nah. I'd rather take a nap.

 

[χKai]

Zelda handled a lot differently than Mario, the game had you interacting with people and objects regularly using A, while Mario focused on the platforming and jumping mechanics. Zelda had mechanics but they were more well-rounded to fit different situations and also suit the style of the genre, while still maintaining a fun, action-filled adventure and utilizing various mechanics for the plethora of items available, while Mario did it's own thing with altering Mario's abilities based on his state with powerups, the Mario way of approaching his genre. Both were great for what they accomplished and groundbreaking in several technological aspects of their time, being both ahead of the curve and yet compromising many aspects of said technology to maintain the ability to run on the console such as with the use of the expansion pak and the controller cartridges.

 

[Glossy Cat]

Super Mario 64 was just fascinating when I first saw it. I had not seen, nor played, anything like it at the time. I was lucky enough to be able to play it in store and after playing it, I wanted it. Although I did greatly enjoy Ocarina of Time, I was less impressed with it, overall, compared to Super Mario 64.

 

[Kamako]

I reckon it's SM64, but for me personally Ocarina of Time is the better game overall.

 

[JellyjamLu]

Super Mario 64 for sure, I remember having to wait in a queue at Argos to play it via kiosk back in the day. It really was nothing I had ever seen before, the sheer transformation from 2d to full 3d was extraordinary.

Ocarina of time was and is still amazing as well, but not as revolutionary, the simple answer to this is due to its release coming some time after SM64, so most of the 3D honey moon phase was already taken.

 

[The_Real_Thing]

Obviously Mario 64 sold units by being the first of its kind (obvious choice), and had a much broader appeal overall. First saw it run on a buddy's gigantic projection TV (with the 3 colored lenses). Was unlike anything I'd ever seen in a home console. Ended up buying one shortly after (regretted later).

 

[Toaster155]

Definitely Super Mario 64. It basically standardized 3D gaming for generations to come. I don't think OoT really had the same impact

 

[petran79]

by the time Zelda was released there were other fantasy games using various 3d engines for third person platforming and action, eg Dark Forces 2, Heretic 2, Ultima 9, Prince of Persia 3D, to name a few

Mario 64 was revolutionary for third person platforming but not first person as there were many unique games on computers in 1996 and prior

 

[Ikagura Ikagura]

Should I have a hot take and say that ultimately Goldeneye was for both demonstrating that FPS can definitely work on consoles, that you can make an interesting FPS without the whole "search keycards in a maze" and also showing that you don't have "kiddy games" on a Nintendo hardware?

Because ultimately 3D platforming and action adventure has already been made before M64 and OoT and the PlayStation was taking an important place in the video gaming landscape.

 

[χKai]

Should I have a hot take and say that ultimately Goldeneye was for both demonstrating that FPS can definitely work on consoles, that you can make an interesting FPS without the whole "search keycards in a maze" and also showing that you don't have "kiddy games" on a Nintendo hardware?

Because ultimately 3D platforming and action adventure has already been made before M64 and OoT and the PlayStation was taking an important place in the video gaming landscape.

Sir, this is RGT

That kind of open-minded, free-thinking attitude in public will only get you harassed and taunted by the other members until you're curled in a ball crying in the corner from all the mean words the other kids on the playground said. /j

 

[Ikagura Ikagura]

Sir, this is RGT

That kind of open-minded, free-thinking attitude in public will only get you harassed and taunted by the other members until you're curled in a ball crying in the corner from all the mean words the other kids on the playground said. /j

You're right but in the same way we can all debate (in a healthy way).

I won't reduce nor deny the impact those two games had but we got decades of Platformers and Action Adventure games around. In '97 the FPS genre was barely introduced to a larger playerbase (4 years after Doom defined it) so it's why I think it was more impactful.

 

[petran79]

Should I have a hot take and say that ultimately Goldeneye was for both demonstrating that FPS can definitely work on consoles, that you can make an interesting FPS without the whole "search keycards in a maze" and also showing that you don't have "kiddy games" on a Nintendo hardware?

Because ultimately 3D platforming and action adventure has already been made before M64 and OoT and the PlayStation was taking an important place in the video gaming landscape.

another revolutionary fps with objectives prior to ge64 was terminator future shock but it was far from appealing for consoles as it lacked multiplayer and had peculiar controls