What Game Was More Important for Gaming, Super Mario 64 or Loz: Ocarina of Time?
- Thread starter 00steven
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2010
- Location
- Seattle Washington
super mario 64.... I dont know, i really just didnt like that game. i think mario is best left as a 2-D sidescroller. Ocarina of time, whoooo boy. it had the element of exploration on top of urgency, while mario 64 didnt have as much of the exploration factor as Ocarina did. While Mario 64 is a great game and all, Ocarina of time really formulated not only the rest of the LoZ series, but other adventure games as well, across all platforms.
Well, both games were great. But I think Ocarina of Time had more of a impact than Mario 64. Ocarina of Time was more fun than Mario 64 and I felt that Mario 64 could of been a lot better than it was suppose to be. Ocarina of Time made the Zelda series a bit more popular, if you think about it, and Mario 64... Eh, I don't really know, it just could of been a lot more better.
dazzsheil
All Hail Shadow
- Joined
- May 9, 2010
The legend of zelda! Best Camera,story TONS More stuff to do and a veriety of item which have become staples in games today
Last edited by a moderator:
I had read somewhere that Ocarina of Time had set a new standard by which games of the genre are still compared to today so I would have to say that yes OoT had a bigger impact.
Now OoT was built on the Mario 64 engine after scrapping the Star Fox 64 engine. So without Mario I am not sure how well OoT would have turned out so I say Mario 64 impacted OoT to become the force it has since.
Now OoT was built on the Mario 64 engine after scrapping the Star Fox 64 engine. So without Mario I am not sure how well OoT would have turned out so I say Mario 64 impacted OoT to become the force it has since.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2009
Super Mario 64 was more influential I believe. It was the first good 3D platformer, and it set the path for Crash Bandicoot, Spyro, and the Pac-Man World series. OoT reinvented the real-time rpg genre, but not many games other than Zelda use that. Here's all of the non-Zelda 3D real-time rpg adventure games I can think of: Castlevania 64, a couple of the Bomberman games, and Quest 64. Nothing else has gone into the same genre, so OoT invented a genre that has since been only used by Zelda. Now here's a list of 3D platformer games that resemble Mario 64: Crash Bandicoot, Spyro, PacMan World 1-3, Glover, and the two Megaman Legends games. Super Mario 64 impacted more games besides itself and some of which were great games.
Super Mario 64 would be more important for gaming. While not as great as it's engine-using stepsister OoT in regards to rating, it basically made the grounds from which game developers would create 3D games. I can't recall a single game that takes influence from SM64, but I do know that SM64 had the best camera for it's time, and it was even controllable to an extent.
OoT brought in amazing music, pretty much redefined the "adventure RPG" genre (I think), and story depth.
The both of them are amazing games, and as a Zelda fan, I'll almost always say OoT is the best even if it faces OoT3D. But here, I think SM64 wins this battle.
OoT brought in amazing music, pretty much redefined the "adventure RPG" genre (I think), and story depth.
The both of them are amazing games, and as a Zelda fan, I'll almost always say OoT is the best even if it faces OoT3D. But here, I think SM64 wins this battle.
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2008
- Location
- Chula Vista, San Diego, CA
I felt the two games added to two different fields of gaming, so are hard to compare.
Super Mario 64 literally invented the 3D platformer, and created that entire genre of gaming. It's hard to elaborate, as everybody knows what I'm talking about here.
Ocarina of Time, I really don't feel it added a lot. It added the Z-targetting system, but really everything it revolutionized, was in the Zelda series itself, rather than in gaming in general. It made Zelda a lot more in depth and transferred Zelda to 3D, but otherwise didn't really do a lot. Ocarina of Time was simply a well made game, it wasn't really revolutionary to gaming.
Super Mario 64 literally invented the 3D platformer, and created that entire genre of gaming. It's hard to elaborate, as everybody knows what I'm talking about here.
Ocarina of Time, I really don't feel it added a lot. It added the Z-targetting system, but really everything it revolutionized, was in the Zelda series itself, rather than in gaming in general. It made Zelda a lot more in depth and transferred Zelda to 3D, but otherwise didn't really do a lot. Ocarina of Time was simply a well made game, it wasn't really revolutionary to gaming.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2010
Definately Mario. It was the first sucessful 3D game and it introduced 3D platforming which Banjo Kazooie and Donkey Kong 64 would follow by that example. It was also the first game that really made you really want to collect everything. OoT's collectathon was just for an endless uply of rupees (which we needed in WW more than OoT).
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2010
I suppose you'd really have to ask some developers. Sure you can get people's opinions of which game is better and which mechanics they prefer, but really it's down to what the developers say.
I'm not really sure either game was that important in the scheme of things - I'm sure had they not tried it first other developers would have given 3D a go. But then again they did set a standard within their respective genres for how to go about making such games in 3D.
Overall I'd go for LoZ on the basis RPGs are more popular than platformers. The idea of walking round a large high fantasy world and talking to people to get quests would be repeated a lot more than being dropped into a world and flung through X amount of levels. Given WoW is probably more popular than almost any platformer I can name.
I'd say Super Mario 64 was not as significant as all that. People overstate how much the exploration takes place in that game - Zelda was far more freeform. Look at gaming now and you'll see "sandbox" games are very common and hyped when they come out. GTA and Assassin's Creed are two examples I can think of right now. I think the Zelda series as a whole pioneered that idea.
But that's my opinion.
I'm not really sure either game was that important in the scheme of things - I'm sure had they not tried it first other developers would have given 3D a go. But then again they did set a standard within their respective genres for how to go about making such games in 3D.
Overall I'd go for LoZ on the basis RPGs are more popular than platformers. The idea of walking round a large high fantasy world and talking to people to get quests would be repeated a lot more than being dropped into a world and flung through X amount of levels. Given WoW is probably more popular than almost any platformer I can name.
I'd say Super Mario 64 was not as significant as all that. People overstate how much the exploration takes place in that game - Zelda was far more freeform. Look at gaming now and you'll see "sandbox" games are very common and hyped when they come out. GTA and Assassin's Creed are two examples I can think of right now. I think the Zelda series as a whole pioneered that idea.
But that's my opinion.
DuckNoises
Gone (Wind) Fishin'
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2010
- Location
- Montreal, QC, Canada
As much as I love both games, and as much as I love OoT (see the signature if you have any doubts 
), I'm going to have to say that Super Mario 64 was a more essential step. It was the first game to actually have a functioning camera control in 3D (although it would be considered horrible by today's standards), and most 3D games were downright unplayable before that point, merely because of the camera. It really fixed a lot of issues, and one of the best things about it was that you were able to control the camera yourself if it wasn't working out for you. (Which is a smart move for getting critical acclaim by Nintendo, because if you criticize a camera that you're controlling, it's your own fault if it isn't working out 
)
The camera wasn't the only thing, either; it managed to create some of the first 3D boss fights (the only earlier ones I can think of are maybe from SNES Starfox), which I imagine required a fairly substantial amount of coding for the time. Another thing as that most 3D games to that point had been on rails, often because of camera difficulties, and Super Mario 64 was one of few games for its time to have a hub world with lots of interactions, and lots of places to explore.
Ocarina of Time certainly pioneered a fair number of things, too, even to the point where it was cited in one review as being "a walking patent office." One of the things it's most recognized for is lock-on, which was a really great way to handle a lot of the issues that came about from having to manage the camera and fight at the same time in 3D. It had a very versatile context-sensitive A-button, and it was one of the first console games to really have hotkeys, in the form of being able to have 3 items out at once; then again, that's mostly due to how many buttons the N64 controller had, but that's beside the point. Before Ocarina of Time, there wasn't really a whole lot of diverse actions you could do without going through a menu very often, but some would argue this was still the case (...Iron boots...).
It broke a fair amount of graphical ground for its time, even though it seems pretty simplistic by today's standards. Watching some of the end sequences (particularly the final battle) are still graphically impressive, mostly for the level of detail and scope found in that part of the game.
And then there's innovation and strict gameplay design. That was definitely it's biggest success, and I'm sure I don't have to tell you about it or why it was impressive. It just darn well is.
Despite the disproportionate amount of gushing I did over Ocarina of Time, I still maintain that Super Mario 64 was more influential on gaming as a whole, but Ocarina of Time was pretty magnanimous, too.
), I'm going to have to say that Super Mario 64 was a more essential step. It was the first game to actually have a functioning camera control in 3D (although it would be considered horrible by today's standards), and most 3D games were downright unplayable before that point, merely because of the camera. It really fixed a lot of issues, and one of the best things about it was that you were able to control the camera yourself if it wasn't working out for you. (Which is a smart move for getting critical acclaim by Nintendo, because if you criticize a camera that you're controlling, it's your own fault if it isn't working out ) The camera wasn't the only thing, either; it managed to create some of the first 3D boss fights (the only earlier ones I can think of are maybe from SNES Starfox), which I imagine required a fairly substantial amount of coding for the time. Another thing as that most 3D games to that point had been on rails, often because of camera difficulties, and Super Mario 64 was one of few games for its time to have a hub world with lots of interactions, and lots of places to explore.
Ocarina of Time certainly pioneered a fair number of things, too, even to the point where it was cited in one review as being "a walking patent office." One of the things it's most recognized for is lock-on, which was a really great way to handle a lot of the issues that came about from having to manage the camera and fight at the same time in 3D. It had a very versatile context-sensitive A-button, and it was one of the first console games to really have hotkeys, in the form of being able to have 3 items out at once; then again, that's mostly due to how many buttons the N64 controller had, but that's beside the point. Before Ocarina of Time, there wasn't really a whole lot of diverse actions you could do without going through a menu very often, but some would argue this was still the case (...Iron boots...).
It broke a fair amount of graphical ground for its time, even though it seems pretty simplistic by today's standards. Watching some of the end sequences (particularly the final battle) are still graphically impressive, mostly for the level of detail and scope found in that part of the game.
And then there's innovation and strict gameplay design. That was definitely it's biggest success, and I'm sure I don't have to tell you about it or why it was impressive. It just darn well is.
Despite the disproportionate amount of gushing I did over Ocarina of Time, I still maintain that Super Mario 64 was more influential on gaming as a whole, but Ocarina of Time was pretty magnanimous, too.
AUUGGHHH! you hit my soft spot. These are literally possibly my favorite two games of all time..... I dunno. Ocarina of Time was given a 10/10 on IGN, and I trust them, but I love mario so much as well. Well, as for impact, I'd say their about the same, becouse they belong to different genres. Mario is a 3D platformer, Zelda a 3D action adventure game. Unfortunately, I believe that Ocarina was sort of a peak for zelda; nothing else in the series has been so highly rated, whereas Mario only got better, paving the road for the eventual Mario Galaxy 2, another game receiving a 10/10 on IGN. However, i love both of these games SO much... I'll give 'em equal status, They were both REALLY influential games.
There was way more to collect in OOT than an endless supply of ruppes. Heart pieces, tons of sidequests, bottles, skulltulas,ect.
By the OCARINA OF TIME IS NOT AN RPG.
