Talk:Nintendo 64/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

2D games

why can't the N64 play 2d games like the PlayStation and Sega Saturn. is it because that they thought 2d didn't appeal to gamers or what. 67.164.35.55 08:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Where on earth did you get that idea from?

well the only N64 games I've seen where in 3d. why does the N64 has some rare 2d games. 67.164.35.55 03:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

MK Trilogy and Subzero come to mind. I'd say the reason there were so few totally 2D games on N64 was because it was really a 3D machine. It is a lot better at 3D than both PS1 and Saturn. Saturn actually is more of a 2D machine, IMO, as it has a lot of dedicated 2D processing capabilities instead of an obviously 3D slant like N64. PS1 is just a lot less feature rich than N64 when it comes to 3D rendering techniques. --Swaaye 19:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, there are some 2D games, like Mishief Makers and even Super Smash Bros. But this is not a discussion board to talk about the N64, but to instead talk about improving the article. Useight 04:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent revert

I reverted some changes that may or may not have been vandalism. It was a tough call for me. Here is a link to the rollback diff. Zab 03:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Gameshark

GameShark - A cheat device made by Interact. Two versions were made. The first version had a LED display that would count down 5 seconds upon turning the system on. The period in the display would be lit while playing to show that the unit was functioning. There is a slot on the back of the unit for an expansion card that was never made. The second version (Known as the 'Pro' series, versions 3.2 and up) had a SCSI or parallel port on the back for connecting to a computer for downloads. It also featured a cheat search function as well as being able to find the name of the game for you. It also had a LCD display that counted down 5 seconds when started and the period in the display would be lit while playing to show that the unit was functioning. This feature was removed in version 3.3.

Uh, no...

• No feature was removed from V3.3.
• I'm pretty sure there was never an SCSI port.
• The 'Pro' series was V3.0 and up.
• The LCD is described twice.

205.206.207.250 21:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

There wasn't any SCSI port (why would it have one?), but there was definitely a 25-pin parallel port. --CCFreak2K 02:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's simplify the "Market share" section

"...lack of popularity in Japan was due to a paucity of role-playing video games."

I'm not dim by any stretch of the imagination, but I had to look up "paucity" in a dictionary - as I suspect most readers of this article have to. Can we not change it to something else? For example, "lack". OK, OK, two "lack"s in the same sentence probably isn't desirable. How about "dearth"? Anything but "paucity" please!

138.243.195.136 14:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a pretty minor issue. In the future, be bold, and don't be afraid to make the changes yourself. Dancter 15:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Dream Team

Anybody remember this? It involved Nintendo giving out access to Microcode and other special technical docs to certain developers that signed on before launch with a guaranteed games per year quota. I believe the companies in it included Konami, Acclaim, Midway and Lucasarts. Atirage 13:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Total number of N64 games released

I'm sure that number exists - all, every single one, of the game titles can be accounted for. Why does this article not mention the grand total number games released on the N64? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.177.159 (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Emulators?

Do you think that this article should have a section on emulators? Some are quite popular (Project64, 1964), and on a decent computer, they can actually emulate the games better than the original N64 (less framerate issues is one noticeble improvement). Anyone agree? earle117 (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think that the 64 is 64 bit NOT 32 BIT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingk05 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

What does this have to do with emulators at all? Or his question? --NightKev (talk) 02:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Disadvantages

I had made the last three changes, but had forgotten to sign in. I put the actual size of the n64 rom cartrige and cd-rom media instead of the sentance saying it was significantly smaller. I deleted the "need citation" on it because the same two sizes are listed in the article for the Nintendo 64DD and I was just going to link to it for citation but that article sentance wasnt citated either.Goatonastik (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goatonastik (talk • contribs) 17:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Notable Games Section

Shouldn't Super Mario 64 be in that section as well? It was the first 3D Mario platformer and was, well, almost as, if not as popular as, LoZ:OoT. --NightKev (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference #4

Stating "some American magazines had pictures" is not a source (hell, it doesn't even state which magazines), so that needs to be replaced with an actual source. TJ Spyke 09:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Killer Instinct

"Killer Instinct was the most advanced game of its time graphically, featuring pre-rendered movie backgrounds that were streamed off the hard drive[8] and animated as the characters moved horizontally"

This is not fact, it is opinion. It could be argued that Virtua Fighter, released a year earlier, was the most graphically advanced game of its time due to the use of polygons.

I propose this section is changed to read:

"Killer Instinct featured unique use of pre-rendered backgrounds that were streamed off the hard drive[8] and animated as the characters moved horizontally." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.254.143 (talk) 10:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Pikachu 64dd

On the 64dd.net forums one called "look what i found" showed if you removed the bottem of the pikachu n64, there would still be an extension port. here it is http://64dd.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?forum=4&post_id=4308#forumpost4308 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.100.129 (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Disadvantages?

This is a strange section, but I thought I'd point out some problems with it:

• Console cartridges are usually larger and heavier than optical discs and hence take up more room to store.

This doesn't sound like it was something that would detract from sales, merely an afterthought kind of a complaint.

• Because of a cartridge's space limitations, full motion video was not usually feasible for use in cut-scenes (although Resident Evil 2 used pre-recorded video copied from the PS1 CD version). The cut-scenes of some other games used graphics generated by the CPU in real-time.

This doesn't make sense. I was under the impression that real-time rendered videos were desirable. FMV did not help change the fate of the 3DO, Sega CD, Sega Saturn, Phillips CD-i, etc...

It seems to me that the advantages\disadvantages sections were merely written by people who have a respective bias toward and against the system. I'm proposing that they simply be removed unless they're sourced (which only includes a few of the advantages and none of the disadvantages). I will remove them in a few days unless someone objects or sources suddenly appear for them. This article is marked as being unsourced since May of 2007 after all. --Thaddius (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that shelf storage space is not an issue, but inabiltiy to do FMV cutcenes was incredibly important. Square had been a loyal Nintendo third party for over a decade and was planning to put FF7 on the N64. It was the lack of advanced features like FMV that caused Square to defect to Sony and make the best-selling game of 1997 exclusive to that system. The history of Nintendo and Sony may have been very different if Nintendo had used a format that could hold FMVs and other multimedia files. Indrian (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• I have see quite a few other problem with the article as well. for example.

"Turbo3D microcode: 500,000–600,000 polygons per second with lower quality. Nintendo never allowed this code to be used in shipping games."

This is quite frankly not true. I can tell you for a fact that they did. Ask any one who actually coded the thing or even writes emulators and Turbo3D along with variants of it were used. For example Dark Rift is but one game that uses such code.

Also under "Market share" It is very misleading. I say this as it does not portray the true time period. The tittle should really be Total Sales or similar. I say this as "Market Share" refers to a active market where the time period you are talking both the N64 and Sega Saturn were not even on sale for it. The article fails to mention that both the Sega Saturn and PS1 were released in 1994 and that both the N64 and Sega Saturn stopped production way before the period looked at. But its biggest problem is its comparing sales numbers against consignment numbers.

Then the next paragraph,

"The system was frequently marketed as the world's first 64-bit gaming system. A few years prior Atari claimed to have made the first 64-bit game console with their Jaguar, though the Jaguar's technical abilities were often debated based upon varying definitions of what constitutes a 64-bit system and its limitations with regard to generating 3D graphics when compared to competitors such as the Sony PlayStation and the Nintendo 64."

I think even mensioning this is wrong but if you are going to you have to put it in perspective. It does depend how you look at it but if you go by CPU then the first 64bit game system is the N64. The Atari Jaguar used a Motorola 68000 CPU like previously found in Sega’s Mega Drive, SNK’s NeoGeo and Amiga’s 500. If you want to start add ship Bit sizes together or going by the widest data path feel free but you would also have to do the same to the N64 to make a fair comparison.

There are more but I’m loosing the will to try write in English.

86.153.106.166 (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• This paragraph Is woefully misleading.

"Among fifth generation video game consoles, as of 2007, the PlayStation has shipped 102.49 million units worldwide, the most of its generation; production had continued until March 23, 2006.[11][12] The N64 came in second with 32.93 million units sold,[2] followed by the Sega Saturn with 17 million units sold.[13]"

permit me to explain. The sales given for the Nintendo64 is for only 1998. It also give as actual sakes. Where as for example the PlayStation for example is given from 1994 and of just units shipped. These are clearly two very different things. (81.159.128.94 (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC))

• While you are correct that PS sales are in units shipped rather than sold because of the data provided by Sony, the 32.93 million figure for the N64 is lifetime sales. Don't know how you got the idea it was not. Indrian (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• As said the sales for the Nintendo are from start of sale. But it should probably be noted on the page that both the Sega and Sony had two years head start on there sales. It should probably also be noted that Sony was sold for many years after both the Nintendo and Sega had stopped production. Perhaps a year by year comparison of sale would be a far better way to show the real picture? (82.69.73.46 (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC))
  • I agree to an extent that comparing the 102 million figure to the 32 million figure is a little misleading, but you seem a little biased on the Nintendo side. True, Sony had a head start, but the fact is that while the N64 had a stronger launch than the Playstation and almost caught the Sony system in market share in the middle of 1997, lack of software ultimately killed the product. Goldeneye and Ocarina of Time helped keep it afloat in 1997-98, but the system tanked in 1999 and never recovered. Sony manufactured its system longer because people remained interested in it, and even though some of those 102 million in sales came after the N64 was off the market, it still slaughtered the latter system in the 1998-2000 period. Feel free to make a few adjustments, but don't ere too far on the Nintendo side, because the company did take a pretty bad beating (and this comes from a Nintendo fanboy). Indrian (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Commercials

Shouldn'there be links to old N64 commercials under marketing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EveilWeevil (talk • contribs) 06:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Video Options

Mention should be made that the A/V connector on the back of the unit provides both composite and S-video signals. It is also the same connector that is used by SNES and Gamecube. So both Nintendo-branded and 3rd party cables are available as accessories. Also what about RGB versions? Wws (talk) 03:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as i know, the multi-out port only supplied a RGB and S-video signal. It does not support Composite video. Hence the second connector on the back of the Gamecube.--MediaRocker (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I don’t remember the N64 ever having an RGB or S-video connector. Mine had an RF connector (video + monaural audio) and a composite video connector along with stereo audio connectors. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 21:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Longer Intro

This article needs a way longer intro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.160.253 (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There's an incorrect claim in the introduction regarding the joystick - "and for being the first modern home console to come with a controller featuring an analog stick." That's just an untrue statement, the Atari 5200 introduced a standard analog joystick nearly 15 years earlier. From the Atari 5200 Wikipedia entry: "The initial 1982 release of the system featured four controller ports, where nearly all other systems of the day had only two ports. The 5200 also featured a revolutionary new controller with an analog joystick, numeric keypad, two fire buttons on both sides of the controller and game function keys for Start, Pause, and Reset." -bigfreakypossum —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigfreakypossum (talk • contribs) 23:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Cartridge-copy counter-measures

Is there enough information out there for its own article? I'm thinking probably not (at least not now), but I thought I'd check just to see what others think. Does anyone see potential for it in the future? Don't take my question too seriously; if anything, I'm mostly curious. I'm not trying to get my own way; I'm wanting to see the opinions of other Wikipedians, that is, if it's worth even talking about. Thanks. 98.202.38.225 (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

I have a question, and this is the only place I can think of that could give an answer.I played this game, I don't know what it was, and I want to know what it was.It had ants as enemies, and I remember a fight you had to do with two giant ants.Anyone know what this is?63.166.254.137 (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Price Drop

I was doing some research elsewhere and realised that this article is very much geared to the console's technical hardware and little else. One omission, that might be a good addition (lol), is about the console's launch price or the fact that mealy after weeks after launch Nintendo dropper the price by £100. Decompiled (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion About the Controller

I think there should be a compare contrast section that mashes up PS1's controller to the N64's. It could also talk about the millinum controller. 24.118.61.250 (talk) 03:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Project Reality and the Hype

"Peter Main of Nintendo America described our system as being as powerful as five 486 pc's working together. In fact, Peters understating the case by a long shot Project Reality is like putting the combined computing power of hundreds of pcs together"

Words spoken by James Clark, chairman of Silicon Graphics at the unveiling of Project Reality.

Apparently Silicon Graphics talked to all of the major videogame companies and singled out that nothing could match their hardware even that of Mr Nakayamas of Sega.

At the event cgi movies created using Silicon graphics were displayed created by Bandai, Angel Studios, Post Perfect and Metrolight studios, beside Virtual Mario Land nothing appears to be running on N64 level tech.

All info gathered from Nintendo Magazine system issue 16 July 1994 pages 48-49Atirage (talk) 06:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Hardware color varations

Is there really any need for this section to be so long, it really is of very minor worth. I propose:
- simple list of known colors/region
- cut out the list of different colored cartridges, replacing with a small mention

Any objections? Onkeh (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Mostly. Useight (talk) 07:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nintendo 64/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am sorry to inform the editors of this article that I am failing this article's WP:GAN for multiple reasons.

• Much of the article lacks inline citations, including:

History

• Third paragraph.

•  Done. References added. Useight (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sales

• Second paragraph.

•  Done. References added. Useight (talk) 03:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Reality Co-Processor

• Second and fourth paragraphs.

•  Done. References added. Useight (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Video

• The entire section.

•  Done. References added. Useight (talk) 05:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hardware color variations

• The entire section.

•  Done. References added. Useight (talk) 06:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Programming difficulties

• Second and third paragraphs.

•  Done. References added. Useight (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Graphics

• The entire section.

•  Done. References added. Useight (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Production

• First paragraph, most of the third paragraph.

•  Done. References added. Useight (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Cartridge-copy counter-measures

• The entire section.

•  Done. References added. Useight (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Some references lack the use of {{cite web}} templates.

   Done. All references throughout the body have {{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, etc. Useight (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• The article needs a thorough copy-edit. There are a couple of single-sentence and two-sentence paragraphs under the 'Hardware' and 'Hardware color variations' sections. Thus, the article does not flow.

   Done. Every paragraph consists of three or more sentences. Useight (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please make sure to resolve any and all issues before renominating the article. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Thank you. DiverseMentality 04:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll get to work on those. Thanks for the review. Useight (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it's still a little long but a definite improvement.Onkeh (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

End of production

This article seems to be missing info on when Nintendo stopped development of the console and even on the development history after the console was released. bob rulz (talk) 10:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nintendo 64/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article does not meet the good article criteria and has too many issues. It has therefore failed its nomination. Issues include but are not limited to:

• I see more references have been added, but there are still problems.
• Almost none of the references have publishers.
• Many are unreliable. I'd say about 75% of the references are unreliable, as they are personal websites, blogs, wikis, etc. Try looking for reliable sources like newspapers, journals, books, etc. This definitely needs to be resolved before anything else. Please take the time to research and find reliable sources to use.

Questions and comments placed on this page will receive responses. Once these issues have been resolved, feel free to renominate the article. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Slogans around the world?

In Brazil Nintendo' slogan was "É Nintendo, ou nada!" (Something like "It's Nintendo or Nothing!") Oh gosh... I still remember Zelda ads on TV, nowadays does not have any games ads (just that annoying Ragnarok Online 1, freaking Level Up Games!)... :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.15.219.47 (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The US version was "GET N or GET OUT!"--MediaRocker (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Atomic Purple Variants?

Atomic Purple controller pack seems to be missing from the color variants. Its hard information to find, but its needed for a more accurate article. --MediaRocker (talk) 06:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I am proposing that Controller Pak be merged to either Nintendo 64 or Nintendo 64 accessories. In either case, the Controller Pak article can be easily mentioned as a subsection of either article, and the article cannot provide sufficient notability for its own article. Please discuss below and indicate whether you support or oppose the merger. Also, if you support the merger, indicate where as there are two possibilities. MuZemike 05:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Addendum – I also propose that the similar articles Expansion Pak and Transfer Pak also be merged into either Nintendo 64 or Nintendo 64 accessories for the same reasons I have explained above. MuZemike 06:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the discussion top and discussion bottom tags. They are really inappropriate in this case since you are the only person who contributed to the discussion. It is bad form to make a proposal, wait 5 days, and then "close" the discussion. Andre (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support-It makes sense, the articles were small anyway. The lists of games were pretty unencyclopedic and could be better as categories.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• In fact, I think that Wide-Boy 64 and GB Hunter should be merged there as well.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Those two would benefit from a merge as well. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC))
    • I don't think anyone disagrees with the merge proposal. I originally commented on MuZemike's talk page about this because I wanted him to actually merge the pages, whereas he had previously just redirected them without conducting a comparison and combination of them. I removed the discussion top and discussion bottom tags, not as a "reopening" of the discussion, but because they were being used out of context since no discussion actually took place. I did not revert the redirects either. To boldly merge the pages is acceptable and even admirable; to go a step more conservative and qualify your merge with a note on a talk page is also alright and sometimes encouraged in controversial cases (which this is not). But to "close" the "discussion" and declare a "result" is bureaucratic at best, and at worst is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the consensus process operates. I'm AGF so I won't discuss the ramifications of that. The main problem with it, though, is that MuZemike listed the result as "redirect" since his cursory examination revealed no mergeable content in his opinion. If you are unclear how to properly merge pages, please read up on it or let someone else do it -- it does not consist of deleting one version if the second is pretty similar, but rather of synthesizing and weaving together two texts in a cohesive way. Andre (talk) 07:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

      I refer to this diff. Andre (talk) 07:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

      • I appreciate the input, up until the point of where you question my ability to merge and/or redirect pages. Maybe I was incorrect on the redirect, but I don't need my nose rubbed into it like a dog, either. MuZemike 07:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

All three articles are now merged into Nintendo 64 accessories. I tried to place the sentences in the most logical places. Let me know how it looks. Oh, and sorry for my lashing out there. I was in a particularly crabby mood at the time I made that reply. MuZemike 18:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note — I am proposing a second round of mergers as noted above over at Talk:Nintendo 64 accessories. MuZemike 18:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Good Points?

The entire article needs more positive qualities about the system? This page mostly mentions bad points about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.100.129 (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you specify where you think the article details too much bad points? Wikipedia articles should avoid undue weight, so, although we should base everything on reliable sources, it'd be useful to know where you think things are out of proportion. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I mean this article needs info like how the N64 helped affect games today. It had the rumble pak, Super Mario 64, and many other cool things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.100.129 (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, do you have any reliable sources which can be used to expand on the existing information? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

On Gametrailers, it was listed as the 7th best console of all time. Check out it's top 10 console video. And without the rumble pak, the ps1 duel shock wouldn't exist. IGN had a whole article for the 10th annaversery of the rumble pak too. And if you look on the wikipedia page Player's choice, yo can see that the n64 did sell a ton of games. And last, i think the n64 made equal the amount of money as the ps1 during it's lifetime, as it had little piracy compared to the ps1. It was also very popular too. The ps1 lasted until 2006, and sold 2 years before the n64 came out, which is why it sold 100 million units compared to nintendo's 32.9 million acording to wikipedia. Is that enough info? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.100.129 (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, anything's enough as long as it's cited by reliable sources, those of which seem to be reliable. Feel free to add to the article where you want. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I put a reception article. Check it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.100.129 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 20 June 2009

I actually think the presentation was fairly even-handed before the addition of the "Reception" section, with a counterpoint provided for almost every negative fact. I agree in principle that the article could stand to mention some of the influential accomplishments on the platform, such as notable releases and the popularization of rumble and analog control. The added "Reception" section, however, is laden with peacock terms and unsourced assertions. Innovations aside, the Nintendo 64 era was also the one in which Nintendo lost its #1 position, and cemented its "kiddie" reputation in the face of the growing "adult" market. The fact that the PS1 lasted as long as it did only reinforces how thoroughly it outpaced it its competitors. Even without that extra time on sale, during the same 7 years that the N64 sold its 32.93 million units, the PS1 sold about 90 million. While Nintendo may have had a better ROI on the Nintendo 64, I am pretty sure that Sony made much more money. Regardless, with the PS1, Sony managed to establish a brand that would carry the company to dominate the next generation as well. I don't have much of an issue with the GameTrailers statement, but it provides little context on its own, and there is no citation provided. I'm no Sony fanboy, but feel compelled to provide a reality check. Dancter (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It's probably better to expand on the "History" and "Sales" sections than try to create a new "Reception" section—most of what you're trying to cover there already falls under the above sections of the article. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll do that. But how do i add a cititation? i would if i knew how.

WP:REFB and WP:CITE should be good places to start. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The article is better now. Thank you to those who added citations and corrected some of the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.100.129 (talk) 23:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Discontinued Date

It doesn't even say when the N64 was discontinued. Anyone know? Please add. --80.41.102.229 (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

DellTG5 (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Sometime around 2001, 2001!!!???!! That's when the GameCube came out!

Fixed up the sales section

The sales section was terrible, with self research and unverified claims.I've cleaned up the bottom paragraph by including some facts that are mentioned elsewhere in the article.

Fluff, lies and other unpleasant things

Some guy keeps adding in a paragraph that contains, among other things, some pretty blatant errors. Going down the list, one by one-
"The N64 is the first console to have force-feedback technology"
-This is untrue. The N64's Rumble Pak is predated by the first iteration of Sony's Dual Analog Controller [[1]] [[2]], which had rumble built into it [[3]]. The amount of time between the release of the N64 rumble pack and the Dual Analog (and the reasoning behind why Sony later removed the rumble temporarily later on) is irrelevant. Facts are facts. Which leaves the dubious "it was the first modern console" claim. This is a weasel word to the Nth degree- the term "modern" is an incredibly vague term that could describe any number of things, and it could be debated that the system itself has long since ceased to be "modern", having been released over a decade ago. Which, after that, leaves the only thing left in there an irrelevant fluff piece by GameTrailers. The N64 article is too good for this kind of thing. 98.247.24.27 (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

What you're disputing here is pretty much common knowledge, Nintendo brought out their analogue controller first and later Sony brought out their answer to it in Japan with their "dual analogue" which contained two analogue sticks (this is what you're linking to), Nintendo then created the rumble pack for N64 and Sony then revised their controller further and released their new "dualshock" with inbuilt rumble afterwards

Also, i completely disagree with your assertion about this article, this article is awful, its massively biased from start to finish, yeah its interesting to know about the quirks of the hardware but this is just way too critical, and tends to repeat the same criticisms over and over throughout. I don't see masses of information in the PS1 article about its lack of perspective correction causing tons of in game texture warping, and I don't see anything in it explaining that due to lack of tri-linear filtering the graphics became ultra blocky close up so why is this article so fixated on shortcomings? all consoles of that early 3D era had shortcomings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.17.24 (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrong release date for US

I have a launch VHS tape that promoted the system that was given out to subscribers of Nintendo Power. It states the launch date as September 29th not the 26th as listed in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.252.109 (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Proof of $79.99 Games

It might serve people to see proof of Nintendo 64 games being advertised at $79.99 rather than linking to an article stating it. Found the following advertisements from a 1997 magazine.

http://www.rewindgamer.com/2011/08/nintendo-64-game-prices-inflated-to-2011.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.127.140.1 (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Emulation

I can't believe that this article misses out on the whole scene of n64 emulation, it is quite advanced and is avaliable on loads of platforms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julioenrekei (talk • contribs) 05:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I started a section, but only put links so far. I don't know enough to go into details (dates, coders, etc.). --Thaddius (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed all Emulation links and Emulators. Emulation is a form of video game piracy and the article for the N64 had piracy promoting material. Nintendo is getting more and more aggressive in shutting down piracy sites and prosecuting people who are involved.

http://ap.nintendo.com/ http://ap.nintendo.com/internet/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.252.109 (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Emulation is not a form of software piracy for games that are no longer sold. Do your research before making such edits in the future Aetern142 (talk) 06:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparently I should do my research ... I apologize. Apparently I was incorrect. Aetern142 (talk) 06:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I added some emulation info from a 2012 copy of the article. Since not all emulation is copyright infringement, it can't be that merely including this information on Wikipedia is contributory copyright infringement. If any particular bit of emulation information is dangerous to have, then we can delete it (please provide rationale on this talk page). But, N64 emulation is too notable to just exclude all of it to avoid the risk of Nintendo's wrath. 192.249.47.210 (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Not sure about copyright policy, so for now I've just edited the section to make it better written/more encyclopedic. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 20:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

just wondering ... 64mb limit?

So, no-one came up with any clever bank-switching / chip-switching routines or on-cartridge hardware to bypass that limit then? 256mb ROMs may still have been way too expensive, but... yknow... I bet it's not an utterly absolute limit. Do we know if it was ever tried, instead of the highly questionable (and risky due to potential misuse, e.g. swapping with the power on) "second cartridge" idea? It was commonplace with earlier consoles e.g. NES, VCS and the like (though not the SNES, which could have - if anyone was able to afford it at the time - managed a full 16mb before needing any help... wonder why the N64 was so limited?) 193.63.174.11 (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Virtual Boy?

The Virtual Boy is listed as the predecessor. Shouldn't this be the SNES? 76.204.123.119 (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Corrected it. The claim that the Virtual Boy was the predecessor to the Nintendo 64 is unfounded. The Nintendo 64 was developed concurrently with the Virtual Boy and was still in development by the time the Virtual Boy was released. Nintendo always promoted the Nintendo 64 as the successor to the Super NES, way back when they were running the Project Reality tech demos. The Virtual Boy was never promoted as a successor to any other Nintendo system - it was a standalone product. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox picture with blank cartridge

The current infobox picture of the system with a cartridge that doesn't have a label looks awkward. It's certainly not indicative of an N64 in normal use. Since having a labeled cartridge would run afoul of copyrights, it would be preferable to have a picture of the system with no cartridge inserted. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

There isn't any good reason why a normal picture of a Nintendo 64 with a regular game cartridge in it shouldn't be included on the Nintendo 64 project page. Under normal circumstances, the only reason a blank cartridge would be inserted into an N64 is if the label has been peeled off, in which case there'd almost certainly be residue/fragments of the original label (unless someone had used goo gone or used considerable care), or if it was a custom cartridge. Neither of these situations should be represented by the main image in an encyclopedic article on the Nintendo 64. --danhash (talk) 14:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, it just looks really weird to have a blank cartridge in an otherwise average, professional-looking picture of a Nintendo 64. --danhash (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Who are Dominic Rogerson, Dimitri Michalakis, Greg Lamb?

I was deeply involved in the Nintendo64 development program at Silicon Graphics and MIPS. This article was recently edited to read "The Nintendo 64 owes its existence to Dominic Rogerson, Dimitri Michalakis, Greg Lamb". Could someone please identify who these people are, and in what capacity they were involved in Nintendo64? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weighting (talk • contribs) 19:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Variants of the N64?

Can we get a solid number on this? Recent edits have said 16, the article originally said "at least eight," the section in the article lists less than 16 (unless I suck at counting), and I've found a source (probably not very reliable) that lists more than 16. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 02:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Chronology of N64 Games

This page seems to no longer exist, the chronology now points to a list of N64 which is not nearly as usefull as the chronology was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yorxs (talk • contribs) 21:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Try asking about it in the talk page of that article. Unless you're asking for a chronology of games in this article. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 00:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hansei

Hansei means reflection or self reflection, not reflective regret; regret is not even a part of the word, and not necessarily a part of the concept of hansei. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.114.185.100 (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Fix Erroneous Jaguar Data

The page includes a false statement that the Atari Jaguar was not 64-bit, saying instead that it had only two 32-bit processors. Both references 10 and 11 from the statement in question show that the Jaguar had two 64 bit processors in addition to the two 32 bit processors and the 16/32 bit 68000. A better wording would be "Atari had claimed to have made the first 64-bit game console with their Atari Jaguar, but there is debate as to the validity of that claim" with both references intact. This page should not presume the answer to that debate. Primeaspect (talk) 05:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Sales

Hello everyone, I added some information on the highest selling game on the system, Super Mario 64, under the sales section. I thought it was relevant. Let me know if you have any questions! GordonFreeman1 (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Oops, just realized that information was included lower in the article. My mistake. GordonFreeman1 (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

N64 logo

There's no info on how the Nintendo 64 got its cool 3D logo. Does anyone know the "etymology" behind it? Couldn't find anything through google either. DrZygote214 (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking for. One day, a bunch of advertising people got together and came up with that logo. I don't think there's any significant history behind it, so trying to add info about it to the article wouldn't really work (assuming that's what you want to do). TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 00:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@DrZygote214:That's right, you've hit upon the limits of the encyclopedia. Since a logo is not a product of design, and isn't the consummate visual representation of purpose, identity, and the focus of a product, organization, and global community, it cannot have any history. Maybe it designed itself. We are here to document ten thousand words on the color green, the etymology of YOLO, and the pop culture legacy of Toaster Strudel — not the history of the years of design and evolution of one of the most visually and technologically distinctive logos of the generations, marking the changing of eras at the world's most significant graphics companies. Nay!

Ahem. Or, that's a totally fascinating idea that I can't believe I never thought of, with its own dedicated art and science, and communities of people who talk about nothing but logos. Which is exactly why encyclopedias exist. This is something that a journalist like IGN should write a small piece on, if nobody has yet amongst the million slightest rumors of the N64's hotly awaited launch, because that particular logo represents an official "game on" for the 3D gaming industry. Good call.

Here's what I found at a glance. There is the fact that the logo is composed of the primary colors (red, green, and blue, topped off with yellow), so that's a patently obvious description that had escaped me. If we can't find the history of its actual design yet, I found a history of its implementations here. I don't know if that's a WP:VGRS. Sadly, they're missing the 64DD's logo with Mario scampering around the N. Personally, I am finding the major parallel (ha) to SGI's own logo, which is a higher-brow version of the same theme of infinite recursion in 3D space. My own original research would say that it symbolizes the intimate mutual-breakthrough partnership between SGI (moving to the low end, with games) and Nintendo (moving to the high end, with 3D). It's obviously all about emphasizing a new era of a total 3D presence. I've also found some commentary somewhere before about the nature of the GameCube logo,[4] amongst *tons* of articles about every deep detail of the design and philosophy of that console. Logos garner some of the most history behind them, by their very nature. BTW, if you're interested, I wrote the whole section on the history of this logo too. The N64 logo itself isn't as significant as Chicago's logos, but it represents things that are. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 01:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Yea I've noticed the similar theme with the GameCube 'G' in the rough shape of a cube. Maybe even the name 'GameCube' came from the logo. I ask out of curiosity, and because Shigeru Miyamoto has made quite a lot of philosophical quotes about his games' origins---it seems natural to think he would have something to say about that N as well. I would be really surprised if he didn't have a hand in it. For the record, big companies spend ridiculous amounts of money on designing/developing logos and slogans, so it's not necessarily as simple as a bunch of guys one day coming up with it. DrZygote214 (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I honestly don't think there's anything special that has been said about the logo. And while it's nice that you're curious, an article talk page probably isn't the best place to ask about these things, unless it's directly related to the article itself. If you manage to find something, however, do share with us! Thanks, TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 20:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Foxconn?

Can anyone verify as to whether Foxconn was contracted to manufacture the N64 as with Nintendo's later devices? A quick Google didn't seem to turn out any conclusive results. Blake Gripling (talk) 00:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Inaccuracy regarding Sin and Punishment

The article states the following:

"Cartridges for some later games, such as Resident Evil 2, Sin and Punishment: Successor of the Earth, and Conker's Bad Fur Day, featured more ROM space,[53] allowing for more detailed graphics."

Resident Evil 2 and Conker's Bad Fur Day were both 512Mb (64MB) however Sin and Punishment was only 256Mb (32MB) and is insignificant because the first 256Mb cartridge was released 2 years earlier (Ocarina of Time). The only other 512Mb cart was Pokemon Stadium 2. Other carts featuring large ROMs include Ogre Battle and Mario Story/Paper Mario, both 320Mb. I'd fix the article myself but it's locked.

Note: Mb refers to Megabit whereas MB refers to Megabyte. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.50.100.15 (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

PS: I should also mention that a larger ROM does not allow for "more detailed graphics". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.50.100.15 (talk) 02:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say it but all of your conclusions as stated here are incorrect. The content that you're quoting from the article is factually correct and accurate. It's just a basic overview of intricate concepts which are detailed in more specific articles. Your idea that the sizes are insignificant is a personal opinion, which happens to be irrelevant to—if not already included by—the summary topic of all of the larger ROMs. The reason why you're unable to edit the article is not because it's locked, but because you won't participate by creating an account. And more detailed graphics is a generalization of many various attributes, which does generally directly correlate to a greater data consumption, and which is facilitated among the many advantages of larger storage capacity. As stated, there is no problem here at all. Thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 05:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

"ultimate" part of the name

i seem to remember it being called the "nintendo ultimate 64," or something similar as sort of a pre-production name, back in nintendo power..am i hallucinating this, or does the article just make no mention of it? Impasse 16:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Impasse (talk • contribs)

I don't think that was ever a name of the console. I think the name you mentioned is an unintentional combining the current name and the old name Ultra 64. The only other name I know of is Project Reality.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I also took a look on Google using the advanced search option and only found 3 entries. Two were for this very page and the other place I saw saying that nintendo ultimate 64 was a code name was from an annomous post on a form. While it may be true I find it doubtful that no one outside of a single form post would mentioned it after all these years.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can recall, the original 'internal' name for the console was 'Project Reality'. Press releases (mid 1994) named the console as the 'Nintendo Ultra 64' and had a promotional logo for the machine (which was also on the sticker on the front of the console when shots of it emerged in early 1995). In mid 1995 the name was then officially changed to the 'Nintendo 64', and a revised image of the machine with the new (and final) logo stuck on the front. All this is included in the article. I think someone has confused 'ultimate' with 'ultra'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.66.133.147 (talk) 00:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

2002 discontinued

Just look at the financial report, there's no way the Nintendo 64 lasted until 2003 in America, because according to the report, 0 sales of the Nintendo 64 existed in 2003, as reported in FY 2003, ending 3/2004. Plus, a game that debuted in 2001 for the Nintendo 64 was the final game. Nintendo themselves would be a source listed as when the system was discontinued, and until this occurs, this information is deemed invalid, as there is no source for verification to actual discontinuation. 2602:304:CFD3:2EE0:A54E:E68B:BB36:B3D9 (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Nintendo 64. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090519234417/http://www.gametrailers.com:80/video/top-10-screwattack/34978 to http://www.gametrailers.com/video/top-10-screwattack/34978
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081218211831/http://www.gamespot.com:80/games.html?type=games&platform=4 to http://www.gamespot.com/games.html?type=games&platform=4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The first link, Gametrailers, has video content that Wayback did not have archived. I updated the link with the live version of the video, which changed URLs and was reposted. -- ferret (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nintendo 64. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140314191929/http://www.notenoughshaders.com/2012/07/13/why-netscape-almost-didnt-exist/ to http://www.notenoughshaders.com/2012/07/13/why-netscape-almost-didnt-exist/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The Nintendo 64 turned 20 years old today!

I think that we should mention that the Nintendo 64 turned 20 years old today in the article, don't you think?

Source(s):
http://fortune.com/2016/06/23/nintendo-64-20-years-old/
http://www.technobuffalo.com/2016/06/23/nintendo-64-turns-20-years-old/
http://www.techinsider.io/ranked-the-20-best-nintendo-64-games-of-all-time-2016-6
http://www.mirror.co.uk/money/nintendo-64-turns-20-today-8266445
http://culturedvultures.com/youre-old-nintendo-64-turns-20-today/
http://venturebeat.com/2016/06/23/the-nintendo-64-is-now-20-years-old/
https://web.archive.org/web/20160623192255/https:/twitter.com/search?q=nintendo+64&ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Esearch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:147:8400:7100:B048:947E:6860:181A (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

No one wishes an article on its Birthday on Wikipedia, no matter how important they were to us. Google doodles exist for that. Daiyusha (talk) 09:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Nintendo 64. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sega-16.com/feature_page.php?id=214&title=Interview%3A%20Tom%20Kalinske
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nintendoland.com/home2.htm?n64%2Fn64.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lycos.com/info/nintendo-64-roms--games.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/60hQKEA9G?url=http://retro.ign.com/articles/914/914568p1.html to http://retro.ign.com/articles/914/914568p1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090430131325/http://n64.icequake.net/ to http://n64.icequake.net/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090430131325/http://n64.icequake.net/ to http://n64.icequake.net/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110203150110/https://nw.64scener.com/n64releaselist.php to http://nw.64scener.com/n64releaselist.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

Hi, I am hoping to add in some information to this article. I am related to the project director, of which there is no mention. I will provide some references to his involvement with the project along with the citation(s). I know this represents a COI, so I will be making request edits only.

immediately before citation 18, "under chief hardware architect Tim Van Hook." should be changed to "under engineering director Jim Foran" or "under engineering director Jim Foran and chief hardware architect Tim Van Hook."

I provide the below quotes as proof of this statement: "Jim Foran, SGI's Director of Engineering for Project Reality..." (this reference has a ton of good info about the N64 actually, from a timeline of its development to the technologies that went into it to descriptions of the chips, their processing power, features, etc. Let me know if there's any of that info we need citations for)
also: "The Nintendo 64's simplicity is a key factor for projected sales of 50 million units over a decade-long product life cycle, according to Mr. Jim Foran, SGI's director of engineering for the project"

and: "Jim Foran [...] was the lead architect behind many of Silicon Graphics high-end interactive graphics systems, right up to the super-computer level. More recently, he's been the head of engineering for Nintendo"(the author is not entirely correct, he was the head of engineering for project reality, not Nintendo in general)

in addition: "Silicon Graphics' director of engineering for the Nintendo 64, Mr. Jim Foran, [...] said that the 64-bit Mips processor [...] was 'in the order of 100 percent faster' than 32-bit processors"

Hopefully those quotes can be useful, I'm still very new to Wikipedia, and I am hoping I can be a helpful collaborator on this article, but I am not sure exactly how to go about suggesting where this information might be relevant, or what further info could/should be included. Ignus3 (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

one other minor suggested change: "The first group of elite developers selected by Nintendo was nicknamed the "Dream Team": Silicon Graphics, Inc.;" should remove Silicon Graphics from the list of dream team developers, as they developed the hardware, but not any games for the system Ignus3 (talk) 07:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Ignus3, and welcome (back) to Wikipedia!

I don't have access to the sources, but based on your quotes the addition of Jim Foran seems uncontroversial. I left the publisher's address out of the citation, but don't read too much into that. Anyone can add it back in of they feel it's significant.

The "Dream Team" list includes another hardware company, Rambus. So we might need some clarification about whether that term was limited to game developers or included platform developers. Perhaps Johnston & Riccardi say something about it?

Pelagic (talk) 05:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Yay! Thank you for responding, I've been super nervous about this since I posted it. Here's the clarification about the "Dream team" comment, via a quote from Johnston & Riccardi , as you suspected: " Dallas, Texas-based Paradigm Simulation was one of the first members of Nintendo's "Dream Team", a group of hand-picked software developers that were recruited to create the first batch of Nintendo 64 titles after Silicon Graphics was brought in to help design the system hardware." It goes on to explain that Paradigm Simulation is known for their Vega development environment which they created for use on "SGI's Indy workstations", and that they were, at the time of the publication, "the only company licensed to sell Nintendo 64 development systems outside of Nintendo themselves." The article also mentions that this partnership "resulted in the creation of the FUSION64 development environment, which includes graphic design packages from other Dream Team members, and contains the ease of use of Paradigm's top-selling Vega software." (all references from Johnston & Riccardi source, pages 34 and 35). Ignus3 (talk) 06:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Nintendo 64 HyperKin and the Ultra Retron N64

So, on the Nintendo 64 page my edits were reverted for understandable reasons, overlinking and unreliable sources. I am fairly new to Wikipedia and want to keep editing, as well as add the Ultra Retron by Hyperkin, which is a Nintendo 64 clone which plays original carts. This is the first device of its kind and I think it will pave the way for other N64 clones like it. N64 emulation has been around for a while, but a system with a similar form factor that can play original carts has not. The only problem is that I just cannot seem to find any reliable sources relating to its release, or for the most part, anything about it. I was wondering, from my lack of Wikipedia experience, if anybody could help me in adding this to the article while making it reliable and accurate. Sincerely, BillyTheKid21 (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not yet convinced that it should be mentioned at this article, however, Hyperkin itself has an article and it should be mentioned there as an upcoming product (with proper sourcing of course). -- ferret (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2020

The intro reads "It it the last major home console to use the ROM cartridge as its primary storage format until the Switch in 2017." Should read "It was the last major home console..." 120.136.5.201 (talk) 10:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done -- ferret (talk) 12:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

"Nintendo 63" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Nintendo 63. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 28#Nintendo 63 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. CaptainGalaxy 18:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

"Rokuyon" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Rokuyon. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 28#Rokuyon until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. CaptainGalaxy 18:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

"Nintendo 604" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Nintendo 604. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 28#Nintendo 604 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. CaptainGalaxy 19:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Discontinued dates for the N64

I found the other dates which I presume the N64 Discontinued in.

Source: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_64

• Japan: April 30, 2002
• Australia: May 11, 2003
• Europe: May 16, 2003
• North America: November 30, 2003
• Korea: 2003
• Brazil: 2003
• China: December 31, 2016 (iQue Player)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by LeoBeyene (talk • contribs) 20:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:USERG. Simple, Fandom and other open wikis are not reliable sources. -- ferret (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh... I'm sorry about that. I didn't know about "reliability" or sources and citations. -- LeoBeyene

Proposed merge of Nintendo 64 technical specifications into Nintendo 64#Technical specifications

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not notable enough on it's own, and also seems overly detailed for what it's describing (goes into heavy detail on the GPU and some other things which may not be interesting to most people). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Note that I first asked about this at WT:VG to see if it would be worth my time starting a merge discussion. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

MergePer reasons above + Reasons discussed in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games. PerryPerryD 17:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Merge - per nomination and Wikiproject conversation linked by PerryPerry above. Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
• Merge and also merge Nintendo 64 programming characteristics for the same reasons. This is way too technical for a generalist encyclopedia. We're not a how-to guide for programming on N64. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Axem Titanium: I was actually planning on proposing a merge for that one after this one had closed to simplify the merge discussion (I doubt anyone would oppose to that but agree with this nom but you never know). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Merge per nom and WT:VG. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 09:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• Merge per nom and WT:VG.Newfiebluejay (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Competition

It's occurred to me that the lead's description of the Saturn as one of the primary competitors for the Nintendo 64 doesn't make much sense. Outside of Japan, the Saturn was no longer a serious contender by the end of 1997: third party support had completely dropped off, with the Saturn's most loyal third party publishers announcing well in advance that they were going to finish what they could put out in time for Christmas 1997 and that would be it, and Sega had already announced the Dreamcast was coming, killing confidence in the Saturn. Outside of Japan, the Nintendo 64 didn't launch until late 1996 or later. So with the exception of the Japanese market, the Saturn and Nintendo 64 only competed for about a year, much of that during the N64's "honeymoon period" when competition was essentially irrelevant. (And even in Japan, the PlayStation overshadowed the Saturn as a competitor.) Basically, the N64 arrived just as the Saturn was saying goodbye.

So, I'm proposing that we remove the Saturn from that statement, possibly replacing it with the Dreamcast, which at least shared the market with the N64 for its entire lifespan. Martin IIIa (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Please tell me why "Most of [my] assertions [...] are completely mistaken".

And no, this discussion is not about why the PS2 is a N64 competitor console, but about why the Saturn is not.

Ok, anyway, now you are cordially invited to make arguments why the PS2 should be described as a primary N64 competitor console.

My arguments why I think this is clearly not the case still are that in terms of console generation, performance, success, target group and lifespan, the PS2 was in a completely different, not comparable league. In addition, I couldn't find any reliable media coverage according to which the N64 competed with the PS2.

Again: Just because the N64 was discontinued after the launch of the PS2 doesn't mean it "competed" with it. According to this logic, the NES would have competed with the Genesis, the SNES with the PS1, and the GameCube with the Xbox 360.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

"(T)he Saturn was no longer a serious contender by the end of 1997 ... Outside of Japan, the Nintendo 64 didn't launch until late 1996 or later." According to an April 1998 financial report (p. 7), Sega's consumer product sales (i.e., its home consoles/software, excluding its arcade business) experienced a staggering 75.4% decline outside of Japan during March 1997–March 1998 relative to the previous year, which neatly coincides with the Western launch of the Nintendo 64. Correlation does not equal causation, but one way to interpret this data is that American and European consumers who had still been on the fence regarding their preference for a fifth generation console in 1995–1996 overwhelmingly chose Nintendo over Sega after the former finally threw its hat into the ring, and that the N64 was thus the final nail in the Saturn's coffin. In that sense, the competition between the two consoles, though short-lived, is not historically insignificant.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk)

Maxeto0910 - The trouble is that your assertions, in addition to being incorrect, are too vague and broad to comment on concisely, and speaking specifically of your edit summary assertions, they have nothing to do with your removal of the PlayStation 2 from the statement anyway. Whether the Saturn or the PlayStation 2 was more of a competitor has no bearing on whether either was a primary competitor.

The discussion is clearly marked "competition", and please tell me you aren't going to argue that it makes sense to WP:EDITWAR over one item in a list while another item in the same list is under discussion on the talk page after an edit summary directed you there.

Of course the NES competed with the Genesis, the SNES with the PS1, and the GameCube with the Xbox 360. Comments like that make me wonder if you are just trying to shoehorn all console history into discrete console generations for the sake of oversimplification.

TheTimesAreAChanging - The competition was significant to the Saturn, but not to the Nintendo 64. This is similar to how we might list the PlayStation as a primary competitor of the Neo Geo CD, but listing the Neo Geo CD as a primary competitor of the PlayStation would be ludicrous.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Again: It would be nice if you could explain to me why my assertions are incorrect instead of accusing me of it again and again.

And in what way are they too vague and broad? The PS2 was one console generation (5th vs 6th) above the N64, had much more raw computational power (<1 vs 6.2 GFLOPS), sold about 5 times as many units (32 mio. vs >155 mio.) and was way longer on the market until it was discontinued (6 vs 13 years).

"Whether the Saturn or the PlayStation 2 was more of a competitor has no bearing on whether either was a primary competitor."

I never used this as an argument for why the PS2 isn't a N64 competitor console, I just wanted to make it more clear with this comparison.

Sorry, but 2 explained and constructive reverts clearly don't meet the definition of an "edit war", especially since I came to the discussion page after you directed me here the first time.

No, the NES clearly didn't compete with the Genesis just because it was still on the market after the Genesis launched. There was virtually no competition between Nintendo and Sega promoting the NES over the Genesis or vice versa. That came with the SNES. The same applies for the other examples. Your approach is an oversimplification, as it is (nearly) solely based on release and discontinuation years and doesn't take into account market circumstances sufficiently. And yes, console generations are indeed a classification of consoles that competed against each other, see Home video game console generations.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 17:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

P.S.: I also tend to keep the Saturn as a N64 competitor console in the lead, as it clearly competed against the N64. Even if the competition didn't last for long; that doesn't matter, as it's still competition.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 19:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I have to be honest, Maxeto0910: The level of ignorance you're claiming here makes it very difficult to hold a conversation with you. You're claiming ignorance of fundamental points such as what "competition" means (by claiming the PS2 did not compete with the N64 because it overpowered and outsold it), what edit warring is (by claiming that it doesn't count as edit warring so long as the editor leaves an edit summary and decrees his own revert "constructive"), of edit time stamps (by claiming that you came to the talk page after I directed you here the first time rather than after I reverted you again and repeated my directive to use the talk page), of basic console history (by claiming the NES and Genesis were never promoted against each other), and what "oversimplification" means (by claiming it's an oversimplification to say competition is defined by anything more than generational classification). Incidentally, at the time the N64 was categorized as the first console of a new generation, so by your own definition the Saturn and PlayStation did not compete with the N64 at all.

So, I'm not sure what more I can say beyond look up the words "competition" and "oversimplification", check out WP:Edit warring, read up on some console history (try the search term "Sega does what Nintendon't", for instance), and then form an opinion on which consoles competed with which. Martin IIIa (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I will spare myself the polemics and simply comment on the points you raised, which you either took out of context or did not understand.

1) You have brazenly picked out the two points which alone don't make sense. I mentioned them along with a number of other aspects to make clear that the PS2 wasn't a N64 competitor console in any respect. Yes, of course the PS2 was overpowered compared to the N64 because it was a console of the next generation and basically launched when the N64 was pretty much at the end of its lifespan. What I way trying to say is that these two systems are simply not properly comparable, regardless of which standards are applied (except, of course, your release/discontinued date approach, which doesn't make much sense).

2) Of course, it was not edit warring, at least not started by me. I explained in detail why the PS2 can't be considered a N64 competitor console in any way. You undid my edit and simply directed me to the talk page (well, indirectly; you did not explicitly say that and for what reason I should come to the talk page, but only that you opened a discussion) without a proper explanation why my arguments were wrong. Basic principle of epistemology: If reasoned evidence is presented and you believe it to be false, it is your responsibility to prove it rather than simply removing it without further explanation. If anyone here should have engaged in edit warring, it's you, because you insisted on ignoring this principle and instead undid my edits without proper explanation.

3) Just as I said: As long as you don't make arguments, there's no basic for a discussion. You have to make arguments why the points I mentioned in my edit summaries were wrong. And when there are different reasoned oppinions, we can discuss them on the talk page. However, as I said, you just undid my edits without any explanation related to my points, so there was nothing to argue about, which is why I didn't came to the talk page for so long. You would have had to refute at least one of my argumentation points on the talk page (or at least in the edit summary); before that, there is no reason for me to go to the talk page, because there is no basis for discussion.

4) No, I didn't claim that it's oversimplification "to say competition is defined by anything more than generational classification." I was just saying that it is a gross oversimplification if the indicators that define competition are solely or predominantly based on release and discontinuation years, as yours are most of the time. Console generations, however, take into account market circumstances, which is why they are far superior in making statements about which systems competed against each other and are largely seen as a meaningful indicator, in contrast to just comparing when two systems were released/discontinued.

5) "Incidentally, at the time the N64 was categorized as the first console of a new generation"

Categorized by whom and when? What is considered a console generation (especially retrospectively) is not defined by the manufacturers, but by media coverage and the general public opinion.

6) That's quite funny, because Sega's marketing campaign "Sega does what Nintendon't" shows well that my approach makes more sense, as Sega promoted its Genesis over the SNES with this term, and that's just what I was saying. You claimed that the NES competed with the Genesis, and I said it didn't and argued that "There was virtually no competition between Nintendo and Sega promoting the NES over the Genesis or vice versa. That came with the SNES." This campaign is a prime example.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah…no. “Genesis does what Nintendon’t” was a 1990 advertising campaign. The SNES was introduced in North America in 1991. The whole point of the campaign was that the Genesis was 16-bit and the NES was not. Your ignorance of video game history is not helping your position. Indrian (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Just wrong. The campaign was introduced in the early 1990s, but not exactly in 1990. The point was to show that the Genesis was geared more towards adult/mature gamers compared to the SNES, which had a child/family friendly image: https://www.sega-16.com/2006/09/retroinspection-mega-drive/

Sega even made a TV commercial in which they compared several Genesis games with Super Mario Kart on the SNES: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=65E53rNC1io

To not even inform oneself rudimentary about this and then accuse a person with over 30 video game consoles and hundreds of video games from the last 45 years of ignoring the history of video games is just pathetic and embarrassing, sorry for the harsh choice of words, but there is no other way to express it in this context.--Maxeto0910 (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

You have no clue what you are talking about. Embarrassing indeed. Indrian (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I have indeed no clue what you're trying to say. If your point is that I got the start of the campaign wrong by a few months, then congratulations; you corrected one (probably by far the most trivial side point) of 6 points in my last comment to Martin IIIa. Ok, I'll give you the point that SEGA was already competing with the NES during this campaign (albeit only for the first few months, hardly portrayed that way by SEGA itself (most likely because it would be awkward for SEGA to compare a new current-gen (Genesis) to an old last-gen console (NES)), and the campaign had its clear peak in competing with the SNES, as the vast majority of retrospective coverage is about this competition and that time took up most of the campaign's length of existence). If you now explain in what way the PS2 was a main competitor console to the N64 (that is the reason why this discussion exists), you would have actually contributed something constructive to the discussion.--Maxeto0910 (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I could care less about your little spat over the N64 versus the PS2, but I do take notice when people start thinking that owning a lot of old video games suddenly makes them a historian. Since subtlety is apparently not your strong suit and you keep compounding your ignorance with every statement, I will spell it out for you more clearly. You did not "get the start of the campaign wrong by a few months:" "Genesis Does What Nintendon't" was a 1990 campaign. I'm sure a few straggler ads ran in 1991, but it was specifically targeted at the NES in Fall 1990 with the goal of building an install base before the SNES came out at the end of 1991. In 1991, Sega had a new campaign (since you don't seem to know how advertising works, I should interject here that companies frequently drop old campaigns for new ones, and Sega was turning them over frequently in this period trying to find one that resonated). That campaign used the slogan "Leading the 16-bit Revolution" and focused on two things primarily: the cheaper price of the Genesis versus the SNES and the release of Sonic. THIS was their first targeted campaign directly taking on the SNES. You can see some of these ads at the beginning of this reel. That Mario Kart ad you are so proud of is part of the "Welcome to the Next Level" campaign, which launched in 1992 after Sega changed ad agencies. So to summarize, Sega launched three consecutive ad campaigns between 1990 and 1992 targeting the market in three different ways. It's not one monolithic blob of advertising as you seem to believe. I hope that helped. If not, I can try to simplify the explanation even more for you. Indrian (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Have you watched the linked YouTube video till the end? It's at least from mid-1992 (that's when Super Mario Kart first released), compares Super Mario Kart against several Genesis games and is clearly part of the "Genesis does what Nintendon’t" campaign, as that's what they say in this TV commercial. So indeed, this campaign lasted at least till 1992. So, you just picked a tiny fraction of the first few months of the lifespan of this years-long campaign (which ultimately was a Genesis vs SNES advertising, as it was predominantly for the vast majority of its run time) without even intending to contribute anything constructive to the discussion just to be able to say I was wrong. Yes, you corrected me for being sloppy on this one unimportant, minor trivial side point, since I never cared much for SEGA vs Nintendo and have not specifically read about it in late 1990 video game newspaper articles, but that is a nullity and really just cherrypicking in this context without it helping anyone in the discussion here.--Maxeto0910 (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Your precious video is two different commercials. The video title is even "Sega Genesis Commercials" with an "s." Here is a better link to the blast processing commercial if you feel the urge to educate yourself. So yeah, once again, the Genesis Does campaign was long over. I have actually researched this stuff; you clearly have not. That's fine, we are all experts on different things, but insulting the experts when they call out your sloppy research and nonsensical claims is a less good look. Come back when you have some knowledge of these things. Indrian (talk) 22:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't "insult" you for correcting my statement, but for your obvious unhelpful cherrypicking without the intention of advancing the discussion and your insinuation that I'm not familiar with the history of video games because I haven't studied a single advertising campaign closely enough. That's pure polemics and nonsense. It's like saying that a person can't be a car expert just because he/she doesn't know one technical specification of a specific part of a certain car model from 1963. Yes, I should have informed myself better before making a statement (that in general and in this specific case has nothing to do with "expert knowledge"), but it really would have made more sense for all involved if you had spoken up regarding the issue of whether the PS2 is a competing console to the N64 instead of deviating further from the discussion. Since that was obviously not your intention, you could have commented on my wrong statement briefly, neutrally and already in the first comment with sources, if at all.--Maxeto0910 (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with TheTimesAreAChanging - Sega and Nintendo were very much in contention, the Saturn and the N64 were part of the same console generation and Sega tried to do the same thing by releasing the Dreamcast early. Sega tried to beat their competition to the market. Check out some old issues of NextGen, EGM, etc in archive.org and you will see they very much covered a horserace amongst these consoles. Andre🚐 01:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I've been doing a lot of reading and writing about the Saturn lately actually. It's been quite interesting to see how many multiplatform games Saturn got with PS1 back in 1995. And then throughout 1996 momentum slowed and games started to be cancelled. And in 1997, support fell off a cliff. And that exactly when the N64 was being revealed, promoted, launched, and on the market. Back then, the industry couldn't handle 3 separate platforms, and Nintendo squeezed out Sega. (And even in 1998 when Saturn was on life support, they were still competitors. They weren't competeing well, but competing poorly is still competing. They were still undeniably there.) So all in all, I feel very strongly towards them being considered competitors. Sergecross73 msg me 01:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

N64 emulation

Forgive me if this has been discussed elsewhere but with the recent N64 update to the Switch and new game, I was wondering if we should have a section regarding how the N64 lives on through emulation, even officially supported emulation? EggsHam (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I found an existing source here: List of video game console emulators#Nintendo. EggsHam (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

"Nu64" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Nu64 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 21 § Nu64 until a consensus is reached. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 16:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)