Super Mario 64 Vs Ocarina of Time

[Midna666]

Super Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time are considered two of the best games of all time. They both did a lot for the world of 3-D gaming.
So which one do you think did more for video games? Do you think that Mario 64 did more for video games, or do you think that OOT did more for video games?

 

[athenian200]

Super Mario 64 was rather experimental. What it did, in my opinion, was to show to show how a 3D game could be made, and what kind of features could be included. It wasn't at all "polished," however.

I think Ocarina of Time did a little bit more, though, because it showed how a 3D game could be refined in order to handle more complex situations and how items could be used in such games.

I haven't seen a lot of the 3D games prior to Super Mario 64, though, so I don't know how revolutionary it was. Maybe I'm underestimating it.

 

[Bluelink6]

Ocarina of Time. It was made form a modified version of the SM64 Enigine, and the modifications were improvements, IMO, at least

 

[JacobDRich]

Mario 64. It revolutionized the way platformers would be played for the rest of time.

 

[Vanessa28]

I think it really depends on what you like best. Zelda and mario are two different worlds. I always considered Mario a bit more easy than Zelda but I might be wrong. I like OoT better mainly because I'm a zelda freak. And of course the story and dungeons were completely different

 

[Zeruda]

I see that Zelda is winning, and I can't help but think that's because people voted for it because the like it more.

Regardless of which is liked more, Mario did much more for 3D gaming. The controls, the camera, etc. Zelda just used what Mario brought to the table. I like Zelda more, of course, but Mario is what made a bigger impact in gaming. Mario revolutionized gaming in general. Zelda only revolutionized its own series.

 

[Gooey Fame]

They both did separate things for gaming. I would say 3D games branched off from them in different ways.

 

[Dinalfo]

Well in this case, I would have to go with Super Mario 64. Athenian200 did bring up a rather good point about how a 3D could be made. I mean after all, SM64 did come out before Ocarina of Time, so in retrospect the games that were later released become more "polished" as athenian200 put it.

Believing that looking at how SM64 was done, could've gave Nintendo(example) of how the games' style should be better, and what I mean by style, I mean the whole aspect of the game. While many say it's Ocarina of Time's doing, I believe it was SM64... in which case, look at such non-motion and very polygonic SM64 is, and see how two years later to the release of OOT to find more motion in the video game, which then gave even more motion two years later to Majora's Mask. This case, look at how SM64 helped change this style of gameplay to later realeases of other games.

Bottomline is, SM64 did more for video games in my opinion. This is just what I felt it has done.

 

[fredthehylian]

Both of the games did great for their genres. Mario 64 accomplished a LOT for platformers, and OoT set a standard that was followed up by MM for adventure games. The real question is eventually going to become: Which is better, platformers or adventures? Personally, I love adventures better since they offer larger, more complex, and challenging goals. How fast can you beat the game? How long did it take you to beat the game without taking a hit? How long did it take to complete every single part of the game? Then there's platformers, which are fun. But they're moreover fun, lighthearted games that can be shared among friends for a good time.

In short, OoT.

 

[Hero Of Spirits]

I'd say both were very good titles. They both did something special to the world of gaming. It's a tough ask. I like them both.

 

[Raven]

Both games are excellent for what they are. In a lot of ways the two games are similar but in the end I choose Zelda, only because I have never fully beaten Mario 64 and can't say I completely know everything about it. I don't know what it is but A lot of Nintendo games from that era felt so... empty. as if none of the other characters in the games were truely "alive" more like a hollow shell... I don't know but for some reason Zelda felt a little less empty to me than Mario 64...

 

[Nociti]

It's hard to compare these two games since they are so different in style and purpose. Ocarina of Time is more story based while Super Mario 64 is more "action" based. They are both excellent games, I give them both a 10.

I'm more of a story person, so I prefer Ocarina of Time.

 

[Carben]

Super Mario 64 - This game brought in many ideas for future adventure games. As stated before it was kind of a experimental game to see how the public's reaction was to the game's release. In my opinion, Super Mario 64 is a great game for anybody who likes puzzles, challenges, and just great fun!

The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time - This game was amazing being the first ever Legend of Zelda game in 3-D. This possibly shocked a lot of people considering that the Legend of Zelda series is notorious for it's 2-D side-scrolling action! Now Ocarina of Time was more focused on the plot and characters which I love a lot! In stead of just going out and punching random enemies, kicking and butt-pounding the player really had to stop to pay attention.

So, basically the games are pretty much equal in their own ways for contributing to what we now call, "video games"