What Next Generation Said: "Nintendo has been eager to stress the number "64" when referring to anything connected with its new system, even going as far as to make it part of the name. This is smart, given that those in the know are all too well aware of PlayStation and Saturn's 32-bit status. But as Atari proved when it urged gamers to "do the math," 64 in a world of videogaming is not automatically twice as fast/good/colorful as 32. And now much of Nintendo 64's software is proving it.

"It could just be that first-generation Nintendo 64 games are being compared to second- and third-generation PlayStation and Saturn games. Fair enough. But either way, Nintendo 64 was positioned as a generational leap beyond 32-bit -- and yet the games seen so far would suggest less of a leap and more of a small hop. When Super Mario 64 first turned up on our doorsteps, it was easy to believe that a system capable of handling 3D environments with such ease must represent the next generation of gaming platforms. Since then, however, Nintendo 64 has proven limited in certain key areas (most of them stemming from the cartridge format), and though it does many things extremely well, PlayStation or Saturn -- two systems with large software libraries peppered with great games in almost every genre -- does most of them nearly as well.

"Looking at the current state of Nintendo 64 and its questionable software library, Nintendo will clearly have to make great strides with first-party games to re-convince everyone that its machine truly is a leap beyond its competitors. This will never be achieved by offering 32-bit quality games with anti-aliasing and no-cost Gouraud shading. If Nintendo is happy to simply be considered in the same breath as PlayStation or Saturn, it will have to do something very quickly to match the variety of quality of the other system's game libraries."

Has Nintendo Learned Their Lesson? What a difference a decade makes. Ten years ago Nintendo couldn't stop talking about how the Nintendo 64 was the most technically advanced game system on the market, even going as far as to put its "superior" number in the name. Fast forward ten years and we have Nintendo proudly talking about how they don't want to compete against the recent console powerhouses made by Sony and Microsoft. These days they talk about how innovation is all that matters, that their game control is going to change the way we play games and that's what's important. They may be right, only time will tell. If you can say anything about Nintendo it's that they have learned not to build up how powerful their system is, this only leads to disappointment from those early adopters. This is something Sony could have taken note of, after they showed off Motor Storm and Killzone at E3 2005 it was impossible to meet fan expectations. Games like Resistance: Fall of Man look great, but after seeing what the system was supposed to do it's hard to be impressed. Nintendo doesn't have that problem this time around, nearly every step of the way they have been talking down the importance of graphics in games. There's no doubt that graphics take a backseat to gameplay, but there's no reason we can't have both. Microsoft's newest shooter, Gears of War, manages to re-invent the action genre while also setting a high water mark for in-game graphics.

What Next Generation Said: "Absent from Nintendo 64 games, across the board, is the kind of creative risk it takes to create an important game: the kind that creates a new genre or trend for the market to follow; the kind of risk Nintendo took in the early Super NES days with games like Actraiser and Populous.

"In place of such ambitious development standards is a philosophy that guarantees mediocrity, which is has delivered. Though it's still early in the lifespan, of Nintendo 64, several games should be in the works from third parties that are at least willing to take a chance at being great. So far there is not very much to hope for. What's most disappointing about this phenomenon is that consumers are eager to see what Nintendo 64 can do, and third parties have only proven that they can do mediocre ports of mediocre games.

"Numerous motivational factors explain why the third-party lineup thus far excels only in predictability. One reason is directly linked to the Nintendo 64 business model, potential for a third-party developer: Used to paying approximately $15 per disc for PlayStation, Saturn and PC games, gamers pay about $35 for Nintendo 64 cartridges and publishers consider this carefully when planning games for the system.

"Many software publishers are still smarting from huge losses on unsold cartridges at the end of the 16-bit era, and the last thing they want to do is to take another financial bath. So this means that parties will release only the safest, sure-fire winners for N64. And this (when cemented by Nintendo's demands for exclusivity which removes any profits from other versions) means tried and trusted no-brainer game recipes, big licenses, coin-op conversions -- and a resounding "snore" from experienced gamers."

Has Nintendo Learned Their Lesson? Thankfully Nintendo has learned their lesson ... but it comes at a high price. The Nintendo Wii has a ton of third party support, just about every video game company has signed on to make at least one or two titles for the system. But this third party support is mixed, at best. A lot of these companies aren't even trying when it comes to developing new and fresh ideas. Companies like THQ and Midway are doing nothing more than releasing Wii games based on licensed movies/TV shows, while other third parties are just porting popular Xbox/PlayStation 2 games to the Wii. There are a few notable third party efforts that are not ports, remakes or licensed games, but most of them are mediocre. One can only hope that this will improve, especially with big name companies like Square Enix, Konami and Capcom signed on. So far their Wii support has been lackluster (Elebits?), but given some time we can only expect good things from those companies.