PC vs N64: A Study

Editorial by: Tangycheese


Ever since the N64 arrived on the scene a few years back, it was really only a matter of time before the "Big N" was compared to the "Big - umm - PC". And so now, we present:

PC VS N64
(OK, I know, not a very inspired title. I think it works, though)

For the purposes of this comparison, 'tech specs' won't really come into it, since we all know that the most powerful PC's mop the floor with even the next- next-generation consoles (PS2, Dreamcast). Instead, we'll be judging it on what really counts: games. Let's face it, you can have all the graphics and the rest of it that you want, but when it comes down to it, it's the gameplay that matters. Anyone who needs any proof of that need look no further than Turok 2 on the N64 - a game that wouldn't look out of place on the PC, but plays like something you'd expect on the Sega Master System. In fact, some might argue worse.

And I've just digressed.

Let's look at some of the top N64 games around, according to the Gamesmark reviews scores.

And these are:
1) Perfect Dark - 98%
2) The Legend Of Zelda: Majoras Mask: 96%
2) Banjo Tooie: 96%
2) Banjo Kazooie: 96%
5) The Legend Of Zelda: The Ocarina Of Time - 94%

Average Mark-- 96%
(and how surprised are you all to learn that of the above, I reviewed only one - which came in at No. 5?)

And the top ones for the PC:
1) StarCraft - 96%
2) StarCraft Brood War - 96%
3) Thief - 95%
4) Worms - 90%
5) Quake 2 - 89%

Average Mark--93%

Now, this isn't exactly what you might call 'conclusive' by any means, especially in light of the fact that the N64 games have been rated in comparison to other N64 games in the same genre. For example, Goldeneye was reviewed by us after we'd played Perfect Dark - a better game in pretty much every respect. Now, we gave Goldeneye 91% - a decent score, you might say - but had we reviewed it before PD it would be much higher.

And also, Mav reviewed a lot of the above N64 games, which pushes up the average score considerably. :-)

There are certainly genres that the PC copes better with than the N64, and vice versa. Racing games I've always found to be better played on the N64, whether that be due to the tension caused by always knowing exactly how close your opponent is to you, or whatever, but they always seem to be. The same is true of sports games. I have yet to play a soccer game on the PC that even comes close to the likes of ISS, or a tennis game anywhere near Mario Tennis.

Platform games have always been a specialist genre for Nintendo, and Rare. Think of all the Mario games out there, and you'd be hard-pressed to find one that wasn't really up to much. They're all great fun to play, and fortunately for the N64 owners out there, this trend has continued over to the 64. Mario, Banjo-Kazooie and indeed -Tooie, Donkey Kong, and so on and so forth.

However, I've always thought that first person shooters, one of my favourite genres I might add, are considerably better when you don't know what your opponents are doing. Think how good Perfect Dark might be if you weren't able to escape an enemy because you know where he is and where he's coming from.

A good example of this comes from a game of Goldeneye I played a long time ago against a friend who had played before, but simply wasn't familiar with the 'Caves' deathmatch level. Everywhere he went he was confronted and destroyed within a couple of seconds, which, although heartily amusing for me, proved to be slightly less fun for him. However, when the same pairing occured in a game of Quake 2 on the PC, it proved to be a much closer game, and considerably more fun for the both of us.

And the same is true of RTS games, such as StarCraft, Command and Conquer and so on. How are you supposed to be caught off guard by your opponent if you know what they're doing at all times?? It just doesn't work! However, over the internet there are almost infinite possibilities of finding ways of surprising your opponents, since they often have no idea what you're doing.

Of course there will always be those diehard PC fans who refuse to believe that the N64 can do some things better than their beloved PC's, but the fact is, it can. That's not to say that the PC's aren't vastly superior in other areas though. In many ways it's entirely down to personal opinion. It's one of those questions in which there is no right or wrong answer.

Another factor which influences gameplay on both machines is the control method. Most PC games tend to favour simultaneous use of both mouse and keypad, which provides the precision movements required for games like Half-Life and all the rest, whereas the N64 follows the console trend of controllers. Nintendo's controller is so innovative, though, that it has prompted all the other leading consoles to almost blatently copy the design. You just have to look at the 64's control up against that of the PSX Duel Shock Analogue thingy to see.

While the N64's control doesn't quite achieve as accurate a result as the PC's mouse keyboard combination, it's certainly nothing for Nintendo to be ashamed of - quite the opposite in fact, especially when you consider just how well the mouse / keyboard works.

Look, for example at the game Quake 2. On the PC it's absolutely superb - and this is helped in no small part to the control method on the PC. That, and the sheer speed and madness about the gameplay. You can't stop and relax at any stage without being blown into thousands of small pieces by someone lurking around the next corner.

On the N64 though, the game isn't nearly as good. It simply can't recreate that 'feel' that made Quake 2 one of the all time greats on the PC. Strange, but true. And although Nintendo's control system works well enough, it doesn't really cut it. The buttons used to control the characters (C buttons) tend to be just a touch too small for my liking, and after playing Perfect Dark so much I just can't get used to looking around with the analogue!

Of course, on the more simplistic games, such as beat-em-ups, sports games and so on, it's the PC which has the disadvantage. Beat-em-ups in particular require a good deal of button-mashing more than anything else - especially the poorer ones, and let's face it, there aren't many good one's on the '64, are there? - which is ideal for the N's largish-buttoned compact controller. The PC, however loses out somewhat in this regard.

Given the demands of today's players, a machine has to be powerful enough to provide decent speed, gameplay, and a large-enough gaming world to satisfy the consumer. In this respect, it's safe to say that both are well-enough equipped to handle these specifications. One only has to look once more at Turok 2 to realise how big a world the N64 is capable of handling (although in this case, bigger is not always better); Extreme G / F-Zero X for speed. and Perfect Dark / Goldeneye for gameplay.

You could go on all days about the pros and cons of both systems - the above is just scraping the surface. Both have their distinct specialities and downfalls, but the bottom line is, both are worth investing in. If you really had to pick one or the other, the obvious choice would be the PC, simply because it can be used for so much more than games. That said, look at the price difference these days between a good PC and an N64, and maybe you'll think twice...

Maverik's response:
Since Tangy focused mainly on the controller-mouse and single screen-multiple screen differences between the PC and N64, I think I'll use this space to talk about some things he may have missed. For starters, one major problem with gaming on the PC is the whole question of system specs. By this, I don't mean the difference in specifications between PC and N64, but rather the discrepancy of specs between PC and PC. There are all sorts of PC's around today, ranging from top-of-the-range to rusting old archaic machines like mine. The problem with this for gaming is that when designers create games, they are often limited by the lowest common denominator, at least if they want to make games that the majority of the market can consume. This can cause no end of annoyance to those with top-end accelerators, while those of us with useless PC's are similarly annoyed by the unplayability of titles which can be played on better-endowed machines. Oh, for a computer that could play Thief 2...

On the N64, this is of course different. Every N64 system is identical, leaving aside of course the issue of the Expansion Pak, which most people have anyway, and in any event all pak-enhanced N64's are the same, too. This means that everyone with an N64 can all play the entire range of games for the console, and developers can use the full power of the 64 in making their game.

Tangy did touch on this at the end, but price is another issue too. Especially now that the N64 is on the way out, you can pick up a console, controller and games for a fraction of the cost of a decent PC, plus play with up to four people without needing four computers and an internet connection. True, everyone needs to look at the one screen, as Tangy said, but it definitely makes gaming a more social and enjoyable experience than just typing messages on a computer screen.

That said, PC gaming has a lot going for it too. PC games have the potential to be a lot bigger, thanks to the storage space on a modern CD, compared to the limited space on a cartridge; and the vastly-superior hardware on a computer allows for video sequences, excellent graphics, speech and other top-quality audio, and other features, combined with a lot more buttons to press and thus the potential for a more intricate interface, even if it's not as user-friendly as a dedicated controller. Mind you, the games actually need to make good use of these features, or having them isn't much use!

Both the PC and the N64 have their strong points, and since most N64 owners will have a PC too, you can really have the best of both worlds. You get superb graphics and sound, together with more-complex games on the PC; while you can have four-player cameraderie, solid gameplay, ease and convenience for a reasonable cost on the N64. Variety is the spice of life!