What system is better?
- Thread starter link343
- Start date
Pearl Jammzz
Established Member
Just because they are sequels doesn't mean they are re-hashed. Is the first Zelda and OOT similar? Not very much. Yes, MSG is a great game, but it isn't like "OMG! I nut my pants" like Mario was back in the day. Mario was insanely ground breaking stuff...noone had ever experienced such a thing before, and I think that's why the 64 did so well in it's early years.
To each their own I guess. If you find FFX and X-2 to be some of the best RPGs out there, so be it....I am sure there are plenty of 12yr olds that think the same
.
BTW, I dont think any of the new consoles really have much appeal. Is it just me or is the VG industry kinda at a stand still? and has been for a good 4 years.....Maybe it's just cuz I am older now, but the new games do nothing for me. I always find myself going back to the old classics and replaying those rather than playing some new FF34 1/2. Maybe the industry knows this and that's why they are releasing sequels of games that shouldn't have em.......
To each their own I guess. If you find FFX and X-2 to be some of the best RPGs out there, so be it....I am sure there are plenty of 12yr olds that think the same
.BTW, I dont think any of the new consoles really have much appeal. Is it just me or is the VG industry kinda at a stand still? and has been for a good 4 years.....Maybe it's just cuz I am older now, but the new games do nothing for me. I always find myself going back to the old classics and replaying those rather than playing some new FF34 1/2. Maybe the industry knows this and that's why they are releasing sequels of games that shouldn't have em.......
It's better than the state of affairs with the PC. Every goddamned game is a first person shooter. And you can look forward to many more FPSeses with Doom3 and HL2 on the horizon.
The only gripe I have with the Final Fantasy series is that none of them are related to each other. And as far as I can tell, they aren't even related in the same timeline. There's no connection to anything! So it's not exactly that they're even sequels... that's one thing I appreciate about Shining Force, everything falls in a timeline.
The only gripe I have with the Final Fantasy series is that none of them are related to each other. And as far as I can tell, they aren't even related in the same timeline. There's no connection to anything! So it's not exactly that they're even sequels... that's one thing I appreciate about Shining Force, everything falls in a timeline.
Pearl Jammzz
Established Member
FF stories I find pale in comparison to the Shining games and Golden Sun games. Just a matter of taste I guess, never cared for a FF story....now chrono trigger, there was a game!
muffinman943
Ban Hammered
WOw, I just played ikaruga, and on the first level where you are going over a forest, I acatuly held on to the couch. I have never seen such a realistic game.
I know exactly what PJ means about the 'feeling'. Now I've got 57 Playstation 2 games. If I could do it all over again the only ones I would buy again:
Devil May Cry
Disgaea
Guilty Gear XX #Reload
Final Fantasy X
Jak II
Metal Gear Solid 2 (IMO the best PS2 game)
Onimusha I & II
Suikoden III
Virtua Fighter 4 Evolution
Zone of the Enders 2
Final Fantasy 7....as far as I am concerned FF6 kicks FF7's ass (assuming games had asses). And Chrono Trigger and Chrono Cross kick all the Final Fantasies asses.
Devil May Cry
Disgaea
Guilty Gear XX #Reload
Final Fantasy X
Jak II
Metal Gear Solid 2 (IMO the best PS2 game)
Onimusha I & II
Suikoden III
Virtua Fighter 4 Evolution
Zone of the Enders 2
Final Fantasy 7....as far as I am concerned FF6 kicks FF7's ass (assuming games had asses). And Chrono Trigger and Chrono Cross kick all the Final Fantasies asses.
Originally posted by Pearl Jammzz@Apr 6, 2004 @ 07:37 PM
To each their own I guess. If you find FFX and X-2 to be some of the best RPGs out there, so be it....I am sure there are plenty of 12yr olds that think the same
You are kidding, right?
This is funny, especially when it comes to someone who thinks so highly of a simple platform title such as Mario64, and, like you stated, most 6 year old children would agree with you on that.
In my mind, a key problem with PSX/PS2 is that Sony doesn't really have any true in-house game development teams. Yes, you'll see games credited to "Sony Computer Entertainment" all the time, but I have yet to find one that doesn't seem to fit one of the following descriptions:
- Someone was too lazy or ill-informed to seek out the name of the actual developer (this probably accounts for at least 75% of the major titles commonly credited to SCE; games
that fall into this category include Alundra, the Gran Turismo series, Legend of Legaia, Parappa the Rapper, Vib Ribbon, Jumping Flash...)
- SCEI put together an "all-star" team of independent developers or otherwise acted as a center of collaboration among developers to produce a one-shot project (Legend of Dragoon, ICO)
- Some branch of SCE effectively bought out a famed European developer and renamed it ("SCEE Studio" is pretty much a reorganized Psygnosis)
From looking at Nintendo and Sega's history, I get the sense that having an "internal customer" for the platform seems to result in a generally nicer platform. Sony, OTOH seems to get by primarily on marketshare picked up from when Nintendo and Sega handed the market to them in 1995 with botched console launches.
This stance may be irrational. I'm working on it.
- Someone was too lazy or ill-informed to seek out the name of the actual developer (this probably accounts for at least 75% of the major titles commonly credited to SCE; games
that fall into this category include Alundra, the Gran Turismo series, Legend of Legaia, Parappa the Rapper, Vib Ribbon, Jumping Flash...)
- SCEI put together an "all-star" team of independent developers or otherwise acted as a center of collaboration among developers to produce a one-shot project (Legend of Dragoon, ICO)
- Some branch of SCE effectively bought out a famed European developer and renamed it ("SCEE Studio" is pretty much a reorganized Psygnosis)
From looking at Nintendo and Sega's history, I get the sense that having an "internal customer" for the platform seems to result in a generally nicer platform. Sony, OTOH seems to get by primarily on marketshare picked up from when Nintendo and Sega handed the market to them in 1995 with botched console launches.
This stance may be irrational. I'm working on it.
Pearl Jammzz
Established Member
I think Mario64 broke a lot more ground than FF-X/X2.....I highly doubt that you could argue that FFX/X2 did more for the gaming community than Mario64 did. *sits and waits for Des-ROW's reply*
Originally posted by Pearl Jammzz@Apr 7, 2004 @ 04:16 PM
I think Mario64 broke a lot more ground than FF-X/X2.....I highly doubt that you could argue that FFX/X2 did more for the gaming community than Mario64 did. *sits and waits for Des-ROW's reply*
Did more for the gaming comuunity? It was a nice game, but the most important part was that it was the first Mario game completely in 3D. Other than that, it did not start a revolution or anything. Let's also add that it was still a ROM cart, hahaha.
I find Final Fantasy X much more appealing, it plays beautifully, looks amazing and has something Mario64 completely lacks of, story. It was also the first Final Fantasy game to be released on a 128bit system, the first one with voice acting, and on DVD format.
But groundbreaking vs. beauty of a game are two different things. And you are comparing games that were made eight years apart (!). Considering the time it was made in ('96), there was hardly anything at the time that was remotely comparable.
Sure, with the benefit of eight years, FF-X seems more revolutionary (or better, I don't know what your argument is). But comparably speaking, compared to the kind of effect Mario had on the gaming industry as a whole compared to Final Fantasy's effect, I think there's a substantive difference (benefit on Mario's side).
I'm not sure about the story argument; Mario64 was a platform game, and FF is an RPG. I think the point of the RPG genre is to have a story; I can't think of any platform game that has a specific or long running story line. Not that it's important, since the genre doesn't demand it.
Further, I don't think making games on CD would have been groundbreaking. TurboGrafx, Phillips and Sega already did that. From a marketing perspective, it wasn't the best idea since CD was en vogue, but I don't think it held nintendo back from making quality games (or made Sega or PS games any better). Well, most likely in the latter stages of the N64's life, but not initially.
Sure, with the benefit of eight years, FF-X seems more revolutionary (or better, I don't know what your argument is). But comparably speaking, compared to the kind of effect Mario had on the gaming industry as a whole compared to Final Fantasy's effect, I think there's a substantive difference (benefit on Mario's side).
I'm not sure about the story argument; Mario64 was a platform game, and FF is an RPG. I think the point of the RPG genre is to have a story; I can't think of any platform game that has a specific or long running story line. Not that it's important, since the genre doesn't demand it.
Further, I don't think making games on CD would have been groundbreaking. TurboGrafx, Phillips and Sega already did that. From a marketing perspective, it wasn't the best idea since CD was en vogue, but I don't think it held nintendo back from making quality games (or made Sega or PS games any better). Well, most likely in the latter stages of the N64's life, but not initially.