The Man in Blak

I think you've misunderstood my argument for Goldeneye or I haven't explained it very well (could be true). I personally don't like Goldeneye because I don't have a lot of tolerance for FPSs on my PC, let alone ones on a console with controls that I wasn't particularly fond of. That's my own personal biases against FPSs, though, and I can separate that from an objective review of the game. Goldeneye has a lot more going for it, other than the fact that it sold well. It is the first good (perhaps, first period) multiplayer-capable console FPS, and it legitimized the N64 as a multiplayer's console for adults, as well as kids. For two, it just might be the best game based after a licensed property in the history of the industry. Even if you discount the multiplayer, it stood head and shoulders above the rest of the field at the time as a single player FPS as well. Many people, critics and fans alike, never thought that a real quality FPS experience could transfer over to a controller setting, but Goldeneye and the analog stick was the first big step towards proving that wrong. I don't really like it and I do think a certain sect of fans overrates it simply because it's an FPS and/or it's a home run for Nintendo, but I do appreciate its place in gaming history.

As I mentioned before, I didn't want to turn this into a huge discussion over Final Fantasy VII, so I'll just link you to the thread we had on this two years ago: http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/index.php?...pic=46533&st=30 It's got my view points on the game and they're virtually exactly what I'm going to type here, so there you go. Yes, I'm lazy. And you had mentioned more than a couple of times how the fact that GameFAQs has the game on the top ten makes it have some impact, but I'm not sure you want to hang your hat on GameFAQs as a barometer of gaming quality (or intelligence).

#162 is my personal favorite:

I highly doubt that FFIV kept FFV from being released in the US, but if there's a source out there that somebody can quote, then so be it. And FFIV and FFVI sold remarkably well for RPGs in their time, were successful enough to be ported over to the PS1, and built Squaresoft up as the premier RPG developer in North America, so I think their significance is intact. It's not a matter of popularity - it's a matter of impact, which can come about via popularity. Goldeneye was a wildly successful game that bolstered the N64 lineup by selling a ton of copies, demonstrated that FPSs could work on the console scene, and provided years of multi-player fun - I freely recognize the impact there, even though I don't like the game. And I'm not contending that Final Fantasy VII didn't have any positive impact - the game was one of the best selling games of all time and it put the Playstation on the map. But I'm not going to ignore the negative impact either. We've had a few posts in here already, decrying the state of modern RPGs as sacrificing gameplay for cutscenes and other melodramatics. Just exactly who do you think is responsible for this trend in development? Which game, do you think, inspired them and a troop of other developer studios to start developing RPGs as the next big thing? Final Fantasy VII broke the mold on the next-generation console RPG, but it was a poor template; many developers, Square most notably, took a lot of bad habits from the success of FFVII and we're reaping what they have sown to this very day. FFVII changed what it meant to be an RPG, but it may have been a change for the worse.

I'm probably going to get fired if I keep posting into that Top 10 Consoles game from work anymore. And yeah, Flik's at NMB, though he hasn't been around as much as he was here. I wish I could transplant that whole consoles thread over to NMB - moderating and pushing the gaming folder there has been an uphill battle.

Numbers are great, but you need some context. FFVII had absolutely everything going its way before it even hit the shelves: Squaresoft had amassed an unbelievable cachet with the string of hits that ended its run on the SNES (Secret of Mana, Final Fantasy VI, Chrono Trigger), the Final Fantasy name was already being considered one of the top gaming franchises out there (and this was before the RPG boom that came after FFVII), Sony was preparing to unleash an unprecedented marketing campaign to push it, and FFVII was to be this hot company's first 3D offering on a new platform after a controversial decision to part ways with Nintendo. Now compare that against Goldeneye, which was a standalone game based on a license for a movie series that was just starting to crawl back into cultural relevance. That's it - that's the list. Rare was a known developer, but they didn't become Rare until this game hit. Word of mouth and critical reviews carried this game into legendary status. I don't want to derail this into an anti-FFVII thread because, as I've mentioned, I've gone down this road a gazillion times on this site. All that I will say is that a great deal of FFVII's historical value comes from factors that don't necessarily have anything to do with the gameplay. It sold like mad and it legitimized the Playstation as a console - how much of the lightning in a bottle is really a result of the game itself?

Where's Yoshi's Island? I left it out because I was trying to avoid consecutive sequels in the list (notice how I left Final Fantasy IV out of other lists?), but it's definitely worthy of mention. F-Zero is an obvious one, but there are a few middle-tier games that aren't bad. The Top Gear games were pretty good, and Rock 'n Roll Racing is a cult classic. This is the Playstation's biggest advantage over the SNES, though, as the first wave of PS1 titles was flooded with racing games and the library is stuffed to death with them. Well, for one, I'm not arguing against the PS2, just the PS1 offerings. Amazing as the SNES library may be, it can't really match up with the PS2. In terms of shooters, I think it becomes much closer when you isolate it down to the PS1, as the SNES has it's own fleet of R-Types (Super R-Type, R-Type III) to stand alongside UN Squadron, Axelay, Gradius III, and others. Super Mario Kart basically invented the Car Combat genre with its Battle Mode, but I'll grant you that Twisted Metal popularized it. Just out of curiosity, is there another "car combat" game on the PS1, other than Vigilante 8 and the Twisted Metal series? It's a very small genre. As far as RPGs go, I disagree with you - I feel the SNES aces the PS1 fairly handily. The PS1 is strong with FFVII, Final Fantasy Tactics, Suikoden II, and Xenogears, but is it really a match for Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy IV & VI, and Earthbound? The SNES has three of the most critically acclaimed games of all time in here, let alone being best in the genre, and even you yourself have held up Earthbound as an underappreciated classic. Even if you drag out the "second-tier" games like Persona, FFIX and Suikoden I, those have an uphill climb against the Lufia games, Super Mario RPG, Ogre Battle, etc. The SNES is loaded for bear in this category. As for the rest, it's difficult to really compare fairly, due to the technical limitations of the time. The SNES can't possibly compete with the PS1 on 3D fighters or 3D platformers, so it's hard to judge - the PS1 didn't have a lot of 2D platformers, but it didn't have to. So you're correct in the fact that there were new genres created with the Playstation, due to the upgrade to 3D, but I can't really hold that against the SNES. In fact, with so much of the SNES library holding on strong today, I hold that as a plus for the SNES, that it had so many classic games that it transcended the 2D/3D divide. What? The X-Box controller is a Dreamcast controller clone with extra buttons. Er, not sure I agree with you about the Controller S (that's not the original one with the Xbox launch). It's got virtually identical placement of the analogs and d-pad and the shape is closer to the Gamecube's as well. I see what you're talking about with the DC controller, with the four main buttons being multi-colored, but I still feel it's close to the GC than the DC. Same here, but CMW and I both live in Pennsylvania. I'm not sure that had anything to do with it or not. Just for the sake of reference, I live in the midwest and I think the most I ever had to pay for an N64 game was $54.95 for No Mercy. Most of the others I bought were at the $50 pricepoint or at a used price.

Here's my problem with Eternal Darkness. Everybody hangs their hat on the insanity effects, but they aren't altogether that original - that brand of "meta-gameplay" was popularized with the Psycho Mantis battle in MGS and, arguably, was introduced in the Mojo level on the Sega Genesis version of X-Men, where you had to "reset the Danger Room" by resetting the cartridge in the middle of the game. (Note: my continuity may be a little off here - Andrew, anybody, feel free to correct me. My overall point is that ED wasn't the first one to do it.) The gameplay is nice, but nothing that's revolutionary - it's essentially an action/horror title, with magic and limb-hacking added in. The graphics aren't exactly impressive and don't do much to enhance the creepy atmosphere (in it's defense, I believe it was originally intended for the N64). As far as far-reaching impact goes, it doesn't really stand alone as "the" action/horror game, nor did it influence a great deal of later games. If Nintendo had actually bothered to market the game and push it as the next step for survival horror games, it probably would have sold more and more developers would have taken notice. As it is, it's "just" a great game, a great game to compliment your core titles on the system, but nothing that you're going to build a system around, not a "killer app", per se. For what it's worth, it's one of my favorite games on the system.

To kkk: Did you even play Pac-Man and Donkey Kong on the 2600? Good lord. Pac-Man was an especially cruel joke (and damaging release on Atari's resume), as Pac-Man was the biggest video game icon of the time and the 2600 "port" - used as loosely as possible in this case - struggled to even capture the basics of the gameplay. It was a bomb of titanic proportions and it had more of a hand in the '83 crash than you think.

By the way, somebody wondered where the Atari 2600 was...so I'll ask back - why? Back then, the big player, as far as quality games are concerned, was the arcade. Sure, the 2600 is the big fish in the "first" console generation pool, but other than the fact that it was first, what did it give you? There are a few important games in there, but the remainder of the 2600 library consists of substandard arcade ports (Pac-Man is particularly atrocious) and a myriad of downright unplayable titles that probably shouldn't even be called games. The 2600 (along with the other consoles of the era) were carried on the novelty of "bringing the arcade" experience home, not on the library of games. Atari created a very sketchy foundation for gaming and, after it brought the house down with the crash in '83, Nintendo basically got to rebuild all of it (and do it 100000x better) with the NES.

I added the emphasis in bold. For one, let's set aside your first sentence, which is downright hysterical. Now, I might be wrong, but I'm thinking that part of the idea behind the Filter poll, as well as what we're talking about, relates to the historical impacts behind the consoles. If you're just going by whatever system has the best games, then the older systems don't have a chance in the world; you would just rank PS2, GC, Xbox, then DC, PS1, etc. There are exceptions, a few shining examples of older games, that are still very playable and very good but, by and large, games are "better" nowadays, in only by default. And the reason that they are "better" is because older games paved with way with innovative ideas. Those N64 games broke the mold; the Mario and Zelda releases, in particular, basically established design conventions for 3D platformers and adventure games that are still used today. You're already stretching it by saying that the GC iterations are better than the N64 originals - to say that Mario Sunshine and Wind Waker are more historically important is pure folly. You personally didn't like the multiplayer on Goldeneye. So what? Neither did I, but I don't think either of us cancel out millions of people who played their GoldenEye cartridges to death back then, or the thousands of people that still break it out and play it now. So far, it seems like the crux of your arguments all lie on the fact that, dammit, you just don't dig the N64 games and that's all there is to it. That doesn't diminish the impact that these games have had on the industry; if I were to assert my own personal biases as the only rating criteria, the Xbox wouldn't have even made my list, but I can't ignore the impact that games like Halo and Knights of the Old Republic (games that I really don't dig at all) had on the gaming masses. "From what you've heard"? Are these really the points you want to bring to this argument? The Thousand Year Door is a fine game but, once again, it's just one more round of something that we've already seen on the N64. You're going to lecture me about rehashes after your opening paragraph? Good gawd. Let's be realistic - though Eternal Darkness was more critically acclaimed, it didn't have the sales or the rabid fanbase that No Mercy has. There's a very large and vocal percentage of the wrestling community that still considers No Mercy the peak of the wrestling gaming genre, while begrudgingly buying Day of Reckoning 2 or whatever crap THQ pushes out their backdoor. Even if it's not still considered the standard of the genre, it's an absolute classic. I love and own both games, but I'm not going to delude myself that Eternal Darkness was some genre-altering release when I was able to pick it up used from Blockbuster for $13 two months after its release. It's a great, great action/horror game, but it's not the only game in town when it comes to that genre. Once again, this goes back to historical impact. There's no argument that the Gamecube doesn't have more fighters - due to the surge of multi-platform development in this generation, everybody's got them. You take away the multi-platform fighting releases, however, and you're left with Smash Bros. Melee, which - once again - happens to be another iteration of a Nintendo 64 game. I was generous before in that I didn't even mention how, out of all three consoles, the GC has the worst third-party support and the least amount of multi-platform games. The best systems have great games and pushes forward new ideas for gaming, through innovative games and hardware ideas. The Gamecube has a great assortment of games, but it lags behind in every other step of the way.

Okay, lots of stuff going on when I wasn't looking, so instead of massively quoting a ton of posts, I'll try to keep this short. 1. ABOBO'S nephew is awesome. 2. I played Valkyrie Profile a loooong time ago and, while I liked it, I wasn't blown completely away. Maybe I need to give it another spin. 3. Special K has a great point about the current console generation: with third-party developers making more cross platform games than ever, that tends the even out the playing field when it comes to game libraries (and put more focus on what's built into the console itself - hence why I ranked Xbox where I did on my list). 4. The Dual Shock's controller design is actually a pretty significant point in favor of the PS2, because the other two controllers in the generation are pretty bad. Microsoft managed to recover with the Controller S, but it's basically a better take on the Gamecube controller (which is a poorly conceived ripoff of the Dual Shock). The N64 controller did have analog and it did support force feedback, but the latter came through a separate addition and the former is somewhat nerfed by the fact that the N64 controller design borderlines on the psychotic. In my opinion, there's really no comparison. 5. ...okay, so I lied. I'll quote chaosrage directly: I don't think that's really a strong argument, actually. For one, I'll grant you that Mario Sunshine, Wind Waker, Double Dash, and Smash Bros. Melee have more impressive graphics than their N64 counterparts but, in many of the cases, the games weren't received as positively as their predecessors; gamers bitched about the water-based gameplay in Sunshine, others whined about having to sail all over the place in Wind Waker, and a fair size of people considered Double Dash and Melee to be generally inferior to the N64 offerings. I think it may be a push at best just on game quality alone and, when you factor in that the N64 games came first (and were wildly innovative and influential at the time), the N64 core titles win handily, in my opinion. You also mention Metroid Prime as a huge trump over Goldeneye, but I don't think there's any comparison in the multiplayer, especially when you compare each against what was out there at the time (Echoes against a gazillion console shooters, Goldeneye against virtually nothing). Goldeneye & Perfect Dark, overrated as they may be, basically invented the console FPS and are still played regularly today. I'd personally call MP/MP2 vs. Goldeneye/Perfect Dark a push. That leaves the rest of the games that you mentioned. And, just comparing head to head, I'd take Paper Mario over Tales of Symphonia, No Mercy over Eternal Darkness, and Majora's Mask over the Resident Evil remake. Super Monkey Ball and Viewtiful Joe are decent titles, but it's probably a push between them and, say, Mario Party and Conker's Bad Fur Day. Resident Evil 4 is the huge home run for the system, but it's losing out in so many other places that I'm not sure it over-compensates for it. The other titles that you mentioned were multi-platform titles and, ultimately, I don't think we can really use them in this kind of discussion because they don't give the console a distinct advantage over any other. Prince of Persia doesn't really give the Gamecube anything, if I own a PS2 as well - it's a wash. Unless there's a big gap between the versions (see: Viewtiful Joe series, Street Fighter II Turbo for SNES to Genesis, Grand Theft Auto III for PS2 to Xbox), I wouldn't consider it as a "win" for the system. The comment about the Gamecube as "N64 v2.0" is a very valid criticism. While everybody else in this console cycle has made leaps to support online gameplay and other innovations, the Gamecube has been stagnant. Additionally, many of the core games are reduxes of previous games on the N64. The only thing it's got going for it, outside of the software, is the Wavebird, which is hands down the best wireless controller out there.

Also, in response to a comment Andrew made earlier, I'm not really sure I buy that the SNES has a weaker library than the PS1. Given the same list of ten that I just made for the PS1 and N64, here's one for the SNES: Super Mario World Chrono Trigger Super Metroid Zelda: A Link To The Past Final Fantasy VI Secret of Mana Super Mario Kart Street Fighter II Turbo Super Castlevania IV Contra III: The Alien Wars That is a very strong list in my opinion and behind that first wave is a truckload of amazing games: Tetris Attack, Final Fantasy IV, Mega Man X, Actraiser, Super Punch Out, Gradius III, Ogre Battle, etc.

All I'll say about FFVII is that it's still on the GameFAQS top 10 FAQs because that's the religious work of choice for the next generation RPG gamer. It's like a church for them, constantly referencing FAQs for yet another batch of fan fiction. I personally don't feel the quality of the game is that great, but I've been down that road on this site a half-dozen times already. Just for the record, I loved Twisted Metal II back in the day. Just saying. I can't jump on board with your whole list of PS1 games that play very well today. If I had to pick from your list, here's the games I'd choose: If you're a big RPG fan or a big survival horror fan (aka if you were a GIA addict), then the list grows almost exponentially. That being said, I'm not a huge fan of the RPGs on the PS1 and, in my opinion, once you beat your survival horror games, there's not really much point in going back to them. They didn't have staying power at the time when they were released. Good thing you mentioned Metal Gear Solid...no idea how that slipped under my radar when mentioning the PS1 "home run games." Now, take the list that you had, and put it against this list for the N64: Super Mario 64 Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time Goldeneye Super Smash Bros. Super Mario Kart 64 Paper Mario Conker's Bad Fur Day Starfox 64 No Mercy Mario Party And that's leaving aside some other notable N64 games, like Perfect Dark, Rogue Squadron, Ogre Battle 64, Mario Tennis, Starcraft 64, Banjo, Turok, and Majora's Mask.

Did the conversion cart come with the system? I don't remember exactly - if it didn't, then I'd argue that it wasn't packaged in with the original console offering. If it did...well, all of the Atari systems after the 2800 died a horrible, horrible death, so there. But yeah, I'll grant you that I was incorrect in stating that the PS2 was the first. Mea culpa. As I mentioned before, not packaged in with the original system. I should have clarified on my original statement. Point taken, but that's my personal bias - I don't really feel there's any original gameboy games that really have a lot of merit outside of the portable realm.

Pikmin 1 and 2, MGS: TS, and Mario Sunshine are all fine games as well. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You've got me on the Pikmins, but the other two fall in line with what I edited into the post above. Twin Snakes is especially egregious, since it's a redux of a competing platform game from the previous generation, with a whacked out controller scheme, no less. (Any arguments against the Gamecube controller can use MGS as a data point, as far as I'm concerned.)

And the fact that, outside of the games you mentioned, there's a handful of worthwhile games on the system. I can think of Eternal Darkness and Animal Crossing...and that's about it. What am I missing? The Gamecube has the same top-loaded library issue as the N64, except that the innovation factor is gone and the top-tier games don't match up well with the N64. It's cruel fate that a port of RE4 was just released on the Playstation, when Resident Evil 4 might arguably be the best game on that system. Outside of RE4 and Metroid Prime, the top games you mentioned are reduxes of N64 games (Wind Waker from Ocarina of Time, Double Dash from Mario Kart 64, Smash Bros. Melee from Smash Bros., Paper Mario from...er, Paper Mario).

You do that and I'll go play some Pokemon Snap - I'll have all the time in the world to think between shots. This is what the Playstation 2 brings to the table: * For one, it introduced backwards compatibility to the home console ranks, which is huge - they were already had a headstart with the PS1 library in their pocket. * Secondly, it has the best controller design out of all of the consoles, in my opinion. (And sure, the Dual Shock design actually came during the PS1 cycle, but this was the first console where it was packaged in.) * Thirdly, it also introduced the ability of playing DVDs, which was a pretty significant trick. I don't think you could catch many people playing CDs in their PS1, but there were plenty of college dorm rooms that had a PS2 as the primary DVD player. * Finally (and most importantly), the library is LOADED. I don't want to spend an hour listing out all of the relevant games, but the PS2 library is not only balanced, but it's strong in virtually every genre. That's quantity and quality. The PS2 not only runs circles around the "mighty N64", but it aces all of the other consoles as well just by the sheer volume of what it offers. There is a reason that it is the top-selling console of all time. So, if there's no "credibility" in that argument, I'd like to see you tear it down. What's your counter-argument?

You know, I should probably amend this statement. The PS1 library is certainly balanced, but the problem is that the top games in the different genres have not aged well at all. For example, NFL Gameday was a fairly big game at the time, for bringing 3D gameplay to the football field, but there's virtually nobody on the planet that still breaks that game out and plays it and the majority of the remaining sports games on the system were mediocre at best. The balanced library is certainly a strength to the system, but the top games on the console just don't have the staying power that the N64's top tier does.

You know, despite the fact that he can't seem to put together a coherent sentence, that N64 fanboy guy does have a point: the N64 does still get play nowadays, simply because the multiplayer games for the console are so good. Let's be realistic - Special K mentioned a lot of games, but how many of those were really revolutionary at the time and how many are still played today? Wipeout XL? Star Ocean 2? There are some definite home runs (Resident Evil, Final Fantasy Tactics, Twisted Metal 2, Gran Turismo, Tekken 3, Castlevania: SOTN), but the rest of the expansive PS1 library has not aged gracefully. And if you put that list of PS1 games against the top N64 games - Mario 64, Zelda, Smash Bros., Goldeneye, Mario Kart 64, No Mercy - it doesn't really add up and it certainly doesn't overtake the N64 when you consider that Nintendo's offering was four player compatible out of the box. The argument for the N64 is quality over quantity and, even though the PS1 had a gazillion games that came out for it, it wasn't quite as balanced as history remembers it. If I had to do a list, I'd rank as follows: 1. Playstation 2 2. SNES 3. NES 4. Dreamcast 5. Nintendo 64 6. Game Boy 7. Xbox 8. Playstation 9. Sega Genesis 10. Gamecube

Speaking of board nostalgia, WDI's dead.

Now that's pretty funny.

http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/index.php?...0entry1947325 "Classy..." Oh, get the sand out of your vagina, you fucking pussy. If my offhand (and completely valid) comments fractured Dames' precious ego, then perhaps he needs to continue out the door and continue his long walk off of a short pier. Of course, since he subtitled his farewell thread "The End of An Era", perhaps I'm giving him way too much credit as it is. In either case, it's a message board - one that he managed to check every couple of months for self-validation, much to the detriment of the entire community - so if my nasty words managed to scar you or anybody else's delicate sensibilities, I invite you to re-evaluate your priorities in life.

Never mind that you're ragging somebody for discussing pop culture on the internet (excellent work, btw). Let's get down to the real issue. You do know you're not ragging CJ, right? This is Bruiser Chong, Dave. You do know the difference between them, right? Because this seems like you just dug into the box of unused arguments for CJ, rather than actually rebut any part of what Bruiser had to say. In arguments, I think they call that a strawman.