Top 10 Consoles According to G4 Fans

[chaosrage 0]

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

 

But many would say they liked Sunshine and Wind Waker better. Gamers bitched about the crappy camera angles in Mario 64 and the small world (half of it being a barren field with no secrets) of Ocarina too. I loved the sailing in WW, it provided the exploration aspect that Zelda games used to be known for and was sadly missing from Ocarina. I loved that in Sunshine, the jetpack allowed you to have a second chance if you happened to fall off of a ledge and you didn't have to start all over if you were given a bad camera angle. That made a few stages in Mario 64 tedious as hell. (The existence of the clock tower stage should be proof enough that Sunshine is a better game) I didn't like being stuck in the little small squares in Mario 64, Sunshine's stages were much larger and required less going to same spot over and over. The platforming special levels they added were cool. And I didn't mention graphics yet, but they didn't hurt. I accept that some people don't care about exploring and found sailing to be boring, but I'll never understand why anyone likes Mario 64 over Sunshine.

 

Don't think just because the Cube games had lower ratings that it means reviewers thought they weren't as good. If you look in the review, usually you'll find them saying something like "It's improved in every single way." or "If you liked the N64 game, you won't be disappointed." The reason a lot of reviewers didn't rate them as high is because they weren't as revolutionary.

 

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

 

Well I mentioned the multiplayer separately but I wasn't a huge fan of Goldeneye's multiplayer anyway. Deathmatches always seemed to be determined by just who was the biggest Goldeneye nerd in the group, whenever you died they would go to the spot they knew you'd pop out at, and plant a mine or something causing instant death. It was kinda lame. Or they would look at your little square, know from the discoloration of spots on the walls exactly where you were and be able to find you. Besides, Super Monkey Ball's multiplayer more than puts any multiplayer on N64 to shame.

 

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

 

I haven't played Paper Mario, but from what I've heard Thousand Year Door was better.

 

No Mercy over Eternal Darkness

 

I'm sorry, no offense, but if you'd take a rehashed wrestling game (A really flawed one at that) over a game that provides a completely unique experience, an amazing atmosphere, and a terrific storyline, wow, remind me never to ask you for a recommendation.

 

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.

 

They give it a distinct advantage over the N64. N64 was lacking in fighters, while Gamecube has Soul Calibur 2, one of the greatest fighters ever. Regardless of whether or not it was on other systems, Gamecube has all genres covered. I can't see why it would matter if it was a multi-platform game. Having those games makes it a better system.

 

The comment about the Gamecube as "N64 v2.0" is a very valid criticism.

 

I used to say the same thing until the Metroids, Eternal Darkness, the Super Monkey Balls, the Resident Evils, the Viewtiful Joes, Soul Calibur 2, and rpgs came out. If none of those had ever come out except for the first Metroid Prime, Eternal Darkness, and F-Zero GX (one of the most fun and addictive games I've played in years, F-Zero reminded me why I still play games), I would still say Gamecube was the superior system. Because they were that good. All of the other games just push it further away IMO. Especially RE4 which just sealed it. And it's not even over yet. There's at least one more Zelda on the way.

[chaosrage 0]

1. NES

2. SNES

3. Playstation

4. Gamecube

5. Playstation 2 (This could change once I get my hands on God of War, Shadow of the Colossus, and DW8)

6. Dreamcast

7. Genesis

8. Game Boy

9. Nintendo 64

10. Saturn

[Masked Man of Mystery 0]

I can only base this on systems I own/owned, but here they are:

1. Nintendo 64

2 tie Super NES(I should note I appreciated the system much more once I got into emulation) and Gamecube

3. Playstation 2

4. Nintendo

5. Game Boy

6. Game Gear

[The Man in Blak 0]

Don't think just because the Cube games had lower ratings that it means reviewers thought they weren't as good.  If you look in the review, usually you'll find them saying something like "It's improved in every single way." or "If you liked the N64 game, you won't be disappointed." The reason a lot of reviewers didn't rate them as high is because they weren't as revolutionary.

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.

 

Well I mentioned the multiplayer separately but I wasn't a huge fan of Goldeneye's multiplayer anyway.  Deathmatches always seemed to be determined by just who was the biggest Goldeneye nerd in the group, whenever you died they would go to the spot they knew you'd pop out at, and plant a mine or something causing instant death.  It was kinda lame.  Or they would look at your little square, know from the discoloration of spots on the walls exactly where you were and be able to find you.  Besides, Super Monkey Ball's multiplayer more than puts any multiplayer on N64 to shame.

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.

 

I haven't played Paper Mario, but from what I've heard Thousand Year Door was better.

"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.

 

I'm sorry, no offense, but if you'd take a rehashed wrestling game (A really flawed one at that) over a game that provides a completely unique experience, an amazing atmosphere, and a terrific storyline, wow, remind me never to ask you for a recommendation.

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.

 

They give it a distinct advantage over the N64.  N64 was lacking in fighters, while Gamecube has Soul Calibur 2, one of the greatest fighters ever.  Regardless of whether or not it was on other systems, Gamecube has all genres covered.  I can't see why it would matter if it was a multi-platform game.  Having those games makes it a better system.

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.

 

I used to say the same thing until the Metroids, Eternal Darkness, the Super Monkey Balls, the Resident Evils, the Viewtiful Joes, Soul Calibur 2, and rpgs came out.  If none of those had ever come out except for the first Metroid Prime, Eternal Darkness, and F-Zero GX (one of the most fun and addictive games I've played in years, F-Zero reminded me why I still play games), I would still say Gamecube was the superior system.  Because they were that good.  All of the other games just push it further away IMO.  Especially RE4 which just sealed it.  And it's not even over yet.  There's at least one more Zelda on the way.

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.

[The Man in Blak 0]

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.

[4hartthreat 0]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Man do you ever have him pegged. This is so true it's not even funny.

 

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.

 

Very sad, but very true.

 

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 No Mercy and agree that it is a classic, but I still contend that WCW/NWO: Revenge was the peak. But whatever, close enough.

 

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.

 

Well also don't delude yourself into thinking that somehow No Mercy was some kind of genre-altering game either. I would say neither of these were revolutionary games, but if you had to argue for one it would have to be eternal darkness and its insanity effects, because No Mercy was nothing more than the last entry in a long line of great n64 wrestling titles.

 

 

Of course, in the end I agree with you that the 64 was the superior system. I just couldn't stand by and watch my favorite game for the gc get spat on for a wrestling game that was just like the other 3 before it. And I realize you acknowledged ED was a great game, but I still don't think you were giving it the credit it deserves.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

The Atari has just been so completely eclipsed that it isn't really relevant or worth including beyond an honourable mention and a pat on the back. Not to mention the ugly stigma of being associated with the crash and indirectly causing it.

 

Consoles don't cause industry crashes -- Games featuring ET do.

 

Pac man, Donkey Kong, Asteroids, all for nothing? Buncha haters at this place...

[AndrewTS 0]

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.

 

Where's Yoshi's Island?

 

With virtually all of those games in my collection, I have to say that, yeah, SNES should be up there, but the sheer quantity of quality titles in every genre on the PS2/1 has it beat.

 

Try to name 3 quality racing games on SNES that are worth playing now--and SMK doesn't count. Tough, eh? Meanwhile, PS1 has the Ridges, the GTs, Jet Moto, Wipeout, NFS, the decent Daytona clone Burning Road, *I* like Motor Toon a lot...SNES has SMK and F-Zero but that's about it.

 

PS1/2 has genres that never even existed back then--car combat in TM for instance, 2 platformers as well as good 3D platformers, and naturally 3D fighters.

 

Shooters aren't really any comparison. PS1 has the Ray trilogy, Einhandler, R-Types. PS2 has Gradius V, RT Final, Castle Shikagami, Espgaluda, and more.

 

And while the SNES has several classic RPGs (including some never released in the US), the PS1 and PS2 have much larger and deeper varieties.

 

The fact that SNES stacks up as well as it does back then to today, when the US gaming market has exploded to a much, much larger industry since, is still a testament to it.

 

Gamecube to me was just a wasted oppertunity, it's easily the most technologically advanced of the three current consoles, but hasn't really seen a major third-party release since RE4 back in January, and probobly won't see anymore for the rest of it's existance.

 

Not really--it lacks the raw power of the X-Box, it is weaker in some aspects than the PS2--but it's very smartly designed and well made. However, its biggest flaws are 1) lack of internal RAM 2) small storage space on the GC discs.

 

The controller's much better than the N64's (though the Dual Shock IS clearly the best.)

 

I disagree that it's better than the N64's. The d-pad for GC is too small and placed poorly--I preferred the N64's ability to make flexible use of both. The analog thumbpad on the GC controller may be more versatile than the N64's, it seemed like Mario always responded better on the N64 than on the GC.

 

Plus that C-stick...what the hell is up with that?

 

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).

 

What?

 

The X-Box controller is a Dreamcast controller clone with extra buttons.

 

To everyone that said that their N64 games were 60-80 dollars...

 

Where the HELL did you shop? I NEVER had to pay more than 50 bucks for a N64 game...EVER!

 

Same here, but CMW and I both live in Pennsylvania. I'm not sure that had anything to do with it or not.

 

I think the way it worked was that the 5200 had a conversion cart put out at a later date... after Intellivision already released a device that would allow 2400 games to be played on their system. Strike one for Atari.

 

The 7800 had it already built in, allowing for 2400 games to be played... since 2400 was pretty much the more popular of the two. However, the 5200 compatibility wasn't built in, it's said due to differing cartridge types, although a coversion cart for that was planned but never released.

 

Okay, thanks for clarifying that--those damn number systems for the Ataris confuse the heck out of me.

 

Spyro was a good series too, before being handed off to another company (Vivendi Universal, I believe).

 

Yeah--Insomniac (the Spyro folks) and Naughty Dog (the Crash folks) both handed over the licenses to VU, who have been making mediocre-to-utter-crap titles since with them.

 

Meanwhile, they've had a bit of a rivalry going with the R&C/Jak games. However, the original R&C was built upon the engine Jak & Daxter used--there's even a picture of Jak (I believe on R&C's tv screen) in R&C.

[The Man in Blak 0]

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.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Since everybody else is doing it...

 

1) SNES

2) Playstation 2

3) NES

 

Those are the big three, after that things get much closer.

 

4) N64

5) Dreamcast

6) Playstation

7) Atari 2600

8) GameCube

9) Genesis

10) Neo-Geo

[Robert 0]

Oh god, how much money I forked out for Pac Man and Donkey Kong on the Atari. Pac Man, they changed the maze design and I couldn't even look up. Donkey Kong was just brutal to play, after I spent eight hours trying to beat the arcade version. I think the Atari ruined it's reputation with Jaguar and Linxs. ET made me wanna gouge my eyes out with a blunt pencil. Games like that ruined the Atari for me. I got my N64 games, new for about 10 bucks ay mt local video store.

[Black Lushus 0]

I think Atari has a spectacular ARCADE run in the late 80s, that's about all i ever cared for them:

 

Gauntlet 1&2

Xybots

Vindicators

Toobin

ROLLING THUNDER~!

Roadblasters

Paperboy

 

uhhhh I know I'm missing some good ones...someone help me out...

[The Man in Blak 0]

Well also don't delude yourself into thinking that somehow No Mercy was some kind of genre-altering game either. I would say neither of these were revolutionary games, but if you had to argue for one it would have to be eternal darkness and its insanity effects, because No Mercy was nothing more than the last entry in a long line of great n64 wrestling titles.

 

Of course, in the end I agree with you that the 64 was the superior system. I just couldn't stand by and watch my favorite game for the gc get spat on for a wrestling game that was just like the other 3 before it. And I realize you acknowledged ED was a great game, but I still don't think you were giving it the credit it deserves.

 

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.

[Special K 0]

Just wanted to point out:

 

MiB, you say you don't like the Goldeneye multiplayer, but it was a really popular game.

 

If you're going to consider popularity, then FFVII beats the living shit out of pretty much every (modern) game ever. It's not even close.

 

It sold something like 2.5 million copies in japan in the FIRST 3 DAYS. I think GTA3 was the high seller in 2001 with 2 million copies period.

 

EDIT: Never mind, let me eat a bit of crow. Goldeneye sold slightly better than FFVII. They're both still in the top 20.

 

EDIT AGAIN: Now I see a list that pegs Goledeneye as having sold slightly less than FFVII. Either way, it sold lots.

[Guest ABOBO]

I like the lists that show the amount of games sold compared to amount of systems sold. Gives a better view of what was happening then.

[The Man in Blak 0]

I don't 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.

 

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.

 

Try to name 3 quality racing games on SNES that are worth playing now--and SMK doesn't count.   Tough, eh?  Meanwhile, PS1 has the Ridges, the GTs, Jet Moto, Wipeout, NFS,  the decent Daytona clone Burning Road, *I* like Motor Toon a lot...SNES has SMK and F-Zero but that's about it.

 

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.

 

PS1/2 has genres that never even existed back then--car combat in TM for instance, 2 platformers as well as good 3D platformers, and naturally 3D fighters.

 

Shooters aren't really any comparison.  PS1 has the Ray trilogy, Einhandler, R-Types. PS2 has Gradius V, RT Final, Castle Shikagami, Espgaluda, and more.

 

And while the SNES has several classic RPGs (including some never released in the US), the PS1 and PS2 have much larger and deeper varieties.

 

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.

 

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).

 

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.

 

To everyone that said that their N64 games were 60-80 dollars...

 

Where the HELL did you shop? I NEVER had to pay more than 50 bucks for a N64 game...EVER!

 

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.

[jwpeer 0]

Snes racers = Uniracers

 

That game is awesometastic

[The Man in Blak 0]

Just wanted to point out:

 

MiB, you say you don't like the Goldeneye multiplayer, but it was a really popular game.

 

If you're going to consider popularity, then FFVII beats the living shit out of pretty much every (modern) game ever. It's not even close.

 

It sold something like 2.5 million copies in japan in the FIRST 3 DAYS. I think GTA3 was the high seller in 2001 with 2 million copies period.

 

EDIT: Never mind, let me eat a bit of crow. Goldeneye sold slightly better than FFVII. They're both still in the top 20.

 

EDIT AGAIN: Now I see a list that pegs Goledeneye as having sold slightly less than FFVII. Either way, it sold lots.

 

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?

[jwpeer 0]

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?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

QFT.

 

 

FF7 is the most underwhelming game ever. I remember absolutely adoring the game while I played it...and then when I looked at the game evena few months later realizing that I enjoyed it mostly just knowing I was partaking in this huge hype machine, not because it was really that amazing of a game (I contend that if the widely panned FF8 were released in place of FF7 it would have equal acclaim, if not more because FF8 is the superior game in nearly every way)

 

 

However, I will disagree with your statement on rare, ever since battletoads they were considered a quality and innovative developer...perhaps without the mainstream cachet of Squaresoft, but with a great reputation for breaking new ground.

[Special K 0]

Considering that RPGs never sold well in the US, and the game CREATED a genre boom, and the MASSIVE enduring following (trivialize it as nerds and fanfic lovers, it's still absolutely huge.) I think FFVII did pretty well for itself. Final Fantasy VI is my favorite game of all time, but it wasn't a huge, monstrous success. Final Fantasy IV was such a hit they decided not to bring FFV over to the states. If FFVII wasn't a good game, people would have bought it on hype and pretty graphics, and never bought an RPG again. That wasn't the case. It created a boom in the market. Being ranked in the top 10 on GameFAQS FAQS means people are still playing it. If it was just people reading fanfics, that's what the board rankings are for. You know why threads get derailed when FFVII gets mentioned? Because people really, actually LOVE that fucking game. Myself included.

 

I'm sorry, but if you say that Goldeneye is a good game because it is/was popular, you have to apply the same criterium to FFVII.

 

Also, there were a ton of N64's and a severe dearth of good games. Perfect Dark was arguably better than Goldeneye, and it sold less than a quarter as much, because there were a lot of good games on the system at the time. People weren't starving for a good title.

 

 

And the SNES pwns the PSX's RPG collection. Though PSX is clearly #2. Remember when Square could do no wrong?

[jwpeer 0]

Considering that RPGs never sold well in the US, and the game CREATED a genre boom, and the MASSIVE enduring following (trivialize it as nerds and fanfic lovers, it's still absolutely huge.) I think FFVII did pretty well for itself. Final Fantasy VI is my favorite game of all time, but it wasn't a huge, monstrous success. Final Fantasy IV was such a hit they decided not to bring FFV over to the states. If FFVII wasn't a good game, people would have bought it on hype and pretty graphics, and never bought an RPG again. That wasn't the case. It created a boom in the market. Being ranked in the top 10 on GameFAQS FAQS means people are still playing it. If it was just people reading fanfics, that's what the board rankings are for. You know why threads get derailed when FFVII gets mentioned? Because people really, actually LOVE that fucking game. Myself included.

 

I'm sorry, but if you say that Goldeneye is a good game because it is/was popular, you have to apply the same criterium to FFVII.

 

Also, there were a ton of N64's and a severe dearth of good games. Perfect Dark was arguably better than Goldeneye, and it sold less than a quarter as much, because there were a lot of good games on the system at the time. People weren't starving for a good title.

 

 

And the SNES pwns the PSX's RPG collection. Though PSX is clearly #2. Remember when Square could do no wrong?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

Hmm, I'm not saying FF7 was a terrible game, but it's remembered as much for the hype as any sort of ground breaking gameplay. I don't consider goldeneye a great game either, it's a -decent- game and lots of fun (But I can have more fun playing a game of Timesplitters: Future Perfect on my xbox right now, than going back to play goldeneye for nostalgia purposes)

 

 

 

SNES vs. PSX rpg collection is really no contest the more I think about it. I can rattle off 16 GREAT to good snes rpg's(SoM, SoE, Chrono Trigger, Terranigma, FFIV, FFVI, Ogre Battle, Lufia, Lufia II, Earthbound, 7th Saga, Paladin's Quest(probably mf avorite because of how different it was), Robotrek, Uncharted Waters: New Horizons(startegy rpg), Super Mario RPG, and plenty of others) ...but the list of psx rpg's comparable to those in quality just isn't there (Vandal Hearts, FFVII, FFVIII, Dragon Quest VII, Persona, persona 2, Legend of Mana, Star Ocean, FF Tactics, Tales of Destiny, Talkes of Eternia)

 

 

Eh...I barely play rpg's anymore though, that's the sad part.

[Guest ABOBO]

It's hard to play RPG's once you get older and can't waste the 60 hours per game or are exposed to enough of the cliches that come with the genre. Here's a good old list of those in fact. http://project-apollo.net/text/rpg.html

[jwpeer 0]

It's hard to play RPG's once you get older and can't waste the 60 hours per game or are exposed to enough of the cliches that come with the genre.  Here's a good old list of those in fact. http://project-apollo.net/text/rpg.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think it is the cliches, as the only rpg's I really can invest my time into are Morrowind and stuff that's incredibly open-ended and such...

 

Heck I enjoy the superstar mode of Madden as an rpg as much as a football game, because it's stat development driven

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I don't necessarily think it is the cliches. Just that modern RPGs aren't nearly as good. Specifically the actual gameplay part of the game has disappeared in favour of the 20 minute cutscene. Back in the SNES and early PS1 days characters would have a couple of lines of dialogue before sending you off to the next dungeon.

[Rendclaw 0]

To everyone that said that their N64 games were 60-80 dollars...

 

Where the HELL did you shop?  I NEVER had to pay more than 50 bucks for a N64 game...EVER!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I was working in the Media section of a Best Buy in Orlando in 1995, when the N64 was released. Each game I think except for Super Mario World was at least 60 dollars, with a few going into triple digits. As I said before, people were outraged but they ponied up for them anyway, because their kids were screaming for them.

 

As for the Atari 2600 dislike, thats a generational thing. I hate to pull the "back in my day" card (especially since I am looking my 37th birthday right in the face in a little more than a month), but its hard for most gamers under the age of, say, 27 or 28 to remember what the 2600 meant, given the level of technology back in the late 70s. At one point I think I owned about 25-30 games. If you weren;t in on it from the beginning and through the console wars from 79 (when the Intellivision debuted) through 82 (when the Colecovision came out), you cannot truly understand what it was like.

 

And yes, Pac-Man was a HUGE disappointment, along with ET. But those were only two instances in a long line of them that caused the crash. Not that I noticed, I was still an arcade hound through the 80s. Only towards the middle to late 80s did I notice that there were only two arcades around, the one in the mall which had been around since before 1976 (when it was mostly pinball and air hockey) was closed down for good, and even on Saturdays from 85 on (when the NES came out), less people were going to the arcades.

 

Anyway, gamers are into the second and third generations, and since scorn between generations about pretty much everything (food, sports, movies, music, et. al.) runs strongly, its understandable to me how a gamer of today would not have the same understanding and affection for a gaming system he did not grow up with.

[Rendclaw 0]

I don't necessarily think it is the cliches.  Just that modern RPGs aren't nearly as good.  Specifically the actual gameplay part of the game has disappeared in favour of the 20 minute cutscene.  Back in the SNES and early PS1 days characters would have a couple of lines of dialogue before sending you off to the next dungeon.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There should be a happy medium someplace, along the lines of Lunar, but even that got excessive at some points.

[The Man in Blak 0]

Final Fantasy VI is my favorite game of all time, but it wasn't a huge, monstrous success. Final Fantasy IV was such a hit they decided not to bring FFV over to the states.

 

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.

 

I'm sorry, but if you say that Goldeneye is a good game because it is/was popular, you have to apply the same criterium to FFVII.

 

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.

[The Man in Blak 0]

It's hard to play RPG's once you get older and can't waste the 60 hours per game or are exposed to enough of the cliches that come with the genre.  Here's a good old list of those in fact. http://project-apollo.net/text/rpg.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

#162 is my personal favorite:

 

The Ineffectual Ex-Villain Theorem (Col. Mullen Rule)

No matter how tough and bad-ass one of the Other Side's henchmen is, if he bails to the side of Good he'll turn out to be not quite tough and bad-ass enough. The main villain will defeat him easily. But don't weep -- usually he'll manage to escape just in time, leaving you to deal with the fate that was meant for him.

[EricMM 0]

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.

 

As someone who has played OoT, Majoras Mask, and Wind Waker, Wind Waker was, despite the sailing, the better game.

 

Double Dash KILLS 64, with the amount of carts and racers you can use, the varied weapons and the number of tracks. I played MK64 a few months ago, it's just not as good as DD.

 

I've never heard Melee vs. regular SSB arguments before, I'd be quite interested in seeing them. The vast vast vast amount of stuff that Nintendo put into SSB:M changed it from just a fun fighting game/party game into a Nintendo retro love fest, and was better for it. The levels, the characters, the graphics, the weapons. The only possible complaint I can think is that the GC's controller was *worse* for fighting games than the N64's was.

 

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.

 

I really gotta say, tough shit.

 

Just because games like Soul Blade and Tekken 3 were impossible on the SNES doesn't mean that the PSX isn't a better fighting system for including those games as well as alpha3. Ditto the racers. the argument has to go quality vs. quality. Thats why the RPG argument is fair because in a LOT of ways, FFVI is better than FFVII. But comparing Einhander to R-Type... Not as easy.

 

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.

 

Didn't that happen after the release of FFVII though? Anything with the name FF was brought over after that games success...

 

To obsess over FFVII's negatives isn't fair. Although there were mistakes and trends that led to a rarity of good RPGs for years, FFVII kept enough of FFVI's quality to be a good / great game. Certainly not a bad game. FFVIII, however. Eesh...

[Youth N Asia 0]

Snes racers = Uniracers

 

That game is awesometastic

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I was badass at that game, fun fun fun. Although when I was a youngin' I was annoyed it wouldn't let you put in curse words for the names.