|
|
Post by Pilgrim John on Jun 7, 2007 17:41:34 GMT -5
OK, here's the question. We've all seen hundreds of great games for several generations of consoles. But which now-ancient system pulled out the best ones? Would the NES's Contra and Zelda beat out the PSone's Symphony of the Night and FFVII? Which rocked harder: GBA's Mario & Luigi: Superstar Sage and Wario Land 4, or PS2's Devil May Cry and Okami?
But of course, that's for you guys to decide.
|
|
|
|
Post by fatherlorris on Jun 7, 2007 18:47:35 GMT -5
It is the N64 for me, great Zelda games, Super Mario 64, the birth of the smash bros. the list goes on. Even when faced with competition the N64, in my opinion, remained top.
|
|
|
|
Post by Waffle Monger on Jun 7, 2007 20:47:27 GMT -5
SNES 1st with PS1 as 2nd.
Earthbound
Final Fantasy II
Final Fantasy III
Super Mario World
Super Mario All Stars
Mario Kart
Super Mario RPG
Super Metroid
Legend of Zelda A Link to the Past (best Zelda IMO)
list goes on and on and on
|
|
|
|
Post by gamefreaks365 on Jun 8, 2007 4:12:31 GMT -5
Nintendo forum, but PS2 is my kind of system. I thought it had a horrible launch, followed by some incredibly strong years to follow. 2004 and 2005 were the best by far, completely put GCN and Xbox to shame.
God of War I & II
Metal Gear Solid 3
Shadow of the Colossus
Okami
Resident Evil 4
Devil May Cry
Burnout 3
Guitar Hero
Final Fantasy XII
all of the Ratchet & Clank's
SOCOM.
This folks is a modern NES in terms of mass market appeal and number of amazing titles. My second choice would be either the N64 or Dreamcast. I loved the N64 for GoldenEye, Super Mario 64, Mario Kart and so many others. I also loved the Dreamcast for its sports games, MSR (sorry Xbox, this was the first real Project Gotham Racing), MDK 2, Soul Calibur, Quake III, Virtua Tennis, Crazy Taxi, Shenmue, Skies of Arcadia, and of course Sonic Adventure I & II (even though they weren't that great compared to the 2D Sonics).
|
|
|
|
Post by Pilgrim John on Jun 8, 2007 7:38:01 GMT -5
Argh, I forgot about the Dreamcast and Saturn. TToTT
btw, RE4 on PS2 doesn't count because it isn't exclusive. Plus, it was put on the Gamecube FIRST, therefore you can't rightly say it was "one of PS2's greatest exclusive games." All the other games everyone else is listing here was exclusive to that system. Besides, RE4 didn't control as well as it did on Gamecube. Leon would suddenly walk when I wanted him to run, he wouldn't turn quickly enough, etc. Got my head chopped off more than once. I don't care if it has exclusive content (Which won't be exclusive much longer, thanks to the Wii), it needs sharp controls if it wants to entertain.
Sure, the PS2 had huge market appeal, but it also had no soul. Referring it to the NES is a bit much, though; it felt more like the Genesis or SNES.
|
|
|
|
Post by gamefreaks365 on Jun 10, 2007 0:30:06 GMT -5
Not really. The PS2 dominated the market more than any other console since the NES. And I never said anything about Resident Evil 4 being exclusive to PS2. It doesn't have to be, and it doesn't matter where it appeared first. It is still a PS2 title, just like it is going to be a Wii title in a couple weeks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Waffle Monger on Jun 10, 2007 15:55:54 GMT -5
Multi-platform games don't count on this. Only exclusive titles, with the exception of remakes and stuff like NES games being put on virtual console and GBA.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pilgrim John on Jun 10, 2007 16:47:30 GMT -5
Not really. The PS2 dominated the market more than any other console since the NES. So that automatically qualifies it as a Neo-NES? Hardly. While games like Okami and Devil May Cry were very awesome games and very creative, those games (As a matter of fact, most games on PS2) were made by third-party publishers. Not Sony. ON the NES, Nintendo pulled its fair share of awesome games right along with the third party guys. Contra, Castlevania, and Megaman on one end and Mario, Zelda, and Kid Icarus on the other. With PS2, you've got Devil May Cry, MGS3, and Final Fantasy X/XII on one side, plus, um, maybe the first Sly Cooper (The other two weren't all that great), and Shadow of the Colossus plus ICO. That's right: only three Sony games make the cut for a lot of people, including me. And even then, they just don't reach the lofty heights of Nintendo's first-party games... or the games of their third-party supporters, who are beginning to jump ship from PlayStation to Xbox and Wii/DS as we speak. Nintendo survived when almost no thrid-party support was coming in, just because they're responsible for Mario and Zelda. While they can do just fine without anyone else, Sony (And Microsoft) wouldn't last if the same thing happened to them. You're forgetting who made the NES and who made the PS2, and the large difference between the two parties. |
|
|
|
Post by Waffle Monger on Jun 10, 2007 18:50:40 GMT -5
actually correction on that last part, Microsoft and Sony do pretty good, but Microsoft is even better with their inouse development and such with all the companies they have bought. I'd say that the majority of Microsoft Game Studio games to come out are top tier games like Nintendo.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pilgrim John on Jun 11, 2007 9:17:48 GMT -5
actually correction on that last part, Microsoft and Sony do pretty good, but Microsoft is even better with their inouse development and such with all the companies they have bought. I'd say that the majority of Microsoft Game Studio games to come out are top tier games like Nintendo. Halo is the accumulation of nearly every FPS and story cliche imaginable. There is no way that Halo (Or any Microsoft property, for that matter) is on par with the likes of Zelda and Mario. Halo is not as wild and creative as the Nintendo games, it's not nearly as compelling, and the only thing that really made it popular was its online capabilities. |
|
|
|
Post by Waffle Monger on Jun 11, 2007 12:33:08 GMT -5
actually correction on that last part, Microsoft and Sony do pretty good, but Microsoft is even better with their inouse development and such with all the companies they have bought. I'd say that the majority of Microsoft Game Studio games to come out are top tier games like Nintendo. Halo is the accumulation of nearly every FPS and story cliche imaginable. There is no way that Halo (Or any Microsoft property, for that matter) is on par with the likes of Zelda and Mario. Halo is not as wild and creative as the Nintendo games, it's not nearly as compelling, and the only thing that really made it popular was its online capabilities. Halo is Bungie, which was recently acquired by Microsoft, but I only think of it as a Bungie game and not Microsoft game because it isn't an inhouse developer and it has also been on the PC thus making it a multiplatform game. I do agree, Halo was a good game that did everything right, but it wasn't anything new or special, and I thought Halo 2 was boring. However, I do note on your bias there. First of all they are two totally different genres for different gamers. And imagination and creativity isn't important because one type of imagination appeals to one type of person and another type to another person. I do agree Mario and Zelda are good games, but them being different genres don't really make them better or worse. And seriously, Nintendo games as much as I love them haven't really reinvented themselves and are not as compelling as you say. Sure new worlds, weapons, and such, but the core gameplay has remained relatively the same for years, thus making them cliche of themselves. LoZ:TP was good, but it didn't change the Zelda series much, but was good none-the-less. Mario Sunshine was a fun colorful game, had some new gameplay elements, but was basically the same as Mario 64. Mario Galaxy will have something new, but basically won't change drastically. Not dissing Nintendo, not saving Microsoft's ass, but being bias isn't good for comparison. All of these games have flaws and there are very few original games anymore, being in gameplay and such. It is just different games appeal to different gamers but I think we can agree that multi-platform movie tie-in games SUCK. Btw, I think SNES is THE BEST!!! MUAHAHAHA EAT THAT SONY AND MS! |
|
*NormalGamer*
Phantom Ganon
"I await the 'new generation' of video gaming." - *NG*
Posts: 912
|
Post by *NormalGamer* on Jun 11, 2007 18:23:59 GMT -5
And imagination and creativity isn't important because one type of imagination appeals to one type of person and another type to another person. |
|
|
|
Post by Waffle Monger on Jun 11, 2007 19:26:52 GMT -5
And imagination and creativity isn't important because one type of imagination appeals to one type of person and another type to another person. one with a really wild imagination would go for the obscure. one with the mundane would go for the cliche. one who prefers a darker or macabre would for whatever appeals. look: mario = bright and colorful halo = sci-fi and grim resident evil = darker and horror or macabre sure that is stereotypical, but what i am really saying that just because one game doesn't appeal to you for your imagination purposes (going back to starting with John on this), it doesn't mean it is bad. |
|
*NormalGamer*
Phantom Ganon
"I await the 'new generation' of video gaming." - *NG*
Posts: 912
|
Post by *NormalGamer* on Jun 11, 2007 20:52:05 GMT -5
What do you mean by this? one with a really wild imagination would go for the obscure. one with the mundane would go for the cliche. one who prefers a darker or macabre would for whatever appeals. look: mario = bright and colorful halo = sci-fi and grim resident evil = darker and horror or macabre sure that is stereotypical, but what i am really saying that just because one game doesn't appeal to you for your imagination purposes (going back to starting with John on this), it doesn't mean it is bad.
So, in other words, all it boils down to in the end is about 'taste' and not simply about 'imagination' alone when it comes to playing the kinds of games you want.
Thanks for explaing it clearly. |
|
|
|
Post by Richard-RN on Jun 11, 2007 23:35:59 GMT -5
Hmm, an interesting poll no doubt. I think there is a big difference between what system had the greatest games ever and what system was "the best". I think that PS2 was almost inarguably the greatest system of last generation because of the sheer number of titles that came out for it. Sure, most of them were crap...but they also got some gems like the Nippon Icchi games, some stellar RPGs, and some great things finally coming out of Sony. I used to hold the exact same view as Pilgrim, but now I am a lot softer on Sony. Sure, they don't have the polish of Nintendo but they have Team Ico which I think is one of the more promising game devs out there. Both Ico and Shadow of the Colossus were really great concepts, but both (especially SotC) suffered from some gameplay issues that I can't help but think Nintendo would have taken care of had they developed the titles. God of War II sold 800k its first month out and catapulted the ps2 sales above even the Wii. Those kinds of numbers don't lie. Sony has got some great franchises out on the market now, and I for one think its fantastic for them. But similarly to Pilgrim, I agree that when Nintendo puts its heart into a game it is leagues beyond what I have ever seen from almost any other company. Gamecube is full of so many memories for me because it is the first system where I was old enough to buy my own games and I was able to try out gems like Pikmin that I never would have otherwise. I think that Pikmin 2 is definately one of my favorite new titles of the last gen, and that overall Twilight Princess and Metroid Prime 2 are two of my favorite games of all time. Of course, I have Twilight Princess on Wii and not GC, but its available nonetheless. I guess when it boils down to it I would vote the SNES, but the fact that its so hard to chose just shows what a great time it is to be a gamer. Look for some previews of a couple of niche titles I'm really interested in during the next couple of weeks guys  oops, got a little OT. Sorry for ranting, im tired |
|
