Which console do you want?

[WishMaster3K]

Re: Which console do you want?

FF is the same game. It's always about some king or emperor who wants to control or obtain elemental based crystals to rule the world. Or some madman who wants to be god-like. You lvl up go to the main villain's secret dungeon base and save the world. Same ole same ole, right?

And Samus always goes to a planet fully decked out, loses her powers, then you have to find them through a maze or sorts.

And Link always get's a Hookshot, upgraded swords and shields, travels from dungeon to dungeon so save a nation from a megalomanic.

And Mario is always selflessly hurling himself at a megalomanic in his own corner of the universe, some entity that has disturbed peace.

I said: " To argue that the leap in technology = innovation is a moot idea." Meaning that comparing the first Mario to the current Mario is like comparing a 1985 car to a 2006 car. We have certain standards on cars nowadays, because no one is going to want a new 2006 car wherin you have to wind the windows, or you don't have power locks, or you don't have AC.

You said: "Where was the leap in technology between SMB1 and SMB3? Didn't know that puzzles, overhead map, non-linear stages, a variety of specialized powerups was t he result of a technological leap. Oh wait, they were on the same system."

Totally missing the point. As time goes on, new ways of dealing with technology advance also. Perhaps this is us arguing the same point on this aspect, but GTA San Andreas was much better in terms of presentation and scale and scope than Liberty City.

Just like how time correlates with developer ability and knowledge, a game like God of War could not have come out in 2002.

Irregardless, what is your definition of innovation then?

Did anyone claim that videogame was Nintendo's invention?

I was going to comment on this, but then I saw

I'm more of a PC gamer.

Which registered your arguments henceforth invalid.

Please, enjoy your overly-simple FPSs, your very bad RPGs and your overabundant RTS.

Oh look, I can make stupid generalizations as well. Huzzah for me.

If you haven't noticed, each Zelda has been different and each Mario has been different...

Legend of Zelda 1 (NES) - Hyrule: Save Princess

Legend of Zelda 2 (NES) - Hyrule: Save Princess, fight your shadow

Legend of Zelda: Links Awakening (GBC) - Save Nation, save fish

Legend of Zelda: Link To the Past (SNES) - Hyrule: Save other people, but ultimately the princess (level 7) and beat Ganon. Again.

Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of time (N64) - Hyrule: Some stuff with Master Sword, but go to the future to save whom? Princess. Again. And fight Ganon. Again.

Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask (N64) - Hyrule/Termina - Save a nation of people incapable of doing it themselves. Again

Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages (GBC) - (forgot nation name) Interesting concept that I enjoyed and thought was a healthy distraction from Zelda, but ultimately, collect items, beat uber boss at the end that sought to destroy/rule the world/nation.

Legen of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons (GBC) - (Same as above) Didn't play this one, but they were interexchangable, so I can bet safe money the concept is the same as every Zelda.

Legend of Zelda: CelShaded Adventures (GC) (Hyrule) (Yes, Hyrule somehow must've come in contact with horrible mid-90s Kevin Costner films and sought to emulate Waterworld) This was fun despite the look, but ultimately, as always, You had to dungeon crawl. End boss- Ganon. Again. This time, Zelda helps you. Marginally, but at least she's not totally helpless this time. And I could have sworn it was going to start out and not involve this chick.

Devil's Advocate: All Zelda games can be argued to be different, but are actually fundamentally the same. I have no problem with that, but don't try to bash Final Fantasy and assume that Zelda is without fault.

Mario has many iterations, and perhaps I'll go over them. But replace Hyrule with Mushroom Kingdom, Zelda with Peach, Items with Powers, Ganon with Bowser, and you have a rough outline of how the games are similar in their own respect.

The only thing different about Nintendo is that they PLANNED on making franchises. Other companies have hit titles and it just so turns out that the sequels are sucessful, so more are made.

Which is why there was a DMC3 and why there is a MGS4 and why there is a Splinter Cell 15.

Nintendo makes rehashes, they're just intentional.

[Super Inappropriate Name]

Re: Which console do you want?

I think the funniest thing about all of this is that there are rabid Nintendo fanboys on a Final Fantasy XI forum. What is with the animosity towards Sony and Square-Enix? Were you guys not satisfied with CRYSTAL CHRONICLES?

[Dairuka]

Re: Which console do you want?

I think the funniest thing about all of this is that there are rabid Nintendo fanboys on a Final Fantasy XI forum. What is with the animosity towards Sony and Square-Enix? Were you guys not satisfied with CRYSTAL CHRONICLES?

Because everything you've said is essentially devoid of any reasoning, I'm just going to make one little statement about your chosen screen name: I'm sure Moses, the leader of the Judaeo excursion from Egypt would make a great Nazi.

Edited: To remove personal attacks for the sake of the web-forums rules.

[steveyos666]

Re: Which console do you want?

Too bad Samus didn't lose her clothes amirite guys?

[Joester]

Re: Which console do you want?

Legend of Zelda 1 (NES) - Hyrule: Save Princess

Legend of Zelda 2 (NES) - Hyrule: Save Princess, fight your shadow

Legend of Zelda: Links Awakening (GBC) - Save Nation, save fish

Legend of Zelda: Link To the Past (SNES) - Hyrule: Save other people, but ultimately the princess (level 7) and beat Ganon. Again.

Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of time (N64) - Hyrule: Some stuff with Master Sword, but go to the future to save whom? Princess. Again. And fight Ganon. Again.

Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask (N64) - Hyrule/Termina - Save a nation of people incapable of doing it themselves. Again

Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages (GBC) - (forgot nation name) Interesting concept that I enjoyed and thought was a healthy distraction from Zelda, but ultimately, collect items, beat uber boss at the end that sought to destroy/rule the world/nation.

Legen of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons (GBC) - (Same as above) Didn't play this one, but they were interexchangable, so I can bet safe money the concept is the same as every Zelda.

Legend of Zelda: CelShaded Adventures (GC) (Hyrule) (Yes, Hyrule somehow must've come in contact with horrible mid-90s Kevin Costner films and sought to emulate Waterworld) This was fun despite the look, but ultimately, as always, You had to dungeon crawl. End boss- Ganon. Again. This time, Zelda helps you. Marginally, but at least she's not totally helpless this time. And I could have sworn it was going to start out and not involve this chick.

Devil's Advocate: All Zelda games can be argued to be different, but are actually fundamentally the same. I have no problem with that, but don't try to bash Final Fantasy and assume that Zelda is without fault.

Mario has many iterations, and perhaps I'll go over them. But replace Hyrule with Mushroom Kingdom, Zelda with Peach, Items with Powers, Ganon with Bowser, and you have a rough outline of how the games are similar in their own respect.

The only thing different about Nintendo is that they PLANNED on making franchises. Other companies have hit titles and it just so turns out that the sequels are sucessful, so more are made.

Which is why there was a DMC3 and why there is a MGS4 and why there is a Splinter Cell 15.

Nintendo makes rehashes, they're just intentional.

Lawl.... LAWL.

Are you just discussing the story aspect of the games or waht? You make mention of the items and stuff but not really anything else.

First of all you can't compare Zelda and Mario to each other because they are different genres in that Zelda is an action/adventure game (sword slinging, pluzzle solving) and Mario is a platformer (puzzle solving, lots of jumping, and getting some kind of item to help you advance to the final level a la a shine or a star.) Zelda relys more on puzzles than Mario does... In mario the only kind of puzzle you have to figure out is how to jump to a certain point and so on.

I never claimed that Zelda and Mario are without fault... They are sequels and are made to make money just like Final Fantasy... they are both fun.

So yeah ummmm are you trying to say to me that there was now difference between Mario 3 and Mario World? Sure they were both 2d and involved saving the princess but they both had different gamepaly features. Mario World had the multiple exits and many different secrets while Mario 3 had a vast aray of power ups. mario World even threw in Yoshi. Not big enough of a leap for you?

Look at Mario 64 compared to Mario World. In Mario World you just have to make it through a level to move on... In Mario 64 you ahd to collect a certain amount of Stars to move on which required many different tasks. Sunshine expanded on that game by adding the water pac... whether or not you enjoyed that addition is irrelevant because it is adding something new to the series regardless... Sunshines also threw in 3d Yoshi as well as refined jumping.

Zelda has seen similar jumps as the games progressed.... Z targeting, new kinds of sword play, new items. So on. I would go into this as much depth as I did Mario but I am kind of tired...Maybe tomorrow.

Also buddy.... Metal Gear Solid hasn't been performing that well after MGS2 its sales have gone down. It's still popular but not as much as it once was.

Anyway I could go through how each Final Fantasy is the smae just like you did with Mario and Zelda but I know there is stuff that sets them a part and I enjoy playing them... So I'm not going to go through and do that... Plus it would take a long ass time to go through Final Fantasy I-X2.

[Sokarr]

Re: Which console do you want?

I think Solkarr needs to take a chill pill, or whatever pill will help him realize how much of a fanboy he really is. I suppose when you've got nothing left, you'll always have your memories; those memories of spending all day playing some two dimensional game instead of doing your homework, or spending all day playing some two dimensional game instead of getting a job like everybody else your age.

I provided nothing but factual objective basis and reasoning. Did I argue about preference? Did I argue about "fun"? Or "art" or anything else that is subjective?

LOGICAL: Marior 1 and Mario 3 and Mario 64 have entire different game play mechanics. This isn't "preference", it's something that you can actually see. It's tangible.

ILLOGICAL: Mario1, 3 and 64 are the same game because they feature the same character.

I'm sure you never meant to be referred to as a fanboy, but using your very own method of generalization I can easily label you as a fanboy, as well as several other titles.

I mocked his generalization. Hench "Ferrari, Hyundai, same thing, both are cars and have 4 wheels."

If you're vague enough.

It's alright if you played through the Final Fantasy series and couldn't pinpoint the subtle differences between them. I remeber the first time I ran around Balamb Garden and thought to myself "Hey! There's that machine shop where you get Tifa's final weapon!". To my surprise, Squall never did become a Guardian Force in an attempt to appease a decades old tradition. Maybe I missed that part...

You missed the part where I used his own generalization against him?

I WAS gonna say alot of things about how retarded in general this is but i just want to say that people are only defending Sony these days because they are #1, very rarely do people post these days arent totally biased on one side. The main deal is....i see people bashing Nintendo for things that Sony did as well, yet they totally overlook it just because is Sony even if they done the same things(or similar). Yet they dont admit its true or try to diverge the point of things when people bring it up >_>;

Being a fanboy is ok, but being one for no reason is...yeah @_@

I honestly don't care. I've provided tangible examples of innovation between titles. I didn't merely state a conclusion without no evidence to support it.

And Samus always goes to a planet fully decked out, loses her powers, then you have to find them through a maze or sorts.

The maze is always different.

And Link always get's a Hookshot, upgraded swords and shields, travels from dungeon to dungeon so save a nation from a megalomanic.

Actually Zelda II was more like Sleeping Zelda

And there was no hookshot in 1 or 2.

And 2 had that overworld map then the "battle" map.

There was no Ganon in II either.

And Mario is always selflessly hurling himself at a megalomanic in his own corner of the universe, some entity that has disturbed peace.

I'm pretty sure people play Mario purely for the engaging story line and not the platformer aspect.

I said: " To argue that the leap in technology = innovation is a moot idea." Meaning that comparing the first Mario to the current Mario is like comparing a 1985 car to a 2006 car. We have certain standards on cars nowadays, because no one is going to want a new 2006 car wherin you have to wind the windows, or you don't have power locks, or you don't have AC.

That doesnt explains the difference between Mario 1 to Mario 3 which was on the same platform, thus no technological leap. Not even going to go into Mario 2 US.

You said: "Where was the leap in technology between SMB1 and SMB3? Didn't know that puzzles, overhead map, non-linear stages, a variety of specialized powerups was t he result of a technological leap. Oh wait, they were on the same system."

Totally missing the point. As time goes on, new ways of dealing with technology advance also. Perhaps this is us arguing the same point on this aspect, but GTA San Andreas was much better in terms of presentation and scale and scope than Liberty City.

non-linear stages, overhead map, puzzles has absolutely nothing to do with technology. Neither does presentation, scale, and scope IF the platform is the same. Since SMB1 and SMB3 were on the same system and GTAIII and GTAVC were also on the same system, technology wouldn't account for any leap in game play. That's up to the developers to devise new ways to play the game.

Just like how time correlates with developer ability and knowledge, a game like God of War could not have come out in 2002.

In regards to what? A lot of the game play elements in GoW could have been done at any point in the last/present generation or even the previous. You're impling that the GoW couldn't have been produced earlier on the PS2 because it was technically unfeasible. That's a baseless claim.

[QUOTE]Irregardless, what is your definition of innovation then?[]

Irregardless isn't a word and

def: a creation (a new device or process) resulting from study and experimentation.

Which registered your arguments henceforth invalid. Please, enjoy your overly-simple FPSs, your very bad RPGs and your overabundant RTS.

Except that nowhere did I mention that I liked PC games for innovation.

You're throwing out straw mans, red herring and now argumentum ad hominem like it's going out of style.

Oh look, I can make stupid generalizations as well. Huzzah for me.

You said it, not me. I simply mocked you to show how illogical your argument is.

Legend of Zelda 1 (NES) - Hyrule: Save Princess

Legend of Zelda 2 (NES) - Hyrule: Save Princess, fight your shadow

Legend of Zelda: Links Awakening (GBC) - Save Nation, save fish

Legend of Zelda: Link To the Past (SNES) - Hyrule: Save other people, but ultimately the princess (level 7) and beat Ganon. Again.

Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of time (N64) - Hyrule: Some stuff with Master Sword, but go to the future to save whom? Princess. Again. And fight Ganon. Again.

Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask (N64) - Hyrule/Termina - Save a nation of people incapable of doing it themselves. Again

Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages (GBC) - (forgot nation name) Interesting concept that I enjoyed and thought was a healthy distraction from Zelda, but ultimately, collect items, beat uber boss at the end that sought to destroy/rule the world/nation.

Legen of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons (GBC) - (Same as above) Didn't play this one, but they were interexchangable, so I can bet safe money the concept is the same as every Zelda.

Legend of Zelda: CelShaded Adventures (GC) (Hyrule) (Yes, Hyrule somehow must've come in contact with horrible mid-90s Kevin Costner films and sought to emulate Waterworld) This was fun despite the look, but ultimately, as always, You had to dungeon crawl. End boss- Ganon. Again. This time, Zelda helps you. Marginally, but at least she's not totally helpless this time. And I could have sworn it was going to start out and not involve this chick.

Devil's Advocate: All Zelda games can be argued to be different, but are actually fundamentally the same. I have no problem with that, but don't try to bash Final Fantasy and assume that Zelda is without fault.

I didn't bash Final Fantasy per se. See reply above. Oh and you only had to wake up Zelda in II, she was never in any danger thus never required rescuing. That and the MP, HP, experience points. Don't forget those. Not exactly innovative but hardly the same but.. Ferrari, Hyundai, samething.

Mario has many iterations, and perhaps I'll go over them. But replace Hyrule with Mushroom Kingdom, Zelda with Peach, Items with Powers, Ganon with Bowser, and you have a rough outline of how the games are similar in their own respect.

No one played Mario due to the rich story telling.

The only thing different about Nintendo is that they PLANNED on making franchises. Other companies have hit titles and it just so turns out that the sequels are sucessful, so more are made.

Which is why there was a DMC3 and why there is a MGS4 and why there is a Splinter Cell 15.

Nintendo makes rehashes, they're just intentional.

Nintendo planned their franchises.

That's nothing more then conjecture at this point.

Oh and SE makes rehashes.

[lionx]

Re: Which console do you want?

I honestly don't care. I've provided tangible examples of innovation between titles. I didn't merely state a conclusion without no evidence to support it.

I wasnt really directing at you, this is a discussion and open debate until a mod says differently, i am just frustrated that people think that having such a discussion is considered fanboyism and then...yeah derail the thread and other good stuff that comes along with it.

Anyway enough derailing..@_@ I like Wii for what it has to offer and the company, i do not like the PS3's price and it has only limited titles that i like and i dont like the Xbox360 because i am not interested in general in hardcore American games with emphasis on graphics and etc.

That and online Smash is really fun and i would like to be able to actually have competition similar to that of Street Fighter on the Arcade/Xbox Live(without the lag) instead of having an extremely limited competition because its console only and thus....boring T.T

[Perrin]

Re: Which console do you want?

I'm not reading Sokarr as coming across fanboyish? Any way the innovation thing is a dangerous topic, because as stated above we could go back to pong and debate from there.... I think the innovation in games comes from A: The Story B: The Gameplay or C: The Graphics

In thier times Zelda, Mario, Sonic, and even caugh*CrashB*caugh all had a form of innovation. Then we have other games that just take the things that work from another game and tich all the crap that doesn't... HALO? Its still a great game, why is it an innovation? Because it didn't FUBAR too much up.

With the PS3 and the XBox360 I'm really scared that we are getting to a point where I really only need to buy 1 system, because all the games I want will be ported to any of them

I don't see many of the Wii games getting ported, do you?

Thats this console generations time for innovation. The only thing that Sony or Microsoft can do is hope that the next FF or Halo will be so awesome that people will buy their system.

Nintendo has a huge advantage, people can pretty much count on the next Zelda and Mario to kick ass. Enough ass to be worth 250 bucks and a 60 dollar game entry fee.

I dunno if I'm willing to shell out 500 bucks to play the next FF. Especially when I know a few years from now FF13 will be in the bargain bin and the PSThree will be on the shelf for around 200 skins.

Don't know if my point is coming across or not? It just seems that the last race was about Specs (graphics, online support, etc...) This race is going to be about the games more than any previous race. As stated before by some one else, I really hope this ends up like the SNES vs Sega vs Turbo16 etc... we had a butt load of awesome games during that time period.

[Avoklex]

Re: Which console do you want?

I want the Wii and the PSP (mainly for playing movies during flights and long car trips, at least eh ones I dont drive)

[Suichi]

Re: Which console do you want?

Wowzers, just wow.



Sokarr is my hero.

[steveyos666]

Re: Which console do you want?

Yo I smell a LARP brewin' in the dungeon.

[TheGrandMom]

Re: Which console do you want?

/em unsheaths her Cane of Doom!!

/em waves it about wildly!!

/em gets dizzy and hits herself in the head!

[Mog]

Re: Which console do you want?

I knew it would come to this.

Sokar vs Wishmaster, premiering from now til someone closes this thread!

Tickets on sale at www.ticketmasters.com

Reserve yours now!

[WishMaster3K]

Re: Which console do you want?

Logical: Final Fantasy 1 and Final Fantasy 3 and Final Fantasy 7 have entire different game play mechanics. This isn't "preference", it's something that you can actually see. It's tangible.

Illogical: Final Fantasy 1 3 and 7 are the same game because they follow the same theme and follow the same methodology of leveling up to beat a stronger boss.

No need for placing winks with sarcasm, except for the fact that you need to put them there so you can obviously see your sarcasm.

It is obvious that unless someone drops a “ “ or a wink, you take them too seriously.

While you make valid points, you are misdirected. Calling me on Red Herring? Since when does anyone make an analogy of a Ferrari and a Hyundai? If you can afford a Ferrari, Hyundai is not in your vocabulary.

Mario 1 and 3 I compared to as developer knowledge of the system. God of War could not have come out in 2002 because the developers did not know about the subtle nuances of the PS2. Similarly, a game with the visual prowess of Black could not have come out for the PS2 in 2003, because the system’s power was not fully visualized.

I’m sorry that you missed this argument twice, but it’s ok. These things happen.

Technological advances were referring to Mario 64 being bigger in scope, size and execution than Mario 1 could have ever dreamed of. This is the analogy between a 2006 car and a 1985 car. In addition, it is because of this leap in technology that games are able to become exponentially better than games of the previous generation.

Super Mario: Yoshi’s Island, for instance, had more colors, characters and gameplay mechanics involved in it than any of the NES games could have accomplished. Comparing Mario 1 to Mario 3 is much different than comparing Mario 1 (or even Mario 3) to Yoshi’s Island.

In the vein of programmer initiative, GTA: Liberty City was much different than San Andreas because of developer prowess.

For people to bash Sony and Microsoft for not being innovative and choose to instead greelight endless sequels and then to turn to Mario and Zelda and hold them in a higher regard is contradictory. The core gameplay is the same, the presentation changes with technology.

You don’t even know what you’re arguing for, and argumentum ad hominem is most prevailent on your end. For me to dislike the fact that generally all Zelda, Metroid and Mario games are largely the same is a concept that seems to have escaped you about a page and a half ago.

Oh and about Irregardless, it’s usage has been changed over the recent years, in case you haven’t noticed.

Here is another commonly used word that has been taken out of context: peruse.

Usage Note: Peruse has long meant “to read thoroughly” and is often used loosely when one could use the word read instead. Sometimes people use it to mean “to glance over, skim,” as in I only had a moment to peruse the manual quickly, but this usage is widely considered an error. Sixty-six percent of the Usage Panel finds it unacceptable.

So sue me and the rest of the people who have used and misused “irregardless.” English teachers could give three shytes about it, no one cares and if you want to do something, educate the rest of the English speakers that use it. (Oh yes, this is sarcasm, excuse me for not winking to alert you to that.) Not like it made you look any smarter, but it did make you feel better at the time you posted.

SE has made only 1 true rehash, and it is called Final Fantasy X-2. But, by your definition, if Majora’s Mask and Ocarina of time are completely different games, then so are FFX and FFX-2.

So SE makes rehashes and Nintendo doesn’t? Ok, that’s a great argument.

[TheGrandMom]

Re: Which console do you want?

Ok, I've asked that discussion stay on topic which is "Which console do you want?" and it has veered off and is beyond recovery. All we have is a pissing match as to who's system and games are better. So on that note, it seems that the majority are in favor of the PS3 regardless of price. As for me, I'll take all 3 and I'll enjoy all 3 because I'm a gamer....not a fanboy.

Thread closed.