http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/pc-gaming/sony-pc-dead-nintendo-for-kids-we-innovate-k-179882.php
Oh, and apparently PC is dead as a gaming platform.
I wonder when Harrison's going to remove his head from his *** and his fingers from his ears?
Pretty sure Speedfreak posted this all ready.
Looked for a thread, didn't see one.
yeah, it's titled something like "hey, look at what that dickhead said this week".
er, similar anyways.
I didn't, and to be honest the PC pretty much is dead as a gaming platform.
Yeah, we know he's a dip****. There's been like 100 threads over this the past couple years.
Vampiro, I think you mean this http://vgchat.com/showthread.php?t=14128
It's funny how bold this douchebag is, basically saying that the PS3 will render PC's obselete. LOL!
No that's not it. Oh well, doesn't matter.
Some people need to get their heads out of their pompous A*S... seriously...
So what is it about the PS3 that is so innovative? Does he actually say?
According to Phil Harrison, the controller of all things. Check his interview in the new EDGE.
HEY SONY, KNOW WHY THE PC'S DEAD? One word: ROOTKIT.
Where exactly did they say that the PS3 was innovative in that article?
Sony totally ripped off nintendo. The public is probably going to goe with the ps3 as the "innovator". But on the other hand, since the darn thing is so expensive, many people, like myself, may go with nintendo instead of the ps3.
Oh and just while were on that subject, in this months egm, Ken Kutagari of sony said the price for the ps3 is TOO cheap. Not many people are going to pony up 600 dollars for the thing.
Yeah, the censoring fucking sucks, doesn't it? :D
Y'know, I've always wondered, do people like Phil Harrison see anything that people say about them online?
As if the PS3 will make the PC obsolete. I have always used my PC, and always will! Can I hook my palm pilot up to a PS3? NO! Can I hook my printer up to my PS3? NO! NO! NO! NO! I have never been a big fan of Sony. I have always liked Nintendo, and I always will. And how the [COLOR="White"]fuc[/COLOR]k can they say the Wii isn't innovative?!?!?! Their controller alone beats anything Sony is giving us!
Ah, but the gratuitous ports guarantee that you will be able to hook up your palm pilot, printer, and microwave oven up to the ps3, Killer Jordo. You won't be able to do anything, but the connection speed will be amazing and the screen that pops up to let you know your device is working properly will be rendered in rich 3D that looks at least as good as last-gen X-box graphics.
LEAVE THE POOR MAN, HE DID A GREAT JOB OF DEMONSTRATING THE WONDERFUL USES OF A PSP AS A... REAR-VIEW MIRROR.
YEAH! HANDHELD-TO-CONSOLE COMPATABILITY! INNOVATIVE, YEAAAAAH!
I find it absolutely hilarious that they screwed up copying Nintendo's best innovation but managed to copy one of their worst perfectly.
[quote]LEAVE THE POOR MAN, HE DID A GREAT JOB OF DEMONSTRATING THE WONDERFUL USES OF A PSP AS A... REAR-VIEW MIRROR.
Good thing Sony's not about gimmicks. Oh wait..
I really don't see what the big deal is. Then again, being a true gamer...ultimately, all I really care about are the games. I'd still be happy playing on a 32-bit console. The PS1 was a haven for RPGs. A golden age, even. In fact, with all the ultra high detailed graphics that some of the games are sporting nowadays, I've been noticing a rather disturbing trend... *looks right at Squenix* ...favoring "style" over "substance". Not a good thing, especially in RPGs. A perfect example of this phenomenon would be Grandia III. Looks great, and of course, has the spectacularly awesome Grandia battle system...however, the story and characters (most important aspects of any RPG) are far far faaaaar below par. Put simply...they effing suck. Fortunately, this is still a reasonably infrequent occurance, however...with the advent of the next generation of consoles, I worry that we'll end up with more RPGs like Grandia III...
Sooooo...yeah. I really don't give a rat's *** how much more powerful one system is when compared to the next. All I care about are the *** **** games. Cuz really, that's all that matters in the end.
=/
Get the hell out, the SNES was the golden age of RPGs.
[quote=Zeta]
Which one was the worst?
Console-handheld connectivity.
Why does everyone hate the GBA link up! I thought it was well and when used well was great! :(:(:(
Only games in which it actually added DECENT functionality to the game were Rayman and Wind Waker. It just wasn't used well enough. I think we can expect DS-Wii connectivity to be a lot better, what with the touch screen being a LOT more intuitive.
Yea the DS to Wii sounds like it will be much better.
The GBA didnt really help you do anything better. It just was really used to help unlock things. The reward wasnt worth the **** cable.
But now that the DS and Wii will hook wirelessly more people will be able to use it. The touch screen could actually be useful in a ton of ways. Its alot stronger now then back then.
[quote]I find it absolutely hilarious that they screwed up copying Nintendo's best innovation but managed to copy one of their worst perfectly.
I would think that nintendos worse innovation was the E-reader card shi!t they made. You know, where you had to swipe a ton of cards to get bonuses for stuff. It didnt take off.
Atleast the Handheld to System has more opertunity with the DS and wii, those cards are worthless.
[quote=TendoAddict]I would think that nintendos worse innovation was the E-reader card shi!t they made. You know, where you had to swipe a ton of cards to get bonuses for stuff. It didnt take off.
DON'T WORRY, BECAUSE THIS "EYE OF JUDGEMENT" GAME ON PS3 IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
[quote=Klarth]Console-handheld connectivity.
...you're dumb. I said they copied "one of their worst" perfectly, and the only thing Sony have copied perfectly is handheld linkup. Nintendo have done far worse things, like Virtual Boy.
I'm actually a fan of GBA link-up when it's done right, but I by no means thinnk it's one of their greatest ideas.
Considering their only 2 really bad ideas are Virtual Boy and GBA Link-up, yes, it's one of the worst.
It wasn't poorly executed in my opinion, at least not by Nintendo. The only problem with it was that the games that used it really well needed 4 GBAs with 4 people playing often.
[quote]Prince Shondronai agrees: And probably the only one they will ever have.
No, there's still GBA and DS. RPGs have always felt better on handhelds anyway.
You can't seriously sit there and claim that the PS1 wasn't a true haven for RPG's. You just can't. And here's why:
Suikoden
Suikoden II
Grandia
Wild ARMs
Wild ARMs 2
Breath of Fire III
Breath of Fire IV
Arc the Lad Collection
Lunar: SSSC
Lunar II: Eternal Blue
Legend of Legaia
Star Ocean: The Second Story
Valkyrie Profile
Xenogears
Vanguard Bandits
Parasite Eve
Thousand Arms
Brave Fencer Musashi
Tales of Destiny
Tales of Eternia (a.k.a. Tales of Destiny II)
Final Fantasy Tactics
Final Fantasy VII
Final Fantasy VIII
Final Fantasy IX
That's what I see when I turn around and take a mere glimpse at my personal collection. Now, I realize that not all people would agree that the games listed here are "classics"...however, the fact remains that many of them indeed are. Also, several of the series listed (such as the truly awesome Suikoden series) made their debut on the PS1. Therefore...I rest my case, for I have definitively proven that the PS1 was, in fact, a haven for RPGs.
Muahahahahahahahahahahaha...! *evil Bender-esque laugh*
[quote=El Cascade]You can't seriously sit there and claim that the PS1 wasn't a true haven for RPG's. You just can't. And here's why:
Suikoden
Suikoden II
Grandia
Wild ARMs
Wild ARMs 2
Breath of Fire III
Breath of Fire IV
Arc the Lad Collection
Lunar: SSSC
Lunar II: Eternal Blue
Legend of Legaia
Star Ocean: The Second Story
Valkyrie Profile
Xenogears
Vanguard Bandits
Parasite Eve
Thousand Arms
Brave Fencer Musashi
Tales of Destiny
Tales of Eternia (a.k.a. Tales of Destiny II)
Final Fantasy Tactics
Final Fantasy VII
Final Fantasy VIII
Final Fantasy IX
That's what I see when I turn around and take a mere glimpse at my personal collection. Now, I realize that not all people would agree that the games listed here are "classics"...however, the fact remains that many of them indeed are. Also, several of the series listed (such as the truly awesome Suikoden series) made their debut on the PS1. Therefore...I rest my case, for I have definitively proven that the PS1 was, in fact, a haven for RPGs.
Muahahahahahahahahahahaha...! *evil Bender-esque laugh*
Boy, you have just opened up a can of worms. SNES RPG lovers, unite!
Final Fantasy 4
Final Fantasy 5
Final Fantasy 6
Soul Blazer
Illusion of Gaia
Terranigma
Secret of Mana
Secret of Mana 2 (SD3)
Chrono Trigger
Lufia 1
Lufia 2
Earthbound
Ogre Battle
Super Mario RPG
The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past
Fire Emblem 1/3
Fire Emblem 4
Fire Emblem 5
Breath of Fire 1
Breath of Fire 2
Dragon Quest 1
Dragon Quest 2
Dragon Quest 3
Dragon Quest V
Dragon Quest VI
Star Ocean
Tales of Phantasia
Pretty much all of those are classics, I win.
The Seventh Saga
Final Fantasy: Mystic Quest
Brain Lord
EVO: Search For Eden
Paladin's Quest
Front Mission
Treasure Hunter G
Secret of Evermore
I'd say that Star Ocean and Final Fantasy Tactics are about the only real classics in his list that aren't available for other platforms.
Yeah, and a lot of the games you listed have been remade for the PS1, including the "classics" known as Chrono Trigger and Final Fantasy VI. Even Tales of Phantasia (which is easily better than both Chrono Trigger and FFVI) was remade for the PS1. And as for the Zelda series. Well, fuck Zelda. Never liked it.
Also...while Final Fantasy Tactics and Star Ocean 2 were damn good games...I find it laughable that someone could seriously think they were the most notable RPGs to grace the PS1. Personally, I would say that the best series' that came out of the PS1 would be Suikoden, Wild ARMs, and Xenogears...which, as ya'll oughta know, became Xenosaga, which is hit-or-miss, I'll admit...but at least it delivers a damn interesting story.
*shrugs* Well...whatever. Ultimately, it all comes down to personal preference. And my personal preference prefers the PS1...overall...however, recent titles, such as Wild ARMs 4, Tales of Legendia, and Suikoden V (EFFING AWESOME) are finally making the PS2 a worthy RPG haven as well. Muahahahahahaha...
I find it laughable that someone could insult the Zelda series like you did. Regardless, you still did it. As you so eloquently put it, fuck your favorite ps1 RPGs. I didn't like any of them.
Out of the SNES games listed, these are the only ones that were remade for PS.
Final Fantasy 4
Final Fantasy 5
Final Fantasy 6
Chrono Trigger
Tales of Phantasia (Japan only)
[quote=El Cascade]Xenogears...which, as ya'll oughta know, became Xenosaga
I'm sorry, but are you retarded? Xenogears was Square, Xenosaga was Namco. Their stories might as well be completely and utterly independent - There are stylistic and terminological connections and nothing more. Also, whilst Xenogears is the finest game ever made, Xenosaga is pretty crap.
[quote]*shrugs* Well...whatever. Ultimately, it all comes down to personal preference. And my personal preference prefers the PS1...overall...however, recent titles, such as Wild ARMs 4, Tales of Legendia, and Suikoden V (EFFING AWESOME) are finally making the PS2 a worthy RPG haven as well. Muahahahahahaha...
We're not talking about PS2 here, we're drawing comparisons between SNES and PSone. I could easily draw parallels between the Xbox and the C64 and denounce the latter as being a crappy platform for first-person shooters.
Oh, and let's not forget another three SNES RPGs I forgot about!
Shin Megami Tensei
Shin Megami Tensei II
Shin Megami Tensei If...
Don't get me wrong; the PSone had some GREAT RPGs - Namely, Xenogears and Valkyrie Profile. However, apart from Ogre Battle, the first Breath of Fire and Dragon Quest/Warrior (simply because I haven't played the latter), I enjoyed every single SNES game listed.
Final Fantasy? Lunar? Grandia? Suikoden? Fuck them, as you so aptly put it.
[quote=El Cascade]Yeah. Which is why I didn't say "ALL THE GAMEZ U SIAD WHERE REEMAD LOL". =/ I only said "some", genius.
That would probably account for why I only listed SOME of the games. :)
[quote]I'm sorry, but did I insult you for no **** reason? Of ****ing course I know that Xenogears was Square and Xenosaga was Namco. I merely didn't feel it was necessary to explicitly state that fact, since I figured that most of ya would already know that. Xenogears happens to be my favorite game. Ever. And while the connections between Gears and Saga are loose at best, the mere fact that there are connections, if only technical ones, makes it more than good enough for me.
So now you're saying that the connections are loose despite having previously stating that Xenogears "became" Xenosaga? Eh, whatever, at least you have good taste.
[quote]Basically, all you're doin' is reaching as far as you possibly can in order to find a seemingly legitimate reason to call me a fool.
From now on I'm going to start tagging all my posts with "TAKE EVERYTHING I SAY WITH A GRAIN OF SALT", because making a jovial inquiry as to someone's mental capacity seems to suddenly turning me into Hitler. I'm noticing a relative abundance in new members giving me ten-paragraph retorts these days. :(
[quote]That was more of a tangent, which is what this ENTIRE conversation is at this point. This thread is, supposedly, intended for a discussion about the PS3, not drawing comparisons between the PS1 and SNES. So...that point ya made? Moot. Ha.
If my point was moot, then so is the entire argument about the RPGs - including your posts - considering the colossal tangent this whole thread has taken.
[quote]Yeah. Pretty sure the PS1 had a buncha those too. And the PS2. Personally, don't really like that series much. Won't say anything more than that.
They weren't great, except for If..., and I had to play that alongside a walkthrough and translated script because a patch doesn't exist for the game. Apparently Digital Devil Saga is good, though.
[quote]Like I said, Claus...
Heh, call me that again and I'll break your legs. I hatehateHATE the GBA port of ToP.
[quote]personal preference. That's all it boils down to. And ya really don't needa to insult people while trying to prove your point of view. In fact, logically, it makes little sense, since ad hominem is a fallacy and all. Which basically makes you the loser by default. Of course, in an argument such as this, one can hardly expect any actual winners, since it's all just perspective and personal opinion. I'm not gonna change my mind, and you're not gonna change yours, no matter what is said. That's just how it is.
That's a good outlook, and I'm impressed by the way you put it. As for insulting people, it's what I do. Don't take everything I say so seriously.
snes had better rpgs though
[quote=El Cascade]Yeah, and a lot of the games you listed have been remade for the PS1, including the "classics" known as Chrono Trigger and Final Fantasy VI. Even Tales of Phantasia (which is easily better than both Chrono Trigger and FFVI) was remade for the PS1. And as for the Zelda series. Well, fuck Zelda. Never liked it.
Also...while Final Fantasy Tactics and Star Ocean 2 were damn good games...I find it laughable that someone could seriously think they were the most notable RPGs to grace the PS1. Personally, I would say that the best series' that came out of the PS1 would be Suikoden, Wild ARMs, and Xenogears...which, as ya'll oughta know, became Xenosaga, which is hit-or-miss, I'll admit...but at least it delivers a damn interesting story.
*shrugs* Well...whatever. Ultimately, it all comes down to personal preference. And my personal preference prefers the PS1...overall...however, recent titles, such as Wild ARMs 4, Tales of Legendia, and Suikoden V (EFFING AWESOME) are finally making the PS2 a worthy RPG haven as well. Muahahahahahaha...
I knew you'd try to suggest "remakes" (ports with loading times) of SNES games counted as PS1 RPGs. Sir, they wouldn't be there to be played on PS1 if they weren't SNES games in the first place.
A golden age is defined as a period of great achievment, SNES era RPGs were the first RPGs to really push the envelope and do tons of new things. PS1 RPGs simply expanded on what's already been done, and current generation RPGs further still. Heck, even Dragon Quest VIII plays like a SNES RPG, only in 3D. The next golden era of RPGs will be when RPG designers decide to really innovate with their genre again, and it wouldn't at all surprise me if Wii started the next golden age.
I've never thought of PS2 as a decent RPG console, it seems to me that all the "decent" PS2 RPGs are in a relatively small amount of series. Not liking Final Fantasy's style pretty much rules out most of them, and I think the same largely applies to PS1. SNES had a much greater variety or RPGs, ranging from RPG-lite games like Zelda to a middle-ground with Terranigma and Chrono Trigger, all the way up to hardcore titles like Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest.
GBA would be my 2nd favourite RPG system, because GBA RPGs are similar in feel to SNES RPGs, and it's my belief that RPGs just work better on handhelds anyway (or at least should be designed as if they're to be played on handhelds).
[COLOR="Yellow"]I would say the golden age of RPGs started with the SNES, then continued on to the PS1 and later to the PS2 and Game Boy systems(obviously). Just because the RPG genre as whole jumped from being developed for Nintendo systems to now mostly being developed for Sony systems doesn't mean the golden era of RPGs suddenly had to stop. It's still going on right now, just not on the system you'd like it to. After all, it's still the same companies making these games.[/COLOR]
Look at the definition of golden age, it's a time of great achievement. Rehashing what was done a decade ago isn't an achievement, in my opinion. The golden age ended when RPG developers stopped innoavting. Heck, from the looks of things it started to fizzle out before the SNES was even dead with only a few totally original games like Chrono Trigger and Terranigma in the last couple of years shaking things up. The title "Final Fantasy Six" just says it all.
[quote=Speedfreak]The title Final Fantasy Thirteen just says it all.
Much more accurate. And apart from the introduction of crappy sci-fi elements, Square hasn't changed the series at all.
Pokémon's bound to come up at some point or another, so I'll just point out that Pokémon innovates in gameplay with every single installation. Unlike other RPGs, Pokémon has no storyline to speak of, and the characters (the Pokémon) aren't changed, merely added to. The only thing left to innovate in is the gameplay.
Indeed. The one installment of the series I was unimpressed with was Ruby/Sapphire/Emerald - the added pokemon were uninteresting, the two-on-two battles felt gimmicky... Fortunately, FR/LG redeemed my interest.
FR/LG where really just rehashed remakes of the originals's. That's why they where so great. Why does Final Fantasy or Resident evil get a remake, but poke'mon only deserves a innovation and a new title slapped on. They knew that the originals's where SO solid that all they really had to do was, update the graphics, insert a few new innovations and elements into the story, world and combat and hundreds of thousands of Poke maniacs would be pleased. I know I was, and I really haven’t played a pokemon game since I played silver and gold back to back and ended up disappointed. I swear to goodness If they add any more pokemon to the already growing list, The pokemon vet's (like my self) are most likely going to just give up on the series. It's really just too much, who cares if a pikachu can have sex with another pikachu and have a Pika baby or whatnot. All a poke mon game needs is a 152 pokemon, a solid battle system, loads of gym leaders and a very functional multi-player system. I think that's all that really matter's anyway.
[quote=Chris Day]FR/LG where really just rehashed remakes of the originals's. That's why they where so great. Why does Final Fantasy or Resident evil get a remake, but poke'mon only deserves a innovation and a new title slapped on. They knew that the originals's where SO solid that all they really had to do was, update the graphics, insert a few new innovations and elements into the story, world and combat and hundreds of thousands of Poke maniacs would be pleased. I know I was, and I really haven
I jumped on the bandwagon when it was popular: Right at the beginning. I only got off after RSE, and I've still not finished either FR or LG.
I still haven't got off yet :cookie:
Mainly because they're a pretty decent RPG on the GBA. Even if it is "ew pokemon," I can't deny that they're usually really solid games.
[quote=Klarth]I jumped on the bandwagon when it was popular: Right at the beginning. I only got off after RSE, and I've still not finished either FR or LG.
n00b, I liked it BEFORE it was popular.
[quote=Speedfreak]n00b, I liked it BEFORE it was popular.
Funny you call me and klarth a n00b, when the fact is. Pokemon came out as a Trading Card Game in japan a few years prior to the GBA titles. I even seem to recall watching Cartoon Network and seeing a ridiculously lame commercial in which two adults sat at a table battling with there cards while a 3D Charizard and Venusaur sat quietly behind there respective player's chair. I remember this well, because it was that very same commercial that caused me to go out and purchase the very first starter Deck. Two weeks later The commercials stopped and no one ever remembered what the hell my cards where. So naturally I put them in my closet and two years later the pokemon anime suddenly hit America and pokemania took over. Unfortunately n00bs like me, where around to sell you our expesive and rare decks when Toy R' us ran out of stock of the second editions.
N00b. I like the new pokemon as much as anyone else, but If you know anything, it is the fact that the first 152 poke'mon started the whole **** U.S. craze. If it wasn't for them, you would be playing Yugioh on that DS of your's now.
Take a joke.
Weow! I didn’t mean that seriously, I knew you where just saying that lightheartedly. I even understand where you are coming from (I played DX and Colosseum), I definitely noticed how much of a positive difference it made when they added the extra content (pokemon and stuff). It gave the game more strategy, you just have to realize that some of the people like me who played the game and collected the cards back in middle school back when it first came out. When we start Looking back at the original Pokemon games it kind of brings back fond memories of the old days and the friendships, expecially we had when we poke battled, traded and bragged about our cards to each other. After high school, my friends where became ether stupidly-drunk jocks, drug addicts or moved off, so I don’t see them anymore, I only have the memories. And yeah I meant GB not GBA that was a mistake. I will also try to lay off the italicizingstuff too, some other people mentioned that earlier today anyways.
And as for the card game, being older than the Red & Blue verison, I’m not really sure if that is correct or not. I’m not saying that I can remember when the games came out or not. But, my Red version instructional booklet says; 1998 Nintendo of America Inc & The box to that card game( Which I remember buying in fall 1996) say 1996....So I would think that you may be mistaken about that. The thing is they tried to market pokemon in America right after it became a hit in japan, but it never really stuck. A year or two later though it did, and that is why the japanese was always a year or two a head of our pokemon trend, they even had the extra (S/G) pokemon a year or two before us.
I'm not saying I am right or anything, but it would seem that the game did com out a little later. Corect me if I'm wrong though.
[QUOTE=Cruxis]
And as for the card game, being older than the Red & Blue verison, I
I dunno why you guys are bickering about effing pokemon. Pokemon blows.
:devil:O.K.... I'll get the Qilava, Speed freak find your Entie and you get the Charazard. Now let's roast his Futurama lovin ***.:fire:
:-D
[quote=Cruxis]152 poke'mon
[quote=Speedfreak]The original 152
I could have sworn there was 151... :)
Who proved what to whom? As I recall, I'm the one that said that it all boils down to "personal preference". Anyways, there are a whole lot more better RPG's out there than freaking Pokemon, which may have been somewhat novel at first...but seriously, it's long past the point of novelty. Now it's just been done to death. Even I've seen some of the "new" monsters that they've created to keep things going. They're utterly ridiculous. How many do they number now? 150 (or however many there initially were) was plenty. Yeesh.
Anyways, that's my view. I'm sure that there are thousands of twelve year old boys out there that would disagree, but to them I say...isn't it past your bedtime? Muuuaaaahahahahaha...
Difference between Pokémon and other RPGs is that it's gameplay-driven rather than story driven, and there's a LOT more thought required in playing it. It's not a simple case of defeating x enemy to reach x point and view the special secret ending in the process of doing so. It's got FAR more replay value than Squaresoft's entire library combined (well, perhaps with the exception of FFXI).
Also, Tajiri created all the Pokémon at the same time - There are still several hundred which are yet to be used. The ones judged as potentially the most popular were the ones included in Red/Blue.
Missingno
Eh, whatever. It's been a loooong time since I've played the original games. The fact that I remembered it is more than enough... for me anyways :)
I thought Missingno didnt count because it was a glitch, and certianly didn't appear on any offical lists.
It doesn't get added to your Pokedex.
yea i read that in egm they're doin a thing now on like crazy sony quotes **** of the month or sumin like that...i hate sony more than ever im tellin evryone dont buy it the sony is not for the people its for those celebs that wanna buy it to cover it in diamonds