A few years back, I bought a Voodoo5 for my boyfiend at the time because he really really wanted it. Cost me $250, which, if you recall my comment about carrying $5 or $10, is a lot for me. Not 6 months later he was complaining because, since NVidia took over the video card market, his new games didn't like the overpriced card I gave him. I probably should have taken it out of his computer when I left him. Perhaps that colors my opinion.
My point was that people always compare the cost of an old system to a new video card. It's just not fair.
I compared the old system to a new card because the old system can play all the new video games of this console generation (usually lasts about 5 years), whereas, no matter how nice your pretty GeForce2 is, it just won't play all the new games until 2006. By the way, how much did it cost you?
I don't know what sorts of games you play, but the ones I get are rarely sedate enough to allow me to lie down. Maybe I'm just the excitable type, but video games tend to get me worked up.
Mostly, I play Final Fantasies and the like. Basically, I play games instead of watching TV. They may also be why I like console games, they're an easier substitute for TV since I play them on the TV.
By "new", I'm talking about the popular stuff advertised in magazines and possibly TV (I don't know, I don't watch TV) that's been released in the past couple of months. The cool new stuff people want. I think that's a fair definition. On console, examples would be: Final Fantasy X-2, Tony Hawk Underground, Billy Hatcher (alright, I'm the only one that wants that one), Soul Calibur 2, etc. Obviously, a PS2 will cover all of them (except for Billy Hatcher, but we already decided that I'm the only one that wants it). Consider these popular new PC games: The Sims Making Magic, Civilization 3: Conquests, Final Fantasy XI, and Simpsons Hit in Run. After scouring the system requirements (source: Amazon
) I've discovered that of those 4, you can only play 2 of them. I don't know what types of games you play, but I'ld find it unacceptable to have to investigate every game before I buy it, or find out that if I want to play that cool new game, I have to upgrade my hardware for one game. And, unlike console games, if I don't pick it up now, I may never pick it up because PC games have a much shorter shelf life and no used market. I'll take my system of buying a console a year or two after it comes out for ~$100, and put off worry about not being able to play a new game for another 3 or 4 years.
PS2s use a regular USB keyboard, by the way. As for control, some games are better with a keyboard and mouse (FPSs, Civ, etc.) while others (Final Fantasy, Tony Hawk, Dead or Alive Beach Vollyball) would be really hard and a lot less fun without a controller. I personally find controllers easier and more comfortable than keyboards and mice for games.
As for bugs, I rarely see any. Enter the Matrix was a terrible game, badly rushed and a horrible waste of money. Same with Tomb Raider Agel of Darkness, the other famous recent bug-fest. As for the good games, bugs are few and far between.
It was used. I'ld love to see a store that had them new for $75. Or maybe not...
Anyways, that was $75 for a whole system, not just a video card. I can get video cards for 5 or 10 bucks too, but then I'm limited to Puzzle Master 4. And now I don't have to read tiny system requirements boxes, just look for the big words that say "Playstation 2". Besides, who wants to hunch over a tiny computer screen when they can lie down on the couch to play games?
The parent of this wasn't as random as it looks, but the parent of that was lost since it was a troll. So read that first! Or just ignore this in general since it's not important anyways
Consoles are cheaper than computers for gaming, I don't care what funny math you freaks pull up. =)
I bought my PS2 for $75 a year ago. It will continue to play brand-new popular games until 2006 when the PS3 comes out. That's 4 years of gaming vs. the 6 months to a year of a video card twice the price. Not counting keeping up with the rest of the hardware and the headaches that come with analyzing system requirements. It's just cheaper and easier to get a console.
Super Nintendo had some of the best games ever. Illusion of Gaia, Final Fantasy 3(6), Super Mario All-Stars + Super Mario World...Not to mention the Super Scope. Shooting your TV with a bazooka is just... ok, retarded. I'm done now.
The point isn't whether or not the arguement against Final Fantasy sequels makes sense, the point is that everyone's heard it already, and it doesn't actually matter. It's just a name that identifies relatively simular games so Square can sell more of them. That's it. That's all Final Fantasy means. It doesn't mean it's a game that will never have a sequel, it doesn't mean it's a series of games that are "final fantasies"(whatever that's supposed to mean) and thus don't have true sequels. It's just a pretty way for Square to write "Buy Me" on the boxes.
I'ld like to say it would sell as well with an ethic charactor, but I just don't know. I know for me it doesn't take much to convince to buy an FF, but other people aren't like me.
The most common thing I've heard against X-2 is that it's "too girly". As the first female led Final Fantasy, I'ld think that might come with the territory. And it's not like Metal Gear Solid and other games like that are ever dismissed as "too masculine" since you can only play as men. But, from everything I've seen, I'm the only one who thinks it's a good thing that the main charactor is finally a girl.
If they had a main charactor who was black or indian or hispanic, I would hate to have people dismiss it as too ethic as they dismiss X-2 as too girly. And then worse is the thought that they'd speak ebonics like Barret. =/
Also, since the games come from Japan, we're probably just gonna get more anime-styled charactors. I don't think the Japanese are as pro-ethnic diversity as Americans.
Gameplay is always lacking on turn-based RPGs, especially Final Fantasies. The people that buy them, buy them for the storyline and expect the storyline to overshadow the gameplay. That's just how we like our RPGs, and if you don't like games like that or think they don't count as games, then don't buy them. But don't waste space telling us what we've already heard a millium times. Just let us play our Final Fantasies and you can go play Unreal or whatever it is you play.
I love the FF games and all (own every one) but I'm started to get a little tired of the pattern of the boy with spikey hair falls in love with the white mage and saves the world. At least X-2 has a girl main charactor, though it would be more impressive for a unique FF to star a girl.
I wish the "map" in X could have at least been more clear, you could barely make out which continent was which, let alone where the cities were.
As for X-2, I've heard absolutely nothing bad about it. I'm not sure why people don't seem as excited about it like they were for the rest of the FFs.
8 I didn't mind the story so much, just the gameplay. 7 I minded the story. I didn't care for insane boy at all, and did it bother anyone else that after Aeris died he wound up with Tifa? Probably not. Oh well. =)
Alright, I admit it was more of an assumption than knowledge. I heard the American branch of Enix was basicly shutting down before Square came in, and there hasn't been any new Enix games in America since the merger, I assumed that Square was the one on top.
That's wierd that they're reverse in Japan. I think Enix would be bigger in the USA but they don't release nearly as many games as Square
They didn't get bought out by Enix. It was closer to the reverse. I'ld post a link, but I'm lazy and looks like you were lazy to with links. =)
One thing I'ld like to see is them rerelease old Enix games like they rerelease old Square games. Especially the Illusion of Gaia trilogy.
As for the girl's costume, couldn't they have made it possible to see anything but her ass? Yeah, I buy FF games to stare at a pixelated girl's ass. I miss Yunie's old costume.
Slashdot Mirror
A few years back, I bought a Voodoo5 for my boyfiend at the time because he really really wanted it. Cost me $250, which, if you recall my comment about carrying $5 or $10, is a lot for me. Not 6 months later he was complaining because, since NVidia took over the video card market, his new games didn't like the overpriced card I gave him. I probably should have taken it out of his computer when I left him. Perhaps that colors my opinion.
if you're waiting a year or two to buy the console, you're automatically foregoing the "new" games by default
But console games have a used market, unlike PC, and so I can buy them later, for cheaper. Alright, that defeats the point of new, but whatever.
(And no, that's not a point in your favor. Ok, if you ignore the fact that I covered up my logic hole with a "whatever", you can have your point.)
=)
My point was that people always compare the cost of an old system to a new video card. It's just not fair.
I compared the old system to a new card because the old system can play all the new video games of this console generation (usually lasts about 5 years), whereas, no matter how nice your pretty GeForce2 is, it just won't play all the new games until 2006. By the way, how much did it cost you?
I don't know what sorts of games you play, but the ones I get are rarely sedate enough to allow me to lie down. Maybe I'm just the excitable type, but video games tend to get me worked up.
Mostly, I play Final Fantasies and the like. Basically, I play games instead of watching TV. They may also be why I like console games, they're an easier substitute for TV since I play them on the TV.
I have a mac and several consoles dating back to the 80's
Smurfs for Atari 2600 is a sweet game.
By "new", I'm talking about the popular stuff advertised in magazines and possibly TV (I don't know, I don't watch TV) that's been released in the past couple of months. The cool new stuff people want. I think that's a fair definition. On console, examples would be: Final Fantasy X-2, Tony Hawk Underground, Billy Hatcher (alright, I'm the only one that wants that one), Soul Calibur 2, etc. Obviously, a PS2 will cover all of them (except for Billy Hatcher, but we already decided that I'm the only one that wants it). Consider these popular new PC games: The Sims Making Magic, Civilization 3: Conquests, Final Fantasy XI, and Simpsons Hit in Run. After scouring the system requirements (source: Amazon ) I've discovered that of those 4, you can only play 2 of them. I don't know what types of games you play, but I'ld find it unacceptable to have to investigate every game before I buy it, or find out that if I want to play that cool new game, I have to upgrade my hardware for one game. And, unlike console games, if I don't pick it up now, I may never pick it up because PC games have a much shorter shelf life and no used market. I'll take my system of buying a console a year or two after it comes out for ~$100, and put off worry about not being able to play a new game for another 3 or 4 years.
PS2s use a regular USB keyboard, by the way. As for control, some games are better with a keyboard and mouse (FPSs, Civ, etc.) while others (Final Fantasy, Tony Hawk, Dead or Alive Beach Vollyball) would be really hard and a lot less fun without a controller. I personally find controllers easier and more comfortable than keyboards and mice for games.
As for bugs, I rarely see any. Enter the Matrix was a terrible game, badly rushed and a horrible waste of money. Same with Tomb Raider Agel of Darkness, the other famous recent bug-fest. As for the good games, bugs are few and far between.
It was used. I'ld love to see a store that had them new for $75. Or maybe not...
Anyways, that was $75 for a whole system, not just a video card. I can get video cards for 5 or 10 bucks too, but then I'm limited to Puzzle Master 4. And now I don't have to read tiny system requirements boxes, just look for the big words that say "Playstation 2". Besides, who wants to hunch over a tiny computer screen when they can lie down on the couch to play games?
The parent of this wasn't as random as it looks, but the parent of that was lost since it was a troll. So read that first! Or just ignore this in general since it's not important anyways
Consoles are cheaper than computers for gaming, I don't care what funny math you freaks pull up. =)
I bought my PS2 for $75 a year ago. It will continue to play brand-new popular games until 2006 when the PS3 comes out. That's 4 years of gaming vs. the 6 months to a year of a video card twice the price. Not counting keeping up with the rest of the hardware and the headaches that come with analyzing system requirements. It's just cheaper and easier to get a console.
Super Nintendo had some of the best games ever. Illusion of Gaia, Final Fantasy 3(6), Super Mario All-Stars + Super Mario World...Not to mention the Super Scope. Shooting your TV with a bazooka is just... ok, retarded. I'm done now.
For some reason, Zelda just seems like it should be an RPG, even though it doesn't have any RPG elements.
Kindom Hearts is a better example of action/RPG. It's a cross between Final Fantasy and Zelda.
I think that action/RPGs aren't really advancing, just action/adventures that look like RPGs.
The point isn't whether or not the arguement against Final Fantasy sequels makes sense, the point is that everyone's heard it already, and it doesn't actually matter. It's just a name that identifies relatively simular games so Square can sell more of them. That's it. That's all Final Fantasy means. It doesn't mean it's a game that will never have a sequel, it doesn't mean it's a series of games that are "final fantasies"(whatever that's supposed to mean) and thus don't have true sequels. It's just a pretty way for Square to write "Buy Me" on the boxes.
=)
Threads of Fate, Secret of Mana, Chrono Trigger, Chrono Cross, Vagrant Story...
Yeah, Square can't make anything good but Final Fantasy! Oh, wait...
I'ld like to say it would sell as well with an ethic charactor, but I just don't know. I know for me it doesn't take much to convince to buy an FF, but other people aren't like me.
The most common thing I've heard against X-2 is that it's "too girly". As the first female led Final Fantasy, I'ld think that might come with the territory. And it's not like Metal Gear Solid and other games like that are ever dismissed as "too masculine" since you can only play as men. But, from everything I've seen, I'm the only one who thinks it's a good thing that the main charactor is finally a girl.
If they had a main charactor who was black or indian or hispanic, I would hate to have people dismiss it as too ethic as they dismiss X-2 as too girly. And then worse is the thought that they'd speak ebonics like Barret. =/
Also, since the games come from Japan, we're probably just gonna get more anime-styled charactors. I don't think the Japanese are as pro-ethnic diversity as Americans.
In FFV, one of the main charactors was a pirate.
=)
Gameplay is always lacking on turn-based RPGs, especially Final Fantasies. The people that buy them, buy them for the storyline and expect the storyline to overshadow the gameplay. That's just how we like our RPGs, and if you don't like games like that or think they don't count as games, then don't buy them. But don't waste space telling us what we've already heard a millium times. Just let us play our Final Fantasies and you can go play Unreal or whatever it is you play.
I love the FF games and all (own every one) but I'm started to get a little tired of the pattern of the boy with spikey hair falls in love with the white mage and saves the world. At least X-2 has a girl main charactor, though it would be more impressive for a unique FF to star a girl.
I wish the "map" in X could have at least been more clear, you could barely make out which continent was which, let alone where the cities were.
As for X-2, I've heard absolutely nothing bad about it. I'm not sure why people don't seem as excited about it like they were for the rest of the FFs.
8 I didn't mind the story so much, just the gameplay. 7 I minded the story. I didn't care for insane boy at all, and did it bother anyone else that after Aeris died he wound up with Tifa? Probably not. Oh well. =)
Alright, I admit it was more of an assumption than knowledge. I heard the American branch of Enix was basicly shutting down before Square came in, and there hasn't been any new Enix games in America since the merger, I assumed that Square was the one on top.
That's wierd that they're reverse in Japan. I think Enix would be bigger in the USA but they don't release nearly as many games as Square
They didn't get bought out by Enix. It was closer to the reverse. I'ld post a link, but I'm lazy and looks like you were lazy to with links. =)
One thing I'ld like to see is them rerelease old Enix games like they rerelease old Square games. Especially the Illusion of Gaia trilogy.
As for the girl's costume, couldn't they have made it possible to see anything but her ass? Yeah, I buy FF games to stare at a pixelated girl's ass. I miss Yunie's old costume.
Ohhh, poor kittens!!!
If N64 was a failure, what was Virtual Boy? ;)
Tidus is hot
N64 wasn't a failure. It made Nintendo money. It was #2 of 3. Is the X-Box a failure since it's #2 of 3 now?
Virtual Boy did terrible anyways. And, being the most *painful* system to ever be invented, it got what it deserved.