I didn't dislike FFT... I just got tired of it before I finished. If it held my attention for more than a day, it's already doing really well for a console RPG. The story doesn't even factor into it. Let me give you my philosophy on video games:kenshin-dono wrote:@flamepanthers post about the ps1. I'm surprised you disliked FFT. I thought the story in that was really good, and different from most of the stuff out there at the time.
If you strip away the graphics, the sound, the music, the characters, the story, and all the other trappings, the part that's left--just the play mechanics--that part is the real game. The rest is all just icing on the cake, to pretty the game up and make the "whole experience" nicer. I like all of those extras. They can take a gaming experience from "fun" to "unforgettable." However, that core element of game play had better be fun even without all the extras or I'm wasting my time. I can get all those things in movies, comics, anime, or what have you--and usually I can get them much better that way. If all of that other stuff becomes the whole point of playing the game, then I'm wasting my time.
Also, I used to spend a lot of time playing real role-playing games. The ones that involve dice and character sheets and dungeon masters, where it's human interaction that shapes the game rather than a program and a script, and where my character's actions aren't limited by a menu. If you've ever done this and had a good group to play with, every console or computer "RPG" automatically pales by comparison.
Most console RPGs boil down to very flimsy and repetitive strategy games (again, that's ignoring however well made the graphics, music, or stories may be). Unless the mechanics they employ are really fun all by themselves, then I'm going to get very bored very quickly, and my time would be better spent playing a real RPG, reading a book, or playing a more exciting game. FFT plays more like a real strategy game than anything else in the FF series, so it held my interest longer. On the other hand, I'm not a big fan of strategy games in the first place, so I lost interest after a few days. It's that simple. The number of console RPGs that have held my interest long enough to finish them is very small: Chrono Trigger, Legend of Mana, Azel/Panzer Dragoon Saga, Magic Knight Rayearth (Saturn) and most of the RPG-ish Castlevania games if you count those. That's it. I'm thinking of going back and finishing the other Seiken Densetsu/Mana games, and possibly a couple games in the Soul Blazer series.
Incidentally, the N64 did have Ogre Battle 64, a strategy RPG that was the spiritual predecessor to FFT--before some of its key developers were hired by Square, I believe. It's not much, but there it is.
I never liked any of the 3D fighting games very much. The DoA and Soul Edge series were sort of okay, but not real favorites of mine. I liked the first Power Stone on Dreamcast, but the second one not so much. Street Fighter IV is pretty OK. I could never get into Tekken or Virtua Fighter.I forgot to mention that the PS1 had some good fighting games too (tekken and SC being awesome back in the day) while the N64 had none that i can recall.
For the most part, 2D fighting games are where it's at, and Saturn had MUCH better versions of nearly all of the decent 2D fighters that were on PS1. Most of the Capcom fighting games were utter crap on the PS1 when compared to their Saturn counterparts. N64 had Killer Instinct Gold, which was by no means the greatest, but it at least beat the pants of the entire Mortal Kombat trilogy IMO--which I think was also available on N64. There was also a fairly decent but mostly overlooked 3D fighting game called "Flying Dragon"--as well as the really fun 2.5D "Rakugakids" if you cared to import it. That's virtually nothing compared to the good fighting games on Saturn, but PS1 is sitting in the same boat once you take away all the arcade ports that aren't worth playing unless PS1 is all you've got.
Then we don't agree. For its time, 3D gaming on the N64 was the best there was. Yes, a lot of third party developers did a very poor job on their N64 games--but not all of them, and not Nintendo. "Good 3D" on the N64 will repeatedly curb stomp "good" 3D on the PS1. In the few cases where there was a decent 3D game that was on both the PS1 and the N64, the comparison was one of night and day. Again, I encourage you to compare Rayman 2 on both consoles. It's a great game anyway, so you won't be wasting your time. Also try Resident Evil 2 on both consoles--but compare the character models, not the videos.I will agree a lot of its 3d games were terrible right along side the N64.
Yeah, but I don't care. I still like the Atari VCS2600, and where are the slews of RPGs for that?[...]That aside though, the absolute lack of RPG's is what really killed it for me. You have to admit it really had basically no rpgs to speak of.
Yes, "sharp" is a word you could use for the PS1. "Jagged" would be another. It's painful for me to look at, almost as though it's cutting my eyes. I've always been a firm believer in anti-aliasing and texture filtering (on 3D games, not 2D). Those aren't fancy technologies to show off a superior GPU, they're forms of sweet mercy. N64 had both of those, and PS1 had neither. The way the PS1 forces 3D models and textures to "twitch" bothers me even more. Twitchy, jagged textures on twitchy, jagged polygons. Whatever my TV can do to soften them a little is a blessing. No PS1 s-video for me. I play my PS1 games on an emulator now so that I can filter the textures and give my eyes some relief.Like i said the graphics really kill it for me too. I've tried hooking the N64 up with an s-video cable and notice no real improvement. Meanwhile the ps1 with an s-video cable looks MUCH sharper and the colors look way more vibrant
I usually keep these connected: NES, Master System, SNES, Genesis/32X, N64, Saturn, Dreamcast, Gamecube (mostly for the GB Player now), PS2, and Wii. Sometimes I drag out the Colecovision and hook it up. My PS1 was stolen a few years ago. I initially planned to replace it, but I've long since stopped caring. What we've got is a difference in preference, not experience or dedication.Actually out of ALL the consoles i have the N64 is the ONLY one thats not plugged into a tv since i almost never play it. Right now i have
PS3, 360, DC, PS1, 2xPS2's, 2xXbox's, 2xNES's, Genesis, SNES, all hooked up to the TVs and monitors in the bedroom. Ready to play at a buttons push. The N64 sits in the closet with my 2nd SNES, 360, gamegear, and other 2 Genesis.
I don't recall N64 games costing any more to purchase than PS1 games. As I understand it, that's a major reason the cost was so problematic for developers--on the PS1 they paid a lot less to have the games manufactured compared to the 8-bit and 16-bit generations, and on the N64 they not only had to pay more, but were also expected to eat that extra cost and not pass it along to the consumers.Now that i think about it price also was a factor. I remember games cost a mint back in the day because of the cart format. It was great for loadtimes but I remember there were a few games i liked but never bought because of the price. Conker's bad fur day was one. that reminds me i need to hunt that down on ebay
Sony did try really hard to push 3D games--initially to show off against the SNES and Saturn, both of which were at a disadvantage in terms of 3D capabilities. That's part of why I'm so unimpressed with its library of games though, since its 3D capabilities were garbage compared to the N64, and just in general as well.anyway, just wanted to elaborate on my thoughts on the ps1 vs n64. I do wish the ps1 had more good 2d action games like the saturn did, but i think sony intentionally tried to push 3d games which kinda sucks =( A lot of those old 3d games look terrible today. But a good 2d game still looks good. Some 3d games like FFVII and others look really bad with s-video. But games like Suikoden or breath of fire look great on s-video
