Random Gaming Thoughts

[emwearz]

1) I just started playing the Metal Gear Solid series, there are two chains of thoughts among people. Some people say play them in the order they were made and others say play them in chronicle order according to the storyline. I would not play them randomly though, I would do one or the other. I personally went with chronological order and am about 5 hours into MGS3.

2) Play the Uncharted games in order, while they are self contained stories, they have an over arcing story, reoccurring characters, reference the history and lore of the series, etc in the later installments. Each one is defiantly worth playing./

[BoringSupreez]

I'm finding it curious how as the mainstream begins to move into the era of N64 nostalgia just like we did in the past with NES and SNES, the PS1 seems to remain relatively immune. On VGPC, you can see this by looking at the price index for each console.

On one hand, I can't blame people because I think the N64 has held up better myself, but on the other hand I've always had the impression PS1 is the more popular and remembered of the two.

[isiolia]

1) I have MGS4 , but I only played the original remake on NGC. Is it ok to play this one (given its the last in the series) then play the Snake Eater and Sons of Liberty? Or should I play them in release order?

I would (and recently did) play them in chronological order. As suggested though, either do release order, or chronological order, and neither plan has you playing MGS4 first. In short, it wraps up the series plotline, with plenty of characters returning, throwbacks to previous places and fights...stuff that you may not appreciate coming in cold, if not just see as a convoluted mess.

IMO, start with Snake Eater. Not only is it one of the best (arguably, -the- best) game in the series so far, it's the first game chronologically. All the characters are new, everything is explained as you go, etc.

Additionally, if you don't actually get around to many of the other games, the only two games that MGSV is really going off of are MGS3, and Peace Walker (Portable Ops gets kinda glossed over). All the rest of them happen after when MGSV will take place. So if you're wanting to get up to speed for that, those are all you really need to have played.

2) At first I was planning to play the full series of Uncharted, but now I only have 3. Is this type of game where playing any of the games is basically more or less the same thing or is each one worth playing? I made this mistake with GTA series where I played GTA3, Vice, and San Andreas and then I was really burned and tired of the series even though each game was great on its own.

If you're intent on playing all three of them, then as mentioned, go in order. Unlike the Metal Gear games though, if you do just really feel like playing one of them, the character relationships and all aren't that convoluted. It's like if you watched the Indiana Jones movies out of order, versus like, Game of Thrones.

[BoneSnapDeez]

On one hand, I can't blame people because I think the N64 has held up better myself, but on the other hand I've always had the impression PS1 is the more popular and remembered of the two.

Everyone seems to remember 4 or 5 PlayStation games that they really, really liked. Final Fantasy VII and whatnot. The console itself doesn't have much character.

N64 has a much broader library of "good games" - and tons of multiplayer titles. People with disposable income are starting to get "nostalgic" or whatever and buying up used carts. Prices rise.

Also, PS1 games never really "went away" like N64 games did, so there can't be too much of a "resurgence". You can still buy certain Square Enix RPGs for less than $20 new on Amazon! And of course there's the backwards compatibility of PS2/PS3.

[dsheinem]

Everyone seems to remember 4 or 5 PlayStation games that they really, really liked. Final Fantasy VII and whatnot. The console itself doesn't have much character.

N64 has a much broader library of "good games" - and tons of multiplayer titles.

That's total bollocks.

The PS1 library has more than six times the number of titles available on the N64, and there is a far broader set of "good games" across so many, many genres on the system as compared to the N64. You may like the N64, but there's just no real comparison in terms of the volume and range of quality titles.

[Jmustang1968]

On one hand, I can't blame people because I think the N64 has held up better myself, but on the other hand I've always had the impression PS1 is the more popular and remembered of the two.

Everyone seems to remember 4 or 5 PlayStation games that they really, really liked. Final Fantasy VII and whatnot. The console itself doesn't have much character.

N64 has a much broader library of "good games" - and tons of multiplayer titles. People with disposable income are starting to get "nostalgic" or whatever and buying up used carts. Prices rise.

Also, PS1 games never really "went away" like N64 games did, so there can't be too much of a "resurgence". You can still buy certain Square Enix RPGs for less than $20 new on Amazon! And of course there's the backwards compatibility of PS2/PS3.

I think this is a rare case where I disagree with you on retro games. I feel the PS1 library is vastly superior to the N64 library.
As far as prices go, I think there are several factors. One, is that the N64 games are carts. They seem to stand the test of time a bit better and are more collectible. I also have seen Psone classics on PSN more heavily impact prices than Wii VC releases. FFVII prices, as an example, plummeted after the PSN release.

Another possibility is that N64 emulation isnt very good compared to many other retro consoles. Many games have issues being played on the emulators. I think this one is a bit minor as emulation hasnt seemed to have too much of an effect on snes or nes prices.

[Luke]

Everyone seems to remember 4 or 5 PlayStation games that they really, really liked. Final Fantasy VII and whatnot. The console itself doesn't have much character.

N64 has a much broader library of "good games" - and tons of multiplayer titles.

That's total bollocks.

The PS1 library has more than six times the number of titles available on the N64, and there is a far broader set of "good games" across so many, many genres on the system as compared to the N64. You may like the N64, but there's just no real comparison in terms of the volume and range of quality titles.

Dog pile on Bone!

Totally agree with the last two posts. The N64 is probably my least played system (including handhelds) because most of the games I own for it are less than stellar. I don't even think the quality over quantity debate is up for debate as the Playstation had much better games, and a larger amount of quality games.

Playstation was much more groundbreaking, much more memorable, and it also didn't look like a toy.

[dsheinem]

. The N64 is probably my least played system

I sold my N64 and games a year or two ago and haven't regretted it one bit. The only games that really interest me on the system are readily available in some form or fashion on later Nintendo consoles, and most of them now have better sequels as well. Besides, when I play them on post-N64 hardware I am saved from using that horrendous controller.

[Luke]

I sold my N64 and games a year or two ago and haven't regretted it one bit. The only games that really interest me on the system are readily available in some form or fashion on later Nintendo consoles, and most of them now have better sequels as well. Besides, when I play them on post-N64 hardware I am saved from using that horrendous controller.

Hand to God I play my Virtual Boy a lot more than I play the 64. Jeez, to think of it, when I do play it, I only play 5% of the 64 games I own.

Things is a dust gatherer.

[TSTR]

Hand to God I play my Virtual Boy a lot more than I play the 64. Jeez, to think of it, when I do play it, I only play 5% of the 64 games I own.

Things is a dust gatherer.

I'd be more than happy to give you $5 for your dust collector.