http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/news/0,10870,2766883,00.html

Well, It Seems Now That Sega Has Decided That Those Who Want To Play PSO Version 2 Will Now Have To PAY To Play It Online. I Myself Will Have No Part Of This, And Will Show My Own Displeasure By Not Buying It When It Comes Out And Letting Sega Know This.

=Liquid-X=

Sega is turning into what Nintendo became. The high point in video game history was when Sega and Nintendo were the super powers. They both knew they couldn't pull any crap, or else they would screw themself over in the market. But then when Nintendo made the advancement from SNES to N64, they became bolder. They tore up their contract with Square, and they cozied up to Rare. They started to hype their games so much, that it was nearly impossible not to play it at least once. And of course, Nintendo started pumping out different kinds of Gameboys. You may ask: Where was Sega during all of this? Well, they were bombing with the Sega Saturn. The problem? Not enough games, and barely any of the ones they had were true quality. While the Playstation didn't have many quality games at the beginning, they had lots of them. Something for everyone. The Saturn did not. Sega ended up rebounding with the Dreamcast, but there just wasn't enough interest in it to make it a huge seller. And now with the X-Box coming into the market, Sega has started to use Nintendo tactics to try and get back on top. The question now is: Will it work?

The Gamecube is, bar none, the best 'next gen system' there will be.

True, the cube will have some good games. Nintendo made a smart move by bringing back the Nintendo three (Mario, Link and Metroid) as their main sellers. Plus, they are going to have Pokemon on the cube as well. I believe there are also plans for another Kirby game on the cube. But the question is, how good will these games be? The reason they scrapped their Metroid project at the beginning of the N64's life was because they realized it was nothing but a rehash of old ideas. The Link games haven't been all they could be either. I found Ocarina to be incredibly easy. Furthermore, adding Mario into a 3-D world was a good expiriment but it was obvious that they were just familiarity to sell the game. And Kirby? Well, the one on the N64 was way too easy to be fun. I beat it at another persons house in two sittings. Two one hour sittings. Pretty pathetic. Maybe they'll have another Donkey Kong. But even if they do I don't think it will be very good. DK64 bombed. In fact, I think the main selling point for the gamecube is that Pokemon will be on it. Just as the PSX got a ton of people to buy it because of the FFs being on it. But who will be the real winner in the next gen systems? Not the gamecube. It will be the PS2. Why? Well, for one thing the last two FFs are coming out on it. Some people cannot live without them. Also, the Metal Gear series is continuing on it. And also seeing as how Sony attracts the good sprots games like flies to honey, all of the sport game freaks will run out for it. As if this weren't enough, the PS2 has all of that hype surrounding it. And let's not forget that Sony is notorious for picking up games that no other system wanted and then making them shine. I think Nintendo is in for an awfully rude awakening this December.

You forget Kameo and Pikmin, those are main sellers that aren't old ideas. And, of course, some people do like the same old characters as long as there's still something new to be done with them. Even if they made a 3-D game starring Mario that was very similar to Mario 64, I'd still enjoy it. And let's not forget all the games that are yet to be developed. Gamecube isn't in for a rude awakening, in my opinion.

I mean, there are MANY more examples of horrible PSX games. The N64 had many original games on it--Perfect Dark, Super Smash Bros., Paper Mario (which I've found to be a pretty nifty take on the RPG genre in general).

In fact, the one thing I've seen in some of the interviews is that Nintendo wants to have the innovation factor going alot--with the last systems to come out, a lot of stuff was just rehashing old ideas into a 3d world, and that was good. However, everything's been done in 3d, so now it's time to come up with newer ideas and expand on old ones.

And really, why would I play a PS2 for FF games that I can just get on my computer?

It is gliding on nothing but brand loyalty. The graphics are ass (DC looks better) the System is so difficult to program for, heigtened by the fact the devkits are outrageously expensive and really- the only reason anyone bought it was that they had PSXs, and the only reason anyone is developing for it is because they developed for the PSX. The GC is a much, much, MUCH better peice of hardware, and it has a lot more 3rd party support than the N64 did, plus all those amazing games at E3 will be out THIS YEAR. Thats why they didn't show Zelda- they wanted to concentrate on games that'd be available this year.

FFX might be good, MIGHT. that leaves three games on my radar: Mgs2, ZoE, and Xenosaga.

As for X-Box, I dont even need to get into why that'll fail.

The GC does look like it's gonna be a serious contender for top console this time.

First off, even if the main three franchises (probably four now that Pokemon has gone so big) are less fun than they used to be, that ain't saying much. Mario, Zelda, and Metroid are among some of the most fun games to play around. And my old copy of Zelda II still gets decent playtime despite competition from FF IX and Vagrant Story. Toss in Smash Bros. Melee and the various other titles mentioned and you have what looks like a strong lineup. And that's just first generation.

Meanwhile, the PS2 has been around for almost a year and they're just getting started. And even though I have greater faith in FFX than Webrunner does and have a morbid facination about whether Kingdom Hearts can be pulled off. Toss in the three other games mentioned by him and I can't say I see much more for the system.

Right now, it does look like the GC is going to be the best of the round. Especially given Nintendo's track record of quality.

Ok, here's where you missed my point:

1. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm an old school gamer. Meaning that I don't buy a game due to brand loyalty, graphics, sound or even amazing control system. I buy it because it has a good funfactor. Now for me, I like a game that is a bit different. Nintendo hasn't produced an original game outside of Japan since Space Station Silicon Valley (excellent game). The PSX however, has produced many new and innovative titles.

2. Perfect Dark was not new and innovative. It was an improvement upon Golden Eye. More Weapons, some new features (not new in the realm of FPSs but rather new to most platform systems. I loved the game. I really did. But innovative? I don't think so.

3. I don't remember who said it, but you'd really play a new Mario even though it was virtually the same as the last one? Where I come from, that means that you aren't a real gamer. A real gamer doesn't play games just because they have the word Mario in it. Did you run out and buy Mario is Missing? I sure hope not.

4. I can't remember the rest of my points and I'm sick of typing. So that's all for now.

1. I wish people would stop saying that innovation = quality. You can be derivative and still be the best ever, and you can be innovative and suck- they aren't that connected.

And 'funfactor' and 'old school' aren't connected either. Jet Grind Radio is NOT an old school game by any means- it uses very new game mechanics and graphics and stuff, but it's fun as HELL. Just because something was made before 1995 doesn't instantly make it the best thing ever.

2.
I agree with that. But Goldeneye was innovative in that it was the first console FPS that was pulled off properly


3. Personally, i wouldn't play it because it was mario, but Mario 64 was a good game and I'd like to play a game that was like it. the Rare ones got close but they degenerated into Find The Thousand Golden Widgets and got overcomplicated.

No, I didn't buy Mario is Missing. Still, the same style of game is not a problem for me. As long as they actually make a better game out of it. If they just remade Mario 64 on the GameCube and gave it better graphics, then I wouldn't buy it. But if it were larger, with different, more complicated puzzles and more challenge, then I'd buy it. See what I mean now?

In response to webrunner:

I'm well aware that all of those things are unrelated. What I was saying is that:
1. Newer gamers are buying games for graphics. Or for the name in the title. I'm an old school gamer meaning that I need quality. Games before or after 95 have nothing to do with being old school.
2. Innovation is not the same as funfactor. I know this. What I was saying is not that the two are one in the same, but rather that I look for both when I look for a game.

Now for Kupo:

What they are doing with the "new" games on the GC is basically taking old levels from previous games and giving them better graphics. Sure, their are differences but not many. Did anyone else see an astounding similarity between some of the levels in M64 and those in SMB2? I did.

Ok, I'm gonna put your comments in italics, and my responces after.

1. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm an old school gamer. Meaning that I don't buy a game due to brand loyalty, graphics, sound or even amazing control system. I buy it because it has a good funfactor. Now for me, I like a game that is a bit different. Nintendo hasn't produced an original game outside of Japan since Space Station Silicon Valley (excellent game). The PSX however, has produced many new and innovative titles.

Ok, take your list above, remove brand loyalty, toss in gameplay and perhaps plot depending on the genre. Isn't funfactor just the combination of those five elements? And since funfactor is largely subjective (see your stating above that you prefer a game that is a bit different. Others may prefer games which are simply refined versions of what has come before. Both are equally valid views of what's fun.) you can really only judge by looking at those five elements and the brand. ie. Nintendo consistantly produces games which I find to be fun, so I'll have a higher faith in a game of theirs being fun given a certain combination of factors than I would if the game was made by Sony. And besides which, there's merit in the argument that tried and true is more likely to be fun as there'll have been a few experiments already to work out the kinks in the system (ie. which do you prefer, Zelda 1, or Zelda 3?) that wouldn't have happened with a truly innovative system.

2. Perfect Dark was not new and innovative. It was an improvement upon Golden Eye. More Weapons, some new features (not new in the realm of FPSs but rather new to most platform systems. I loved the game. I really did. But innovative? I don't think so.

So then why are you complaining? Why does it have to be innovative? After all, in point number 1 you seem to place a high priority on the funfactor. But here you deride a game you enjoyed because it's not innovative. My question is, do you get a game because it's something that's never been done before, or because you'll enjoy playing it. Another way to put it, do you want modern art, or good art.

3. I don't remember who said it, but you'd really play a new Mario even though it was virtually the same as the last one? Where I come from, that means that you aren't a real gamer. A real gamer doesn't play games just because they have the word Mario in it. Did you run out and buy Mario is Missing? I sure hope not.

By that definition, most Mega Man fans aren't gamers. Congratulations on disenfranchising the people who play one of the more popular series out there. And if I recall correctly, isn't Mario is Missing one of those strange Mario side productions which are generally nothing like the real thing? Anyways, off the tangent, there is a merit to getting a game in a series like that because each game will refine the system so that the experience ought to be better each time. And if the game was fun before then there's nothing wrong with getting more of that same experience with new levels and a better system. It simply means that you're a gamer with certain tastes instead of "not a real gamer."

The only two things I have to say is that I didn't notice much similarity between SMB2 and M64 because I never played SMB2. Second, who said the levels of the GC games are the same? There hasn't been much of a showing of actual levels in the games, as I've seen. Think about it. Take for example Luigi's Mansion and the Boo's Mansion level of Mario 64. Sure, they're both haunted houses that are explored by heroes from the Mario universe, but that's about where the similarity ends. Or is that what you were talking about?

BTW, it's Kupi. With an I. Not an O. The name comes from a character I made up before I even knew what a moogle was. If you reply to me or refer to me, spell my name properly.

So, you're a self-proclaimed old-school gamer whom doesn't like recurring elements... but you like Final Fantasy.

YES, THAT MAKES MUCH SENSE.

By the by, you sound like an old man. "Them kids these days, all they care about are their 3d graphics and whatnot. Why, when I was a lad, we had to walk to the video store, through 50' of snow, uphill both ways. And you know what we got for it? A few pixels that looked like a plumber. And did anyone complain? No, because back then complaining wasn't invented yet!"

Err, anyways, if you haven't noticed, play elements change throughout the games. Flying in Mario 64 is much different than flying in Super Mario World, is much different than flying in Super Mario Bros. 3. Innovation is not having something original, innovation is improving on something that's already there. Ipso facto, Nintendo is VERY innovative. Something doesn't have to be DIFFICULT to be fun. Quite the contrary, if something's mind-boggilingly hard, it's not fun in the least.

But, I digress. We should all agree to disagree--I tend to like most Nintendo games, you happen to not (or so it seems). That's all well and good, just don't take it personally if people don't like the PS2. :P

First off, PS2 looks waaaay better than Dreamcast. Anyone who says otherwise needs to lay off the crack pipe. I'd say Gamecube is about the same, but probably slower. I'm sure any difficulties with coding most companies have overcome by now (learning new languages is pretty easy), and devloper kits are cheaper than those for any other system last I checked.

Gamecube will be a decent system, but most of the games for it aren't the type of games I'm looking for. I'll stick with my PS2.

When no one dared to take my side, you came along! Thank you!

In answer to Palin:

My thoughts are in bold

So, you're a self-proclaimed old-school gamer whom doesn't like recurring elements... but you like Final Fantasy.

YES, THAT MAKES MUCH SENSE.

First off, I could do without the attitude. Secondly, I never said I didn't like recurring elements. I said that I don't like copies of games. For instance, Mario64 was just old Mario levels put into a 3D form. And Final Fantasy, while having its recurring elements (chocobos, moogles, spells) has different plots, characters, battle systems, Enemies... the list goes on. Mario is the same enemies, villains and plot every time.

By the by, you sound like an old man. "Them kids these days, all they care about are their 3d graphics and whatnot. Why, when I was a lad, we had to walk to the video store, through 50' of snow, uphill both ways. And you know what we got for it? A few pixels that looked like a plumber. And did anyone complain? No, because back then complaining wasn't invented yet!"

As well as being a self proclaimed old-school gamer, I'm also a self proclaimed "Oldest Young Man". But anyway, if you ask a group of younger gamers (were born after the NES's reign) what they look for in a game, chances are they'll say "graphics". I conducted a study. I know. By the by, one of my favorite systems is the Odyssey^2. An outdated system.

Err, anyways, if you haven't noticed, play elements change throughout the games. Flying in Mario 64 is much different than flying in Super Mario World, is much different than flying in Super Mario Bros. 3. Innovation is not having something original, innovation is improving on something that's already there. Ipso facto, Nintendo is VERY innovative. Something doesn't have to be DIFFICULT to be fun. Quite the contrary, if something's mind-boggilingly hard, it's not fun in the least.

I already explained why Mario isn't innovative in my first note. And no, a game doesn't have to be difficult in order to be fun. But Kirby was beyond easy! It was impossible to not beat it! You might as well just save your money and say that you could've beaten it. Because you could have. Also, Nintendo is not innovative. If you can make points without backing it up with fact, then so can I. On another note, one of my favorite games is Kid Chameleon. Impossible to beat.

But, I digress. We should all agree to disagree--I tend to like most Nintendo games, you happen to not (or so it seems). That's all well and good, just don't take it personally if people don't like the PS2. :P

Did I say that? Is it showing on my face? (A little Harvest Moon humor...) I like many Nintendo games. Tons in fact. I own an N64, two Nintendos, an SNES and a Virtually Boy. I enjoy all of these systems. And I don't recall ever taking it to heart when people insulted the PS2. No, I really didn't! But I will agree to disagree. Right...................... Now.

"LIGHT WARRIORS! I'll knock you all down!"

PS2 might have an edge in polygon counts but in textures (where most of th quality is) I see mostly lively, vibrant, life-like textures on the DC while drab, lifeless monochrome monstrosities on the PS2 (even MGS2 is almost entirely in shades of green)

as for the GC- it will be >A LOT< faster than the PS2. It's the first console system to have hardware T+L which gives an incredible speed boost.

As far as I saw from FF6 to FF7 was the same thing as Super Mario World to Mario 64--they had the same monsters, the same summons, the same weapons. They merely tacked on a badly limiting ability system and a half-assed storyline.

You seem to think that because areas in Mario 64 are SIMILAR to those in previous Mario games, that they are the same. Although the terrain itself does look somewhat similar in some instances, I saw precisely zilch as far as exact copying goes. It's pretty hard to make the same levels as a side-scrolling game in a 3d world.

And you just seem rather biased to me. You haven't said one bad word about the various Playstation stuff, and seem to have nothing but bad to say 'bout the N64.

AS far as the young games thing goes, I tend not to hang out with 10-year-olds, so I wouldn't know.

I love the N64. I also love the PSX. I was merely stating why I don't think the GC will do as well. I'm not biased. But when you are in an argument, you generally try not to give points to the other side.

I don't hang out with ten year olds. I held a poll. It was two years ago. But I naturally assumed that you did hang out with ten year olds because of the way you don't listen.

The Differences between FF6 and 7:

Different Weapons, Monsters, Characters, Plot, and battle/magic system. See the difference?

Yes, there were differences between Mario 64 and previous Marios but not enough to make it an independent game.

I'm sorry if this reply is harsh and rude, but I'm writing it while having an argument over the IM. I apologize.

A similar weapon between FF3(American) and FF7: Murasame.
A similar monster between the two: Cactrot/Cactuar(spelling?)
Similar characters: see plot.

Before I start in on the similar plot structures, let me explain that I believe plot is derived from the characters, the places they visit, and what happens in those places. Characters and places are as much a part of the plot as what happens.

Following are the analogies I've thought up comparing FF3 to FF7.

Vector is to FF3 what Midgar is to FF7. (evil Empire's base)
Esper Magic is to FF3 what Jenova cells are to FF7. (explanation to follow)
Celes is to FF3 what Cloud is to FF7. (Both are infused with the things directly above this analogy)
Kefka is to FF3 what Sephiroth is to FF7. (Both betray their "empires" and gain great amounts of power, becoming the last boss of their respective games).
Celes is to Kefka what Cloud is to Sephirtoh. (They were both infused with X same thing by their "empires" and picked sides)
Espers are to FF3 as Materia is to FF7. (They give you spells. Granted, Materia gives skills as well, but they're both the generic skill-giver of their respective games)
Cactrot is to FF3 as Cactaur is to FF7. (The little cacti dude you can't seem to hit and can do 1000 damage at will)
The Final Kefka is to FF3 what Safer Sephiroth is to FF7. (They're both set in heavenly backgrounds, and look somewhat angelic)

That ends it for analogies, but I have one more comparison to make: the final battles are similar too! Both of them are a string of bosses (Four for FF3, three for FF7)

If you say that I'm not listening to you, I'm going to give up and say that you're not listening to me.

The only reason DC has brighter textures is because that's what the game devlopers use for that game.

The Bouncer had fairly bright character textures (but enemies were usually drab… it differed from level to level, though), and you just have to look at screenshots of FFX for some more incredibly bright stuff (in fact, I think some of it is too bright). Another thing to note is there may be some sort of brightness (or lack thereof) bug for PS2. I had to turn the brightness on my TV way up for most games to look normal. Hopefully this will be fixed in future editions.

And I personally don't think hardware T&L will make all that much difference. X-Box will be the first one with pixel and vertex shaders, but that doesn't mean it'll be that much faster. When you're dealing with resolutions of 640x480, everything will be pretty fast. I just fear GC will have similar problems to what N64 had with Perfect Dark (which, in the GCs case, will probably be more about data processing than video processing). With the current technology for TVs, about the only thing that faster video hardware is useful for is investing more polygons into facial animations.

Also note that I've gotten around 8 hours of sleep in the last 80 hours, so I reserve the right to make a complete reversal on any of the statements in the previous paragraph when my brain works again.

Alright then, how about FF6 to FF9. The magic system isn't that different in the two of them. How you get abilities most certainly is not.

Indeed, the main differences between those two games is small differences which have very little effect on gameplay and the fact that one is 3D and the other is 2D.

As for our not listening to you, at least your points are getting adressed. My last commentary on what you said is still waiting a responce. Or are you unable to deny what I've said with a simple "you aren't listening to me."

Excal, slightly peeved.

See I've had better things to do than argue on a message board. Plus, why is everyone getting all hot and bothered over a stupid argument. As of this point I am no longer going to defend anything except these simple points:

The FFs have recurring themes. But they are not all the same game. And by the way, the magic sustem in FF( is not like the sustem in FF6. It is like the system in FF4.

The N64 is a good system. So is the PSX. But the fact is, I don't think the GC will do as well as the PS2 due to Nintendo's reputation for not enough games and not enough original games.

So I'm done arguing. And the rest of you can shut the hell up. I don't know why you consider a simple argument a personal attack, but it's absolutely stupid. And childish. I did not say "Anyone who likes the gamecube is an idiot!" Indeed, they are not. I would like a gamecube. But I'd rather have a PS2. So shut up everyone.

you say FF10 is bright? It's still not as vibrant as Skies of Arcadia, or any Sonic Team game.

As for te brightness bug, that may be.

As for hardward T&L and low resolution,
you don't know much about the 3D pipeline, do you?
The first two steps are the transform (Triangle setup) and lighting steps. It doesnt matter how low the resolution rate you have if you can't push enough polygons+lighting to make it look good.

Systems have bottlenecks at different parts. The DC has it's bottleneck in raw fillrate- it slows down when there's a lot of transparencies on screen.

That's one place teh GC really shines- it has EXCELLENT lighting with no ovehead.

Adn speed, well- it depends also on how much you need to calculate between each frame. A game like Sonic Adventure 2 has much more to do between frames then an FF battle.

The GC looks a lot better than either the DC or the PS- it has the 'liveleynes' of the DC with the raw power of the PS2, along with other stuff (like the lighting)

The DC was jam-packed with original games but people were too busy picking up Zelda and the latest port of Tony Hawk to notice.

But as I recall the lack of original games was what destroyed Metroid. And what killed the Virtual Boy (It's a fun system damnit!). And what killed off the Saturn. It's claimed many lives in the video game world. The reason the N64 was able to fair well with unoriginal games was because everything was 3d. This made it seem new and different when in fact many of the games were just rehash. True, it did have some original games, but those came later. Those came after the N64 was drowning because of a lack of games in the market. My theory is this:

Metroid will sell wonderfully. It has been off the market for so long that people will need their fix(and the fact that it is now 3d helps).

Zelda will sell pretty well. Not as well as their previous Zeldas, but well enough.

Unless Mario comes with the GC it will not sell many copies. I think it will have ok gameplay and everything, but it has become rote.

The GC will do well. I do not deny it. I never said the GC would bomb. But I think the PS2 will do better.

What destroyed Metroid wasn't a lack of original games. It was a lack of games, period.

What destroyed the Virtual Boy was that it gave people headaches.

What destroyed the Saturn was that all the good games were TOO original and were never released in the US. (if you want a game that involves gumdrops, then look tot he Saturn)

When you add a third dimension to a lot of things. Mario 64 was completely different (aside from setting) then the other games- it maintained a 'mario feel' but it was a lot different in the way you paly it.

The Metroid series stopped being produced because the last couple of games in the series were just terrible rehashes.

The Virtual Boy did not give people headaches. If it gave you a headache then that's one thing. But of all of the material I have read on the VB it was because of lack of original games.

Yes. The Saturn went down because they didn't release any of the original games in the US. The US of course is where systems are made or broken.

Mario 64 did not have a different feel. It had the exact same feel, except that you could move in extra directions. It really wasn't that different.

there are THREE game sin the metroid series right now, and Super Metroid is considered the best, and is not a terrible rehash.

THe VB, from everything I heard, gave people hedaches and neck pain, it was ugly, the controller sucked...
NO system has any really original games in the first 5 titles and that's about how man titles the VB had to begin with.

It had the ones on the platform (Nes and Snes) and it had some on the Gameboy. Different games every time. And eventually it was the same thing: Mother Brain/Evil/Bunch of Weapons/Kill Everything. It was fun, but people stopped caring at a certain point.

I own a goddamn VB and it does not give you neck pains or headaches. It has more than five titles. And most systems have their more original titles at the beginning. The problem with the VB was that it didn't have any original games at that moment and no other companies wnated to produce for it. And those who did, just put inferior versions of games that would be on the SNES out. Or at least they had them in their plans.

NES: Metroid
Gameboy: Metroid II: Return of Samus
SNES: SUper Metroid

Isn't that it?


As for a VB, the games I played were quite original but you couldnt STAND to play the thing for more than 5 minutes before your eyes went blurry.

I was thinking of Link. I don't know why, but I was thinking of Link. But Metroid still did become somewhat repetitive after awhile. Same basic stuff. Fun games for the most part, but still repetetive.

And as for the VB I guess this is a matter of how well our eyes can handle dull red lights. I have no problem with the VB to this day. My vision is 20/20, so there isn't any long term side effects. And maybe the reason I never had neck pain was because the stand was broken. See, in order for me to use the contraption I would have to lay down, put the stand against my chest (it didn't hurt) and gently allow the viewing port to rest against the bridge of my nose. I have a big ol' Italian nose, so it could handle it. But what games were original? Mario's Tennis was fairly original, and Wario Land introduced the 2.5D level design, but other than that...

I stopped playing that game like 20 minutes into it because I couldn't stand the graphics.

As for the T&L stuff, I know about the graphics pipeline, and I think I was smoking crack when I wrote that little section of my post.