N64 vs PSX

You got the Working Designs and Bernie Stolar Story wrong.....completely wrong actually. See the story goes like this, Victor Ireland who was the president of the great WD, went to Stolar who was the President of SCEA during the early years of the Playstation. See WD wanted to bring Arc the Lad to the PSX, but Bernie Stolar made the comment that RPGS are not the future and bashed WD saying their games the ones they published did not help the TG16 CD or the Sega CD. This started a rivalry and WD ended up being a Saturn publisher(Which you left out), but than SCEA got rid of Stolar and he went to Sega. That of course with the demise of the Saturn prompted WD to move to Sony, where they eventually got to publish Arc the Lad among other titles as well. It had some to do with Stolar not wanting rpgs, but you left out the rivalry between Stolar and Ireland out copletely.

TheTrueMagusX1

[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"]

You got the Working Designs and Bernie Stolar Story wrong.....completely wrong actually. See the story goes like this, Victor Ireland who was the president of the great WD, went to Stolar who was the President of SCEA during the early years of the Playstation. See WD wanted to bring Arc the Lad to the PSX, but Bernie Stolar made the comment that RPGS are not the future and bashed WD saying their games the ones they published did not help the TG16 CD or the Sega CD. This started a rivalry and WD ended up being a Saturn publisher(Which you left out), but than SCEA got rid of Stolar and he went to Sega. That of course with the demise of the Saturn prompted WD to move to Sony, where they eventually got to publish Arc the Lad among other titles as well. It had some to do with Stolar not wanting rpgs, but you left out the rivalry between Stolar and Ireland out copletely.

NamelessPlayer

Yep, WD could of helped them. Even in those days the company had a following of sorts and those guys would buy the WD games for the most part. Grandia I think would of helped the Saturn greatly as well if it would been brought here, as some people pegged it as a "Final Fantasy VII Killer",

I choose the original playstation/PSone over the N64 anyday. Loved the SNES, Waited forever for the then "Nintendo Ultra 64" to be released. Which end up as my most disappointing console ever.

Sony Playstation 1. just has more to offer. Nintendo did try but they came up short.

PSOne. Not even close for me really.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"][QUOTE="MichaelToreno"]

The way I see it is N64 had the multiplayer down while PSX was all about the single player experience.MichaelToreno

Games like Ocarina, Majora, Mario 64, Banjo-Kazooie, ect. all offered great single player expereinces.

What's your point? I'm well aware N64 had some good single player games. What you listed is about the extent of them too, IMO. I wasn't dissing N64 when I said that anyways, I was complimenting PS1

I thought you were implying that N64 didn't have any good single player games, which is far from truth. Also the PS1 had some good multiplayer games (you needed to buy multitap for four player split screen, though).

[QUOTE="MichaelToreno"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] 32bit graphics?? what does that mean? youre saying the original Xbox had bad graphics . every console from back then had issues with the graphics, and the 64 is no exception. gamewise it had some good games though, even if it lacked in the figthting game genreDarkman2007

The lack of RPG games on the N64 was compensated with both Zelda games which alone were better than many RPGs on the PS1. It's true it wasn't a good choice for JRPG fans, though. The reason is, like you typed yourself, the limited storage on the carts, which was the main drawback of the N64 compared to PS1. Had they opted for the CD drive, N64 would probably keep the 3rd party support it had on the SNES.

Fighting games on the N64 were also very poor, true. You basically just had Killer Instinct Gold and Super Smash Bros.

[QUOTE="MichaelToreno"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Games like Ocarina, Majora, Mario 64, Banjo-Kazooie, ect. all offered great single player expereinces.

nameless12345

What's your point? I'm well aware N64 had some good single player games. What you listed is about the extent of them too, IMO. I wasn't dissing N64 when I said that anyways, I was complimenting PS1

I thought you were implying that N64 didn't have any good single player games, which is far from truth. Also the PS1 had some good multiplayer games (you needed to buy multitap for four player split screen, though).

Agreed. And that's what I was getting at, both systems do both rather well, however I think PSX did single player better and N64 did multiplayer better

The Psone is so much better its not even funny.. Yes, The n64 does have the absolute classics, Pretty much every game Rare and Nintendo Made were freakin awesome.. But it just wasnt enough. There simply isnt enough to offer on the n64. For every 1 great n64 game there are 10 great psone games in every single genre. I mean I have less than 30 N64 games and I have pretty much every single game worth owning. I have around 40 psone games and there is still sooo much stuff I could get for it.

I believe the N64 could do a lot better if they went with the CD drive and if they made it more developer friendly. Carts were just too tight and expensive at the time and game content and 3rd party support consequently suffered. N64 was mostly praised for it's 1st party games from Nintendo and Rare, whereas PS1 was all about the 3rd party games. I'm not even sure if Sony owned any dev in the PS1 times (except Polyphony). And all this was because of the CD drive and ease of development on the PS1 (and heavy advertising from Sony). Nintendo gave the full N64 dev tools late in the N64's life time and there were 3rd party games made that looked comparable - or better - than PS1 games, but it was too late by then.

Bottom line is: N64 suffered a lot because of Nintendo's decision to stick with the carts and because of poor dev tools.

They learned the lesson with the GameCube, but GC was tarnished by it's "kiddy" image (because it didn't have the GTA games and most gamers rather went with the "cool" PS2 or Xbox instead) and also failed to get good third party support.

Ironically, the Wii is also suffering mediocre 3rd party support so the problem is still persistent even today for Nintendo, although the reasons may not be the same as with N64 and GC. But this is a theme for another discussion :P

[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"]

You got the Working Designs and Bernie Stolar Story wrong.....completely wrong actually. See the story goes like this, Victor Ireland who was the president of the great WD, went to Stolar who was the President of SCEA during the early years of the Playstation. See WD wanted to bring Arc the Lad to the PSX, but Bernie Stolar made the comment that RPGS are not the future and bashed WD saying their games the ones they published did not help the TG16 CD or the Sega CD. This started a rivalry and WD ended up being a Saturn publisher(Which you left out), but than SCEA got rid of Stolar and he went to Sega. That of course with the demise of the Saturn prompted WD to move to Sony, where they eventually got to publish Arc the Lad among other titles as well. It had some to do with Stolar not wanting rpgs, but you left out the rivalry between Stolar and Ireland out copletely.

NamelessPlayer

[QUOTE="NamelessPlayer"][QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"]

You got the Working Designs and Bernie Stolar Story wrong.....completely wrong actually. See the story goes like this, Victor Ireland who was the president of the great WD, went to Stolar who was the President of SCEA during the early years of the Playstation. See WD wanted to bring Arc the Lad to the PSX, but Bernie Stolar made the comment that RPGS are not the future and bashed WD saying their games the ones they published did not help the TG16 CD or the Sega CD. This started a rivalry and WD ended up being a Saturn publisher(Which you left out), but than SCEA got rid of Stolar and he went to Sega. That of course with the demise of the Saturn prompted WD to move to Sony, where they eventually got to publish Arc the Lad among other titles as well. It had some to do with Stolar not wanting rpgs, but you left out the rivalry between Stolar and Ireland out copletely.

TheTrueMagusX1

Yep, WD could of helped them. Even in those days the company had a following of sorts and those guys would buy the WD games for the most part. Grandia I think would of helped the Saturn greatly as well if it would been brought here, as some people pegged it as a "Final Fantasy VII Killer",

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] I personally prefer the original Tomb Raider to Mario 64, I also prefer Burning Rangers on the Saturn to Mario 64, but it could be just me.TheTrueMagusX1

These two are more shooters/platformer hybrids, but okay.

I don't like Mario 64 too much myself by the way. I think Banjo-Kazooie was superior :)

Than if Banjo Kazooie is superior why did you challenge us to show you a better platformer as if it is impossible, but yet you do it yourself? Funny huh...

I compared it to PS1 platformers.

And speaking of aging, my view is like this: Tomb Raider and Crash Bandicoot didn't age nearly as good as Mario 64 did, Wipeout and Ridge Racer on the PS1 now feel really outdated too whereas F-Zero X and Wave Race 64 on the N64 are still a blast (looking past the graphics in the case of F-Zero X), Tekken 3 was like the ultimate fighter back then but it's now pretty poor, Metal Gear Solid is a classic, but it looks too grainy and pixelated/shakey and has stiff controls, Resident Evil on the PS1 imo aged really bad, Final Fantasy's pre-rendered 2D backgrounds on the PS1 have nothing on Zelda 64's real 3D worlds and Gran Turismo 1 and 2, despite being the ultimate console racers in their time, fell really old compared to any newer racers.

So yeah, PS1 sure did age 100% better :P

[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

These two are more shooters/platformer hybrids, but okay.

I don't like Mario 64 too much myself by the way. I think Banjo-Kazooie was superior :)

nameless12345

Than if Banjo Kazooie is superior why did you challenge us to show you a better platformer as if it is impossible, but yet you do it yourself? Funny huh...

I compared it to PS1 platformers.

And speaking of aging, my view is like this: Tomb Raider and Crash Bandicoot didn't age nearly as good as Mario 64 did, Wipeout and Ridge Racer on the PS1 now feel really outdated too whereas F-Zero X and Wave Race 64 on the N64 are still a blast (looking past the graphics in the case of F-Zero X), Tekken 3 was like the ultimate fighter back then but it's now pretty poor, Metal Gear Solid is a classic, but it looks too grainy and pixelated/shakey and has stiff controls, Resident Evil on the PS1 imo aged really bad, Final Fantasy's pre-rendered 2D backgrounds on the PS1 have nothing on Zelda 64's real 3D worlds and Gran Turismo 1 and 2, despite being the ultimate console racers in their time, fell really old compared to any newer racers.

So yeah, PS1 sure did age 100% better :P

the shaky graphics as you call them , are actually a PS1 issue, its a flaw in the graphics hardware, Saturn games never suffer from it, unless the game itself is glitchy.

a good example is FIfa98 on the PS1, where the stadium has this shaking effect, but this never happens in good Saturn football games like Go Go Goal.....actually Go Go Goal is a lot better looking then Fifa98.....and they came out at the same time too

Go Go Goal - Saturn

Fifa98 - PS1

Fifa 98 Saturn

and personally I never liked Tekken 3 as much as everybody, good game with great graphics for the time, but I never found it amazing, I generally prefer VIrtua Fighter and Dead Or Alive, or even Street Fighter

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"]

Than if Banjo Kazooie is superior why did you challenge us to show you a better platformer as if it is impossible, but yet you do it yourself? Funny huh...

Darkman2007

I compared it to PS1 platformers.

And speaking of aging, my view is like this: Tomb Raider and Crash Bandicoot didn't age nearly as good as Mario 64 did, Wipeout and Ridge Racer on the PS1 now feel really outdated too whereas F-Zero X and Wave Race 64 on the N64 are still a blast (looking past the graphics in the case of F-Zero X), Tekken 3 was like the ultimate fighter back then but it's now pretty poor, Metal Gear Solid is a classic, but it looks too grainy and pixelated/shakey and has stiff controls, Resident Evil on the PS1 imo aged really bad, Final Fantasy's pre-rendered 2D backgrounds on the PS1 have nothing on Zelda 64's real 3D worlds and Gran Turismo 1 and 2, despite being the ultimate console racers in their time, fell really old compared to any newer racers.

So yeah, PS1 sure did age 100% better :P

the shaky graphics as you call them , are actually a PS1 issue, its a flaw in the graphics hardware, Saturn games never suffer from it, unless the game itself is glitchy.

a good example is FIfa98 on the PS1, where the stadium has this shaking effect, but this never happens in good Saturn football games like Go Go Goal.....actually Go Go Goal is a lot better looking then Fifa98.....and they came out at the same time too

Go Go Goal - Saturn

Fifa98 - PS1

Fifa 98 Saturn

and personally I never liked Tekken 3 as much as everybody, good game with great graphics for the time, but I never found it amazing, I generally prefer VIrtua Fighter and Dead Or Alive, or even Street Fighter

The "shakeyness" on the PS1 was because of a lack of Z-buffering on the PS1, whereas the pixelated textures on the PS1 were because the PS1 was lacking bilinear texture filtering (same with Sega Saturn). The filtered (smooth) textures were the main graphical advantage of the N64 over the PS1 and it surprises me that so few seem to notice this. After all, all PS1 (and Saturn) 3D games have "square" textures when you look close, while N64 has smooth textures (if a little blurry). I think this shark N64 tech demos shows the difference nicely:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKlbx5niBu8

But my point was not to argue which system aged better or not but to oppose the ignorant statement that PS1 games aged 100% better than N64, which is a completely personal opinion.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

I compared it to PS1 platformers.

And speaking of aging, my view is like this: Tomb Raider and Crash Bandicoot didn't age nearly as good as Mario 64 did, Wipeout and Ridge Racer on the PS1 now feel really outdated too whereas F-Zero X and Wave Race 64 on the N64 are still a blast (looking past the graphics in the case of F-Zero X), Tekken 3 was like the ultimate fighter back then but it's now pretty poor, Metal Gear Solid is a classic, but it looks too grainy and pixelated/shakey and has stiff controls, Resident Evil on the PS1 imo aged really bad, Final Fantasy's pre-rendered 2D backgrounds on the PS1 have nothing on Zelda 64's real 3D worlds and Gran Turismo 1 and 2, despite being the ultimate console racers in their time, fell really old compared to any newer racers.

So yeah, PS1 sure did age 100% better :P

nameless12345

the shaky graphics as you call them , are actually a PS1 issue, its a flaw in the graphics hardware, Saturn games never suffer from it, unless the game itself is glitchy.

a good example is FIfa98 on the PS1, where the stadium has this shaking effect, but this never happens in good Saturn football games like Go Go Goal.....actually Go Go Goal is a lot better looking then Fifa98.....and they came out at the same time too

Go Go Goal - Saturn

Fifa98 - PS1

Fifa 98 Saturn

and personally I never liked Tekken 3 as much as everybody, good game with great graphics for the time, but I never found it amazing, I generally prefer VIrtua Fighter and Dead Or Alive, or even Street Fighter

The "shakeyness" on the PS1 was because of a lack of Z-buffering on the PS1, whereas the pixelated textures on the PS1 were because the PS1 was lacking bilinear texture filtering (same with Sega Saturn). The filtered (smooth) textures were the main graphical advantage of the N64 over the PS1 and it surprises me that so few seem to notice this. After all, all PS1 (and Saturn) 3D games have "square" textures when you look close, while N64 has smooth textures (if a little blurry). I think this shark N64 tech demos shows the difference nicely:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKlbx5niBu8

But my point was not to argue which system aged better or not but to oppose the ignorant statement that PS1 games aged 100% better than N64, which is a completely personal opinion.

trust me, ive played enough Saturn games to know that this effect doesnt happen nearly as often on the Saturn, maybe its to do with the quad based graphics? I don't know, but it certainly doesnt happen as often.

if you look at Go Go Goal , the field itself doesnt have that shakey effect like in Fifa98 on the PS1, but I think that might be because Tecmo used a mode 7 effect for the floors, and thats obviously not going to glitch up , still looks alot better though, and it runs smoother then Fifa98 too.

and while I personally think that games can't age, and if a game is fun then its fun now, every system has games that have aged better and worse.

[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

These two are more shooters/platformer hybrids, but okay.

I don't like Mario 64 too much myself by the way. I think Banjo-Kazooie was superior :)

nameless12345

Than if Banjo Kazooie is superior why did you challenge us to show you a better platformer as if it is impossible, but yet you do it yourself? Funny huh...

I compared it to PS1 platformers.

And speaking of aging, my view is like this: Tomb Raider and Crash Bandicoot didn't age nearly as good as Mario 64 did, Wipeout and Ridge Racer on the PS1 now feel really outdated too whereas F-Zero X and Wave Race 64 on the N64 are still a blast (looking past the graphics in the case of F-Zero X), Tekken 3 was like the ultimate fighter back then but it's now pretty poor, Metal Gear Solid is a classic, but it looks too grainy and pixelated/shakey and has stiff controls, Resident Evil on the PS1 imo aged really bad, Final Fantasy's pre-rendered 2D backgrounds on the PS1 have nothing on Zelda 64's real 3D worlds and Gran Turismo 1 and 2, despite being the ultimate console racers in their time, fell really old compared to any newer racers.

So yeah, PS1 sure did age 100% better :P

You did nothing but distort facts...lets take a look at the overly grainyness that N64 games tend to have. Or some of them have choppiness, or how Mario 64 worlds sometimes look like lego blocks. Or F Zero X and Wave Racer 64 which you claim well, but are very slow and bland compared to wipeout(Which is obvious that you never played the game). Zelda 64 also looks badly, and its camera controls are not as great as people proclaim. And I find your arguments funny cause some of the stuff you say is clearly not true.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"]

Than if Banjo Kazooie is superior why did you challenge us to show you a better platformer as if it is impossible, but yet you do it yourself? Funny huh...

TheTrueMagusX1

I compared it to PS1 platformers.

And speaking of aging, my view is like this: Tomb Raider and Crash Bandicoot didn't age nearly as good as Mario 64 did, Wipeout and Ridge Racer on the PS1 now feel really outdated too whereas F-Zero X and Wave Race 64 on the N64 are still a blast (looking past the graphics in the case of F-Zero X), Tekken 3 was like the ultimate fighter back then but it's now pretty poor, Metal Gear Solid is a classic, but it looks too grainy and pixelated/shakey and has stiff controls, Resident Evil on the PS1 imo aged really bad, Final Fantasy's pre-rendered 2D backgrounds on the PS1 have nothing on Zelda 64's real 3D worlds and Gran Turismo 1 and 2, despite being the ultimate console racers in their time, fell really old compared to any newer racers.

So yeah, PS1 sure did age 100% better :P

You did nothing but distort facts...lets take a look at the overly grainyness that N64 games tend to have. Or some of them have choppiness, or how Mario 64 worlds sometimes look like lego blocks. Or F Zero X and Wave Racer 64 which you claim well, but are very slow and bland compared to wipeout(Which is obvious that you never played the game). Zelda 64 also looks badly, and its camera controls are not as great as people proclaim. And I find your arguments funny cause some of the stuff you say is clearly not true.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"]

Than if Banjo Kazooie is superior why did you challenge us to show you a better platformer as if it is impossible, but yet you do it yourself? Funny huh...

TheTrueMagusX1

I compared it to PS1 platformers.

And speaking of aging, my view is like this: Tomb Raider and Crash Bandicoot didn't age nearly as good as Mario 64 did, Wipeout and Ridge Racer on the PS1 now feel really outdated too whereas F-Zero X and Wave Race 64 on the N64 are still a blast (looking past the graphics in the case of F-Zero X), Tekken 3 was like the ultimate fighter back then but it's now pretty poor, Metal Gear Solid is a classic, but it looks too grainy and pixelated/shakey and has stiff controls, Resident Evil on the PS1 imo aged really bad, Final Fantasy's pre-rendered 2D backgrounds on the PS1 have nothing on Zelda 64's real 3D worlds and Gran Turismo 1 and 2, despite being the ultimate console racers in their time, fell really old compared to any newer racers.

So yeah, PS1 sure did age 100% better :P

You did nothing but distort facts...lets take a look at the overly grainyness that N64 games tend to have. Or some of them have choppiness, or how Mario 64 worlds sometimes look like lego blocks. Or F Zero X and Wave Racer 64 which you claim well, but are very slow and bland compared to wipeout(Which is obvious that you never played the game). Zelda 64 also looks badly, and its camera controls are not as great as people proclaim. And I find your arguments funny cause some of the stuff you say is clearly not true.

Agreed, he used a bunch of lame descriptions of the games that could be tacked on to any game ("poor", "outdated", "didn't age nearly as good")

At least I have the gonads to admit that the N64 did some things better then the PSX.

[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

I compared it to PS1 platformers.

And speaking of aging, my view is like this: Tomb Raider and Crash Bandicoot didn't age nearly as good as Mario 64 did, Wipeout and Ridge Racer on the PS1 now feel really outdated too whereas F-Zero X and Wave Race 64 on the N64 are still a blast (looking past the graphics in the case of F-Zero X), Tekken 3 was like the ultimate fighter back then but it's now pretty poor, Metal Gear Solid is a classic, but it looks too grainy and pixelated/shakey and has stiff controls, Resident Evil on the PS1 imo aged really bad, Final Fantasy's pre-rendered 2D backgrounds on the PS1 have nothing on Zelda 64's real 3D worlds and Gran Turismo 1 and 2, despite being the ultimate console racers in their time, fell really old compared to any newer racers.

So yeah, PS1 sure did age 100% better :P

MichaelToreno

You did nothing but distort facts...lets take a look at the overly grainyness that N64 games tend to have. Or some of them have choppiness, or how Mario 64 worlds sometimes look like lego blocks. Or F Zero X and Wave Racer 64 which you claim well, but are very slow and bland compared to wipeout(Which is obvious that you never played the game). Zelda 64 also looks badly, and its camera controls are not as great as people proclaim. And I find your arguments funny cause some of the stuff you say is clearly not true.

Agreed, he used a bunch of lame descriptions of the games that could be tacked on to any game ("poor", "outdated", "didn't age nearly as good")

At least I have the gonads to admit that the N64 did some things better then the PSX.

[QUOTE="MichaelToreno"]

[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"]

You did nothing but distort facts...lets take a look at the overly grainyness that N64 games tend to have. Or some of them have choppiness, or how Mario 64 worlds sometimes look like lego blocks. Or F Zero X and Wave Racer 64 which you claim well, but are very slow and bland compared to wipeout(Which is obvious that you never played the game). Zelda 64 also looks badly, and its camera controls are not as great as people proclaim. And I find your arguments funny cause some of the stuff you say is clearly not true.

Darkman2007

Agreed, he used a bunch of lame descriptions of the games that could be tacked on to any game ("poor", "outdated", "didn't age nearly as good")

At least I have the gonads to admit that the N64 did some things better then the PSX.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="MichaelToreno"]

Agreed, he used a bunch of lame descriptions of the games that could be tacked on to any game ("poor", "outdated", "didn't age nearly as good")

At least I have the gonads to admit that the N64 did some things better then the PSX.

MichaelToreno

[QUOTE="MichaelToreno"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] if something is better, its better, if its worse , its worse, why would someone be scared of saying what he thinks? maybe he really does think the N64 is better, I disagree, but at the end of the day its his opinion. I mean , I argue with people here all the time because I disagree with them about things, but I still respect their opinionDarkman2007

Oh and one other thing I'll say is that most of his criticisms of the PSX is that the graphics don't hold up very well. I won't dispute this because, honestly, I couldn't care less about graphics (which I consider to be, along with "realistic physics", the most overemphasized and unnecessary aspects in video gaming). It's all about the gameplay and storyline IMO. That's why I still play PSX and PS2 on a regular basis, even with my 360. So N64 you can have your graphics win, if you really want it.

well , like I said, I think he should explain why he thinks the N64 is so much better.

as I said before, my opinion is that every system back then had its good and bad, even the PS1 which won that generation had its issues.

Oh and one other thing I'll say is that most of his criticisms of the PSX is that the graphics don't hold up very well. I won't dispute this because, honestly, I couldn't care less about graphics (which I consider to be, along with "realistic physics", the most overemphasized and unnecessary aspects in video gaming). It's all about the gameplay and storyline IMO. That's why I still play PSX and PS2 on a regular basis, even with my 360. So N64 you can have your graphics win, if you really want it.

MichaelToreno

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="MichaelToreno"] He denounced every PSX classic in 1 paragraph. Either he really was born a true Nintendo fan to the bone who's tastes happen to align exactly with every N64 game and no PSX game, he played the PlayStation games years after they came out and that's why they're dated to him, or he's lying to himself to make a case for the N64.

MichaelToreno

Thats exactly what Nameless is doing, and Michael is correct. See Darkman you are a very good debater due to your knowledge of the Saturn and you always back up your arguments. The fact is that Nameless does not do that, he says your wrong your wrong, your wrong, but nothing to back it up. We do respect it, its just that he never ever clarifys his arguments or backs them up in the least Darkman. Yes you can respect opinions but you can also argue and sometimes opinions can be inaccurate when you donot back them up. That is exactly what Michael and I are pointing out here.....

Now I will concede that N64 was the better Multiplayer machine at that time. It did that better than any other console at that time, as it had some awesome party games.

to an extent I agree, he should explain a bit why he dislikes them but look at it this way. Im a big fan of the Saturn , and have a library of nearly 70 games for it, I know its awesome, and yet the amount of hate the Saturn is amazing compared to most systems, and the amount of garbage and false facts people speak about the system is quite alot. now, alot of the time, I can argue with them and have the better argument because I have more knowledge of the system and its library then them, but at the end of the day, it doesnt change their opinion , and I have to respect them. its probably the same here, you played more PS1 games then him , or at least I would think so, so prove him wrong while respecting his opinionDarkman2007

Thats exactly what Nameless is doing, and Michael is correct. See Darkman you are a very good debater due to your knowledge of the Saturn and you always back up your arguments. The fact is that Nameless does not do that, he says your wrong your wrong, your wrong, but nothing to back it up. We do respect it, its just that he never ever clarifys his arguments or backs them up in the least Darkman. Yes you can respect opinions but you can also argue and sometimes opinions can be inaccurate when you donot back them up. That is exactly what Michael and I are pointing out here.....

Now I will concede that N64 was the better Multiplayer machine at that time. It did that better than any other console at that time, as it had some awesome party games.

Everything you said x100

well , like I said, I think he should explain why he thinks the N64 is so much better.

as I said before, my opinion is that every system back then had its good and bad, even the PS1 which won that generation had its issues.

Darkman2007

[QUOTE="MichaelToreno"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] to an extent I agree, he should explain a bit why he dislikes them but look at it this way. Im a big fan of the Saturn , and have a library of nearly 70 games for it, I know its awesome, and yet the amount of hate the Saturn is amazing compared to most systems, and the amount of garbage and false facts people speak about the system is quite alot. now, alot of the time, I can argue with them and have the better argument because I have more knowledge of the system and its library then them, but at the end of the day, it doesnt change their opinion , and I have to respect them. its probably the same here, you played more PS1 games then him , or at least I would think so, so prove him wrong while respecting his opinionTheTrueMagusX1

Thats exactly what Nameless is doing, and Michael is correct. See Darkman you are a very good debater due to your knowledge of the Saturn and you always back up your arguments. The fact is that Nameless does not do that, he says your wrong your wrong, your wrong, but nothing to back it up. We do respect it, its just that he never ever clarifys his arguments or backs them up in the least Darkman. Yes you can respect opinions but you can also argue and sometimes opinions can be inaccurate when you donot back them up. That is exactly what Michael and I are pointing out here.....

Now I will concede that N64 was the better Multiplayer machine at that time. It did that better than any other console at that time, as it had some awesome party games.

[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"]

[QUOTE="MichaelToreno"] What i'm getting a though isn't that I don't respect his opinions. I think he's not honoring his opinions, but instead trying to win an argument. I mean it's like the equivalent of me saying that the worst PlayStation game in the library is better than Ocarina of Time simply because it's a PlayStation game (of course, if I were trying to win an argument like that I wouldn't include the "because it's a PlayStation game" part). Do you see what I'm getting at though. I just find it highly improbable that he can't appreciate ANY of those games he listed, especially given the diversity of them. And I don't agree with his take on the PS1 not aging well at all. I think PS1 was the blueprint for what gaming is today. It really took gaming into a more adult-oriented environment while Nintendo continued to rest it's laurels on more kid oriented games.Darkman2007

Thats exactly what Nameless is doing, and Michael is correct. See Darkman you are a very good debater due to your knowledge of the Saturn and you always back up your arguments. The fact is that Nameless does not do that, he says your wrong your wrong, your wrong, but nothing to back it up. We do respect it, its just that he never ever clarifys his arguments or backs them up in the least Darkman. Yes you can respect opinions but you can also argue and sometimes opinions can be inaccurate when you donot back them up. That is exactly what Michael and I are pointing out here.....

Now I will concede that N64 was the better Multiplayer machine at that time. It did that better than any other console at that time, as it had some awesome party games.

You are ultimatley right in the end, it is a matter of preception, simply put I argued with Nameless as that his arguments with simply baseless and reiterated his arguments for a PSX front....

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"]

Thats exactly what Nameless is doing, and Michael is correct. See Darkman you are a very good debater due to your knowledge of the Saturn and you always back up your arguments. The fact is that Nameless does not do that, he says your wrong your wrong, your wrong, but nothing to back it up. We do respect it, its just that he never ever clarifys his arguments or backs them up in the least Darkman. Yes you can respect opinions but you can also argue and sometimes opinions can be inaccurate when you donot back them up. That is exactly what Michael and I are pointing out here.....

Now I will concede that N64 was the better Multiplayer machine at that time. It did that better than any other console at that time, as it had some awesome party games.

TheTrueMagusX1

You are ultimatley right in the end, it is a matter of preception, simply put I argued with Nameless as that his arguments with simply baseless and reiterated his arguments for a PSX front....

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"]

Than if Banjo Kazooie is superior why did you challenge us to show you a better platformer as if it is impossible, but yet you do it yourself? Funny huh...

TheTrueMagusX1

I compared it to PS1 platformers.

And speaking of aging, my view is like this: Tomb Raider and Crash Bandicoot didn't age nearly as good as Mario 64 did, Wipeout and Ridge Racer on the PS1 now feel really outdated too whereas F-Zero X and Wave Race 64 on the N64 are still a blast (looking past the graphics in the case of F-Zero X), Tekken 3 was like the ultimate fighter back then but it's now pretty poor, Metal Gear Solid is a classic, but it looks too grainy and pixelated/shakey and has stiff controls, Resident Evil on the PS1 imo aged really bad, Final Fantasy's pre-rendered 2D backgrounds on the PS1 have nothing on Zelda 64's real 3D worlds and Gran Turismo 1 and 2, despite being the ultimate console racers in their time, fell really old compared to any newer racers.

So yeah, PS1 sure did age 100% better :P

You did nothing but distort facts...lets take a look at the overly grainyness that N64 games tend to have. Or some of them have choppiness, or how Mario 64 worlds sometimes look like lego blocks. Or F Zero X and Wave Racer 64 which you claim well, but are very slow and bland compared to wipeout(Which is obvious that you never played the game). Zelda 64 also looks badly, and its camera controls are not as great as people proclaim. And I find your arguments funny cause some of the stuff you say is clearly not true.

I couldn't have said it any better, Magus.

And maybe it's just me, but I'm a massive fan of 3D games that've got pre-rendered backgrounds!

[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] the thing is , its sometimes very hard to change people's opinions no matter how much evidence you throw at them , it happens here all the time sadly, and Im not going to name people who do that. ill give it that, the N64 was a great platformer system, wheres Saturn severly lacks in the 3D platformer catagory, other then a few notable games. PS1 had lots because it was popular, and lasted longer then the other 2. graphically its all a matter opinion , some people think the N64 has bad graphics, but I think its got some nice visuals, just too blurry for my tastes by comparison , people seem to think the Saturn has horrid 3D visuals because they played 1 game on it, and it was probably Dayotona USA.Darkman2007

You are ultimatley right in the end, it is a matter of preception, simply put I argued with Nameless as that his arguments with simply baseless and reiterated his arguments for a PSX front....

Well said Well said! I have seen you say this many times and you do have some good points about it!

[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

I compared it to PS1 platformers.

And speaking of aging, my view is like this: Tomb Raider and Crash Bandicoot didn't age nearly as good as Mario 64 did, Wipeout and Ridge Racer on the PS1 now feel really outdated too whereas F-Zero X and Wave Race 64 on the N64 are still a blast (looking past the graphics in the case of F-Zero X), Tekken 3 was like the ultimate fighter back then but it's now pretty poor, Metal Gear Solid is a classic, but it looks too grainy and pixelated/shakey and has stiff controls, Resident Evil on the PS1 imo aged really bad, Final Fantasy's pre-rendered 2D backgrounds on the PS1 have nothing on Zelda 64's real 3D worlds and Gran Turismo 1 and 2, despite being the ultimate console racers in their time, fell really old compared to any newer racers.

So yeah, PS1 sure did age 100% better :P

Emurozii

You did nothing but distort facts...lets take a look at the overly grainyness that N64 games tend to have. Or some of them have choppiness, or how Mario 64 worlds sometimes look like lego blocks. Or F Zero X and Wave Racer 64 which you claim well, but are very slow and bland compared to wipeout(Which is obvious that you never played the game). Zelda 64 also looks badly, and its camera controls are not as great as people proclaim. And I find your arguments funny cause some of the stuff you say is clearly not true.

I couldn't have said it any better, Magus.

And maybe it's just me, but I'm a massive fan of 3D games that've got pre-rendered backgrounds!

Thanks and yeah there is nothing wrong with prerendered backgrounds. Sure maybe not in a modern game, but I think games like The PSX REs look good, and so does games like FFVIII and FFIX as well.

[QUOTE="Emurozii"]

[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"]

You did nothing but distort facts...lets take a look at the overly grainyness that N64 games tend to have. Or some of them have choppiness, or how Mario 64 worlds sometimes look like lego blocks. Or F Zero X and Wave Racer 64 which you claim well, but are very slow and bland compared to wipeout(Which is obvious that you never played the game). Zelda 64 also looks badly, and its camera controls are not as great as people proclaim. And I find your arguments funny cause some of the stuff you say is clearly not true.

TheTrueMagusX1

I couldn't have said it any better, Magus.

And maybe it's just me, but I'm a massive fan of 3D games that've got pre-rendered backgrounds!

Thanks and yeah there is nothing wrong with prerendered backgrounds. Sure maybe not in a modern game, but I think games like The PSX REs look good, and so does games like FFVIII and FFIX as well.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"]

Than if Banjo Kazooie is superior why did you challenge us to show you a better platformer as if it is impossible, but yet you do it yourself? Funny huh...

TheTrueMagusX1

I compared it to PS1 platformers.

And speaking of aging, my view is like this: Tomb Raider and Crash Bandicoot didn't age nearly as good as Mario 64 did, Wipeout and Ridge Racer on the PS1 now feel really outdated too whereas F-Zero X and Wave Race 64 on the N64 are still a blast (looking past the graphics in the case of F-Zero X), Tekken 3 was like the ultimate fighter back then but it's now pretty poor, Metal Gear Solid is a classic, but it looks too grainy and pixelated/shakey and has stiff controls, Resident Evil on the PS1 imo aged really bad, Final Fantasy's pre-rendered 2D backgrounds on the PS1 have nothing on Zelda 64's real 3D worlds and Gran Turismo 1 and 2, despite being the ultimate console racers in their time, fell really old compared to any newer racers.

So yeah, PS1 sure did age 100% better :P

You did nothing but distort facts...lets take a look at the overly grainyness that N64 games tend to have. Or some of them have choppiness, or how Mario 64 worlds sometimes look like lego blocks. Or F Zero X and Wave Racer 64 which you claim well, but are very slow and bland compared to wipeout(Which is obvious that you never played the game). Zelda 64 also looks badly, and its camera controls are not as great as people proclaim. And I find your arguments funny cause some of the stuff you say is clearly not true.

Oh please, PS1 doesn't even have accelerated 3D graphics. It's graphics look like something on the DOS PC from 1994, whereas N64 is not much worse from 3dfx Voodoo graphics.

Mario 64 looks blocky, yes. Same with every other PS1 3D game.

F-Zero X is not slow, it runs at 60 fps with 30 vehicles at once. It may look more like a Atari Jaguar game, but it runs like butter, while Wave Race 64 has the best water effects seen in that generation.

And yes, I did play Wipeout and I think it now plays really bad.

Zelda doesn't look nearly as bad as some RPGs on the PS1, which are saved only be the fact that they have 2D backgrounds which don't look as pixelated.

And finaly, I said I don't want to argue about which system was better, but I just don't agree with ignorant statements.

It's my opinion, deal with it.

[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

I compared it to PS1 platformers.

And speaking of aging, my view is like this: Tomb Raider and Crash Bandicoot didn't age nearly as good as Mario 64 did, Wipeout and Ridge Racer on the PS1 now feel really outdated too whereas F-Zero X and Wave Race 64 on the N64 are still a blast (looking past the graphics in the case of F-Zero X), Tekken 3 was like the ultimate fighter back then but it's now pretty poor, Metal Gear Solid is a classic, but it looks too grainy and pixelated/shakey and has stiff controls, Resident Evil on the PS1 imo aged really bad, Final Fantasy's pre-rendered 2D backgrounds on the PS1 have nothing on Zelda 64's real 3D worlds and Gran Turismo 1 and 2, despite being the ultimate console racers in their time, fell really old compared to any newer racers.

So yeah, PS1 sure did age 100% better :P

nameless12345

You did nothing but distort facts...lets take a look at the overly grainyness that N64 games tend to have. Or some of them have choppiness, or how Mario 64 worlds sometimes look like lego blocks. Or F Zero X and Wave Racer 64 which you claim well, but are very slow and bland compared to wipeout(Which is obvious that you never played the game). Zelda 64 also looks badly, and its camera controls are not as great as people proclaim. And I find your arguments funny cause some of the stuff you say is clearly not true.

Oh please, PS1 doesn't even have accelerated 3D graphics. It's graphics look like something on the DOS PC from 1994, whereas N64 is not much worse from 3dfx Voodoo graphics.

Mario 64 looks blocky, yes. Same with every other PS1 3D game.

F-Zero X is not slow, it runs at 60 fps with 30 vehicles at once. It may look more like a Atari Jaguar game, but it runs like butter, while Wave Race 64 has the best water effects seen in that generation.

And yes, I did play Wipeout and I think it now plays really bad.

Zelda doesn't look nearly as bad as some RPGs on the PS1, which are saved only be the fact that they have 2D backgrounds which don't look as pixelated.

And finaly, I said I don't want to argue about which system was better, but I just don't agree with ignorant statements.

It's my opinion, deal with it.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"]

You did nothing but distort facts...lets take a look at the overly grainyness that N64 games tend to have. Or some of them have choppiness, or how Mario 64 worlds sometimes look like lego blocks. Or F Zero X and Wave Racer 64 which you claim well, but are very slow and bland compared to wipeout(Which is obvious that you never played the game). Zelda 64 also looks badly, and its camera controls are not as great as people proclaim. And I find your arguments funny cause some of the stuff you say is clearly not true.

MichaelToreno

Oh please, PS1 doesn't even have accelerated 3D graphics. It's graphics look like something on the DOS PC from 1994, whereas N64 is not much worse from 3dfx Voodoo graphics.

Mario 64 looks blocky, yes. Same with every other PS1 3D game.

F-Zero X is not slow, it runs at 60 fps with 30 vehicles at once. It may look more like a Atari Jaguar game, but it runs like butter, while Wave Race 64 has the best water effects seen in that generation.

And yes, I did play Wipeout and I think it now plays really bad.

Zelda doesn't look nearly as bad as some RPGs on the PS1, which are saved only be the fact that they have 2D backgrounds which don't look as pixelated.

And finaly, I said I don't want to argue about which system was better, but I just don't agree with ignorant statements.

It's my opinion, deal with it.

What exactly do you want to hear from me?

I've basically said everything I wanted in my first post in this thread.

Go look it up if you missed it.

I just oppose TheTrueMagus' ignorant statement that PS1 aged 100% better than N64.

I don't say he isn't allowed to think that, but he should make it clear it's just his opinion.

I did say that everything I write is just my opinion.

[QUOTE="MichaelToreno"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Oh please, PS1 doesn't even have accelerated 3D graphics. It's graphics look like something on the DOS PC from 1994, whereas N64 is not much worse from 3dfx Voodoo graphics.

Mario 64 looks blocky, yes. Same with every other PS1 3D game.

F-Zero X is not slow, it runs at 60 fps with 30 vehicles at once. It may look more like a Atari Jaguar game, but it runs like butter, while Wave Race 64 has the best water effects seen in that generation.

And yes, I did play Wipeout and I think it now plays really bad.

Zelda doesn't look nearly as bad as some RPGs on the PS1, which are saved only be the fact that they have 2D backgrounds which don't look as pixelated.

And finaly, I said I don't want to argue about which system was better, but I just don't agree with ignorant statements.

It's my opinion, deal with it.

nameless12345

What exactly do you want to hear from me?

I've basically said everything I wanted in my first post in this thread.

Go look it up if you missed it.

I just oppose TheTrueMagus' ignorant statement that PS1 aged 100% better than N64.

I don't say he isn't allowed to think that, but he should make it clear it's just his opinion.

I did say that everything I write is just my opinion.

I never said it aged better you were the one touting why it did not age well. You also got challenged by me, and you could not handle it. The problem that with your arguments or any of your other arguments is that you donot back them up. You never do, and when your opinion is challenged you have nothing to back it up. You just simply its better cause I said so...maybe if you backed up your arguments say like Darkman or myself than you would not be challenged as much. It is fine when you have an opinion, but if its a strong forceful opinion such as the one you have, make sure you can back it up.

[QUOTE="MichaelToreno"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Oh please, PS1 doesn't even have accelerated 3D graphics. It's graphics look like something on the DOS PC from 1994, whereas N64 is not much worse from 3dfx Voodoo graphics.

Mario 64 looks blocky, yes. Same with every other PS1 3D game.

F-Zero X is not slow, it runs at 60 fps with 30 vehicles at once. It may look more like a Atari Jaguar game, but it runs like butter, while Wave Race 64 has the best water effects seen in that generation.

And yes, I did play Wipeout and I think it now plays really bad.

Zelda doesn't look nearly as bad as some RPGs on the PS1, which are saved only be the fact that they have 2D backgrounds which don't look as pixelated.

And finaly, I said I don't want to argue about which system was better, but I just don't agree with ignorant statements.

It's my opinion, deal with it.

nameless12345

What exactly do you want to hear from me?

I've basically said everything I wanted in my first post in this thread.

Go look it up if you missed it.

I just oppose TheTrueMagus' ignorant statement that PS1 aged 100% better than N64.

I don't say he isn't allowed to think that, but he should make it clear it's just his opinion.

I did say that everything I write is just my opinion.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="MichaelToreno"] Wow I was hoping you'd win back some of your respect in my eyes with a solid argument. This is... just terrible. Oh and you don't want to argue about which system is better and yet you continue to tout the superiority of the N64 in every way without crediting the PSX with anything?TheTrueMagusX1

What exactly do you want to hear from me?

I've basically said everything I wanted in my first post in this thread.

Go look it up if you missed it.

I just oppose TheTrueMagus' ignorant statement that PS1 aged 100% better than N64.

I don't say he isn't allowed to think that, but he should make it clear it's just his opinion.

I did say that everything I write is just my opinion.

I never said it aged better you were the one touting why it did not age well. You also got challenged by me, and you could not handle it. The problem that with your arguments or any of your other arguments is that you donot back them up. You never do, and when your opinion is challenged you have nothing to back it up. You just simply its better cause I said so...maybe if you backed up your arguments say like Darkman or myself than you would not be challenged as much. It is fine when you have an opinion, but if its a strong forceful opinion such as the one you have, make sure you can back it up.

You do know that discussing video games is purely subjective matter, right?

People have opinions on everything, and gaming taste is not to be discussed.

I never claimed that the things I write match with everyone's views, I'm simply expressing my opinion.

Anyway, I don't want to discuss on this matter anymore. Let's not turn this into System Wars :P

Both systems were good, but I personally prefer the N64.

I prefer N64 over PSX. The obvious point to make is that the graphics are better. 32-bits better. 32-bit graphics are just so meh. However, the biggest point to make is definitely games. The N64 has Perfect Dark, Goldeneye, Majora's Mask, Ocarina of Time, Super Smash Bros, Mario 64, Banjo-Kazooie, Paper Mario, Conker's Bad Fur Day, Mario Party and Mario Kart 64, just to name a few. I haven't gotten too much into the PSX so this is just my kinda biased opinion.PersonNinja

ps1 had the better games.

[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

What exactly do you want to hear from me?

I've basically said everything I wanted in my first post in this thread.

Go look it up if you missed it.

I just oppose TheTrueMagus' ignorant statement that PS1 aged 100% better than N64.

I don't say he isn't allowed to think that, but he should make it clear it's just his opinion.

I did say that everything I write is just my opinion.

nameless12345

I never said it aged better you were the one touting why it did not age well. You also got challenged by me, and you could not handle it. The problem that with your arguments or any of your other arguments is that you donot back them up. You never do, and when your opinion is challenged you have nothing to back it up. You just simply its better cause I said so...maybe if you backed up your arguments say like Darkman or myself than you would not be challenged as much. It is fine when you have an opinion, but if its a strong forceful opinion such as the one you have, make sure you can back it up.

You do know that discussing video games is purely subjective matter, right?

People have opinions on everything, and gaming taste is not to be discussed.

I never claimed that the things I write match with everyone's views, I'm simply expressing my opinion.

[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

What exactly do you want to hear from me?

I've basically said everything I wanted in my first post in this thread.

Go look it up if you missed it.

I just oppose TheTrueMagus' ignorant statement that PS1 aged 100% better than N64.

I don't say he isn't allowed to think that, but he should make it clear it's just his opinion.

I did say that everything I write is just my opinion.

nameless12345

I never said it aged better you were the one touting why it did not age well. You also got challenged by me, and you could not handle it. The problem that with your arguments or any of your other arguments is that you donot back them up. You never do, and when your opinion is challenged you have nothing to back it up. You just simply its better cause I said so...maybe if you backed up your arguments say like Darkman or myself than you would not be challenged as much. It is fine when you have an opinion, but if its a strong forceful opinion such as the one you have, make sure you can back it up.

You do know that discussing video games is purely subjective matter, right?

People have opinions on everything, and gaming taste is not to be discussed.

I never claimed that the things I write match with everyone's views, I'm simply expressing my opinion.

When it comes to games being aged, there's a lot to do with actual fact too though, aswell as opinion.

Take Goldeneye for example...It brought FPS to home consoles, and it was an awesome game at the time.It was the first really good FPS on a home console and the first to succesfully implement split-screen play for multiplayer. But it's nowhere near as good as it was back then. It was the first game to do the genre really well, in no way did it perfect it. Are you really going to sit there and tell me Goldeneye is better than Resistance, Quakes, Killzone, Medal of Honour, Timesplitters, Halo, Doom, and, I hate to say it, even Call of Duty? They're superior games in almost everyway. The controls for Goldeneye now feel very jerky, which is mostly due to only having one analog stick which makes it hard to manuever fluently. You can't move when in the zoom in/aim mode (I'm not sure on the official term for this) which is not acceptable for nowadays. I appreciate Goldeneye for it's impact to the gaming industry but the game feels outdated now. The only reason I play this anymore is for nostalgia back then it was the only good FPS on a home console. If the game was picked up by todays audience, they'd probably play it for an hour, blessing themselves with the feel of nostalgia, and then come off feeling frustrated due to the controls.

If a game feels extremely choppy and has very jerky controls compared to nowadays standards, that's a fact. It isn't an opinion. Both the N64's and the PS1's library was affected, but the N64 was affected a lot more. If the framerate sucked balls on a game for example, that's a fact...Someone's opinion doesn't effect that. The only reason their opinion would effect it as to how much it bothered them, or how much they'd notice it. This is just one game (I just used Goldeneye as it's a very popular game)...A large amount of the games in the N64's library have aged badly, albeit it's the same for the PS1, but nowhere near as much.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"]

I never said it aged better you were the one touting why it did not age well. You also got challenged by me, and you could not handle it. The problem that with your arguments or any of your other arguments is that you donot back them up. You never do, and when your opinion is challenged you have nothing to back it up. You just simply its better cause I said so...maybe if you backed up your arguments say like Darkman or myself than you would not be challenged as much. It is fine when you have an opinion, but if its a strong forceful opinion such as the one you have, make sure you can back it up.

TheTrueMagusX1

You do know that discussing video games is purely subjective matter, right?

People have opinions on everything, and gaming taste is not to be discussed.

I never claimed that the things I write match with everyone's views, I'm simply expressing my opinion.

How can I back up my gaming taste? I can't "proove" that a game is bad per se. I can say I don't like it for whatever reason, but what I may not like someone else may.

[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

You do know that discussing video games is purely subjective matter, right?

People have opinions on everything, and gaming taste is not to be discussed.

I never claimed that the things I write match with everyone's views, I'm simply expressing my opinion.

nameless12345

How can I back up my gaming taste? I can't "proove" that a game is bad per se. I can say I don't like it for whatever reason, but what I may not like someone else may.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"]

I never said it aged better you were the one touting why it did not age well. You also got challenged by me, and you could not handle it. The problem that with your arguments or any of your other arguments is that you donot back them up. You never do, and when your opinion is challenged you have nothing to back it up. You just simply its better cause I said so...maybe if you backed up your arguments say like Darkman or myself than you would not be challenged as much. It is fine when you have an opinion, but if its a strong forceful opinion such as the one you have, make sure you can back it up.

Emurozii

You do know that discussing video games is purely subjective matter, right?

People have opinions on everything, and gaming taste is not to be discussed.

I never claimed that the things I write match with everyone's views, I'm simply expressing my opinion.

When it comes to games being aged, there's a lot to do with actual fact too though, aswell as opinion.

Take Goldeneye for example...It brought FPS to home consoles, and it was an awesome game at the time.It was the first really good FPS on a home console and the first to succesfully implement split-screen play for multiplayer. But it's nowhere near as good as it was back then. It was the first game to do the genre really well, in no way did it perfect it. Are you really going to sit there and tell me Goldeneye is better than Resistance, Quakes, Killzone, Medal of Honour, Timesplitters, Halo, Doom, and, I hate to say it, even Call of Duty? They're superior games in almost everyway. The controls for Goldeneye now feel very jerky, which is mostly due to only having one analog stick which makes it hard to manuever fluently. You can't move when in the zoom in/aim mode (I'm not sure on the official term for this) which is not acceptable for nowadays. I appreciate Goldeneye for it's impact to the gaming industry but the game feels outdated now. The only reason I play this anymore is for nostalgia back then it was the only good FPS on a home console. If the game was picked up by todays audience, they'd probably play it for an hour, blessing themselves with the feel of nostalgia, and then come off feeling frustrated due to the controls.

If a game feels extremely choppy and has very jerky controls compared to nowadays standards, that's a fact. It isn't an opinion. Both the N64's and the PS1's library was affected, but the N64 was affected a lot more. If the framerate sucked balls on a game for example, that's a fact...Someone's opinion doesn't effect that. The only reason their opinion would effect it as to how much it bothered them, or how much they'd notice it. This is just one game (I just used Goldeneye as it's a very popular game)...A large amount of the games in the N64's library have aged badly, albeit it's the same for the PS1, but nowhere near as much.

Well obviously you can't compare Goldeneye to modern shooters. Do you think that Medal of Honor on the PS1 is a good game by today's standards?

I respect Goldeneye for being groundbreaking in many aspects and I think it's still a fun shooter if you can look past the choppy framerate and clunky controls, but of course I wouldn't compare it to modern games.

I personally think the only PS1 game that aged well (in terms of gameplay) is Chrono Cross. Everything else on the PS1 feels ancient now imo.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"]Yes but at the same time you challenged mine. So if I am challenged I will see to it that I am backed up in my arguments. So next time you challenge while it is subjective you have some information to back up your arguments none the less.

MichaelToreno

How can I back up my gaming taste? I can't "proove" that a game is bad per se. I can say I don't like it for whatever reason, but what I may not like someone else may.

I'm discussing games and game systems, I'm not discussing people's tastes ;)

I don't want to argue, I'm simply expressing my opinions.