First of all, I'm not even sure someone can say they "love RPGs" and never have played a Final Fantasy.

But anyway, not everyone has to play the most popular franchises. I've never played a Call of Duty for longer than a few minutes, and I haven't completed a Mario or Zelda since the 16-bit days. I'm sure there are plenty of big-time gamers out there who have never played a FF; it just might not be their thing.

I go in their sometimes to buy games and the biggest nerds ever work in those stores.... They talk about leveling up and videogames and crap like that.... They know all the reviews and scores and crap.... Do you know what I am saying???

AnalogOdyssey

...I was in the Gap the other day and the employees were all talking about clothes. They knew all about the styles and designs and crap.

Do you know what I am saying???

:roll:

The biggest games of any consols in the US was Halo, GTA, and of course, Madden. So right now, here's what I see: 360 already has Halo, and they will have the superior GTA4 with the episodic content, and now they have the superior Madden with 60fps...can this gen make a huge turn around from last-gen? I think so because these three franchises will be the biggest key. And let's not forget Bioshock's 360 exclusitivity.

ASK_Story

The 360 version of GTA IV will NOT be the only version with episodic content. For the millionth - and last - time, Microsoft paid to make one particular batch of episodic content exclusive to the Xbox 360's Live Marketplace. It's basically a given that the Network will have its own content as well, as most industry insiders will tell you.

As for Madden, I was the first one to break the story that the game wouldn't run at 60fps on the PS3; EA confirmed to us at PSXE that this would happen, and subsequently, the information made its rounds on the Internet. So nobody should be surprised in the slightest that the PS3 version scored lower...of course it would, it's not the best version.

It's the complex architecture of the PS3 that's causing EA problems, but if you examine Epic working closely with Sony to optimize their UE3 engine, you get the likes of Rainbow Six Vegas, which was excellent on the PS3. It's just a matter of developers making an effort...and I think we can all agree that EA hasn't always made the best effort. In regards to Bioshock, it seems more and more likely it will arrive on the PS3 some time next year, if any of the rumors are to be believed. Even if it does happen, I personally wouldn't wait for the PS3 version just because it probably won't be any better than the 360 version.

But all in all, you talk about those three franchises as the "biggest key." But perhaps you're fogetting Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, Gran Turismo, and the new Killzone. For this year, I'm looking at Heavenly Sword, Ratchet and Clank Future: Tools of Destruction, Unreal Tournament 3 and Haze (both exclusive to PS3 this year), Lair, and Warhawk. The 360 has Bioshock, Halo 3, and Mass Effect; multiplats would be Assassin's Creed, Half-Life 2: Orange, Stranglehold, Guitar Hero III, etc. There are plenty of games to go around, but it sounds like you're trying to eliminate the PS3 before things even get started. Seems to me everything is pretty closely matched, and with the new MGS, FF, GT, and Killzone in 2008, I think you're discounting pretty major franchises (even though the last isn't technically a "franchise").

This question is never difficult to answer.

Anybody who loves games is hardcore. Plain and simple. How much time spent playing is entirely irrelevant.

I could not believe the excellent connection I received when playing the beta, I am on a weak wireless signal and still had 30+ people and no lag.dvader654

I never had any problem with the actual gameplay, either. But there was that phase early on where I couldn't play more than a few minutes without getting the inevitable system crash... Thankfully, they fixed that with an update and everything was good again. :)

[QUOTE="fathoms_basic"]

debate simply because none of them (save FF X-2) are "sequels." But even if you did include it, the first FF was certainly NOT the best.

weirjf

You're out of your mind. AT THAT TIME, the original FF was definately the best RPG on the market by a long shot

...the hell does that have to do with anything? This is a discussion about sequels, if you hadn't noticed. A direct comparison of the original FF and something like FF VII or XII is completely absurd.

Considering that many - if not most - video game sequels turn out better than the original, I don't see how this is a problem.

This isn't like the movies; technology continues to advance in gaming at a rapid pace, so of course, later installments in franchises have much better benefits. They have more talent the whole way 'round, usually; it's not just about enhanced graphics. God of War was amazing, but GoW II was better. Diablo II was far better than Diablo. There is no comparison between Medal of Honor and Medal of Honor: Frontline. Few would say the original MGS, Gran Turismo, Zelda, Need for Speed, Grand Theft Auto, Resident Evil, Madden, or Twisted Metal titles were the best in those fabled series. There are exceptions, of course - you could make arguments for Super Mario Bros., Devil May Cry, and Half-Life - but for the most part, later installments are often better than their predecessors.

Do we even doubt for a split second that GT 5, DMC 4, Halo 3, GTA IV, RE 5, R&C: Tools of Destruction, and MGS 4 will be absolutely stellar? Because I sure don't.

P.S. I'm not including Final Fantasy in this debate simply because none of them (save FF X-2) are "sequels." But even if you did include it, the first FF was certainly NOT the best.