Jump to content

What is your favorite videogame home console ever?


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

Well, of course.  The NES wasn't as powerful as new arcade hardware at the time.

I was thinking more about when arcade to NES conversions resulted in a crap game.
 

 

 

That's the point we're making. :p 

 

Putting it on better hardware and not restricting the developers didn't lead to inferior arcade games compared to their console counterparts.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

Significant concessions were made to get it to run on the NES.


And they still ended up being better beat'em ups than pretty much anything else on the system.

 

I bet most people experienced, or beat, TMNT2 at home on the NES.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, crispy4000 said:


And they still ended up being better beat'em ups than pretty much anything else on the system.

 

I bet most people experienced, or beat, TMNT2 at home on the NES.

 

What does that have to do with the hypothesis that more limitations on developers create superior experiences?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

What does that have to do with the hypothesis that more limitations on developers create superior experiences?

 

Nothing.  I was just wanting to discuss how fun the NES ports still are.

 

23 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

Putting it on better hardware and not restricting the developers didn't lead to inferior arcade games compared to their console counterparts.


It all depends on the nature of what the restrictions mean for the game design.  I've beaten both versions of TMNT2, and while I prefer the arcade, I'd still say both games work out similarly enough to each other in the end.  Konami did an excellent job considering the power difference.  It was a fantastic port.

This might appear totally unrelated, but what are your feelings about Halo Infinite potentially being an open world FPS?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

Nothing.  I was just wanting to discuss how fun the NES ports still are.

 


It all depends on the nature of what the restrictions mean for the game design.  I've beaten both versions of TMNT2, and while I prefer the arcade, I'd still say both games work out similarly enough to each other in the end.  Konami did an excellent job considering the power difference.  It was a fantastic port.

This might appear totally unrelated, but what are your feelings about Halo Infinite potentially being an open world FPS?

 

I'm laughing at your first sentence. Well played. :p 

 

I'm all for a different kind of Halo since 4 and 5 didn't inspire the series' future or keep Halo up there in popularity with games like Destiny, Call of Duty, Battlefront or Overwatch as far as big multiplayer games go. In fact, after God of War, reinventing a series gets a huge thumbs up from me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

I feel like a lot of those games were limited and compromised to be honest. Hell, you had games at the time on home consoles that were shadows of what they were in the arcades due to limited tech. There was nothing more disappointing as a kid to get the NES version of your favorite arcade game and have it be a pale comparison of the game you fell in love with at the local arcade. That's just one example of how old games on classic consoles were held back by available tech.

 

19 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

NES had significantly more limits than the SNES, and the SNES is far superior as a result. Atari had significant limits and there's little I'd go back to as a result. Even simple things, like Super Mario World having a save system and SMB3 not having it, put World over 3, for example. Games had more personality to them as well in the SNES days since there was far more developers could do to enhance the look of a game.

 

3 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

That's the point we're making. :p 

 

Putting it on better hardware and not restricting the developers didn't lead to inferior arcade games compared to their console counterparts.

 

But were these games really inferior because of the hardware limitations, or because they weren't playing to the console's strengths and/or rushed ports? Why not take a game like Bionic Commando. The arcade version might have had better graphics (though I think the artstyle in the NES game is superior) but it was only 4 levels long, the levels weren't as engaging or complex, the game was linear, and lacked some of the deeper mechanics like the item selection. So instead of doing a sloppy port, they re-built the game from the ground up on the NES and it became an instant classic that is still beloved to this day. It has 3 or 4 times as many levels as the arcade game where you can tackle them in any order. The platforming is more complex and challenging. The level design is more interesting and exploration based. It had vertical levels, safe zones, a stategic map system, and item discovery with an equip screen you had to choose before starting a mission.

 

Similarly Double Dragon II is far superior to it's arcade counterpart. Personally, I like the NES games more than all of the arcade versions, but DDII is the stand out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

I'm all for a different kind of Halo since 4 and 5 didn't inspire the series' future or keep Halo up there in popularity with games like Destiny, Call of Duty, Battlefront or Overwatch as far as big multiplayer games go. In fact, after God of War, reinventing a series gets a huge thumbs up from me.
 


Reinvention is definitely good for that franchise, but I could also see Infinite being as polarizing to fans as 343i's other entries.  If they do go open world with it, it'd be hard to reconcile that with the linear design with open spaces that Halo is known for.

 

The current consoles would allow them to try it, sure.  It might also end up being the wrong approach.

A larger canvas doesn't necessarily result in a more prized picture.  I feel much of the same applies to this talk about technology and modern game design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

NES had significantly more limits than the SNES, and the SNES is far superior as a result. Atari had significant limits and there's little I'd go back to as a result. Even simple things, like Super Mario World having a save system and SMB3 not having it, put World over 3, for example. Games had more personality to them as well in the SNES days since there was far more developers could do to enhance the look of a game.

 

Wanted to disagree with this point too. Is it easier to have more personality in 16-bit games? Sure. But when developers really worked hard on the NES, it pays off huge. Just look at Punch Out on the NES vs the arcade game. The arcade game graphically looks amazing, but the NES game has far more charm and personality and they managed to replicate the gameplay without any sacrifices.

 

Or even SMB3 vs SMW. Mario 3's stage play aesthetic is beautiful and unique. Each stage is unique from the next and many levels have a unique concept or idea that is only seen once. Compared to World's favoring of cohesive themes and settings, it still lacks the variety, randomness, and charm from SMB3. However, Yoshi's Island is a different story and few have topped those aesthetics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Bjomesphat said:

 

Wanted to disagree with this point too. Is it easier to have more personality in 16-bit games? Sure. But when developers really worked hard on the NES, it pays off huge. Just look at Punch Out on the NES vs the arcade game. The arcade game graphically looks amazing, but the NES game has far more charm and personality and they managed to replicate the gameplay without any sacrifices.

 

Or even SMB3 vs SMW. Mario 3's stage play aesthetic is beautiful and unique. Each stage is unique from the next and many levels have a unique concept or idea that is only seen once. Compared to World's favoring of cohesive themes and settings, it still lacks the variety, randomness, and charm from SMB3. However, Yoshi's Island is a different story and few have topped those aesthetics.

 

Megaman is the big exception in my book.  Megaman 7 was so jarring.  It took Capcom until X to hit their stride on the SNES.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, crispy4000 said:

 

Megaman is the big exception in my book.  Megaman 7 was so jarring.  It took Capcom until X to finally hit their stride on the SNES.

 

Oh yeah, meant to talk about Mega Man too.

 

Yeah NES Mega Man is iconic with a very well defined artstyle for the limited hardware. They definitely nailed it with X, but 7 and 8 just look gaudy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

8 technically wasn't on the SNES.  Rockman & Forte was.

 

I actually don't mind 8 as much as 7's style.  The sprites and animations in 7 are just really bad for judging jump distances.

 

Yeah, you're right. I keep forgetting 8 came after the SNES X series. I don't know what they were thinking there. I really don't like the look of 8.

 

But I've never fully played it, so I'm semi-excited for when I get to it on the Legacy Collection 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

Another notable game where better technology and an attempt at 'modernization' didn't help.

header.jpg?t=1530643345
 

I haven't played FFXV yet, but it doesn't sound like it brought the franchise back to its former glory either.

I would have just used FFX and been done with it. :lol:

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

Another notable game where better technology and an attempt at 'modernization' didn't help.

header.jpg?t=1530643345
 

I haven't played FFXV yet, but it doesn't sound like it brought the franchise back to its former glory either.

 

This really doesn't matter. For most of the same games back then, if released now, would not be considered best in class because games are continuing to do better than what came before. The fact that FFXIII was a step down from previous iterations doesn't really change the larger point. Games can try to go a different direction; FFXV's open-world was different than the world map in older FFs or the linear ones like X. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't (which always happens if you try something completely new or new within a series).

 

But the overall trend keeps improving, which is why people's favorite "old" consoles are never Atari; you're not getting the same quality game as you would the Genesis or SNES. Games like Witcher 3 or Horizon or God of War or Last of Us are written in ways that weren't possible 20 or 30 years ago. Metal Gear Solid was one of the few games that had pretty impressive voice-acting and wit that games in that generation like Resident Evil did not. Now many games have better writing overall compared to their contemporaries generations back.

 

Something like Undertale is written better than most games of the NES generation games that I can think of. For example, even indie games that look like 8-bit or 16-bit games typically don't have this in them:

 

Ghosts-N-Goblins.png?w=980&q=75

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a tough one. I would say SNES gun to my head. I had one growning up and I still play same one today. Runner up would be PSX. However I would say going back I'm having more fun discovoring games on the TurboDuo (TG16) and Sega Saturn. Although they are not easy or cheap to collect for. I had both the Genesis/SegaCD and SNES at the same time and I would give SNES the node. Although the Genesis does what Nintendon't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

But the overall trend keeps improving, which is why people's favorite "old" consoles are never Atari; you're not getting the same quality game as you would the Genesis or SNES. Games like Witcher 3 or Horizon or God of War or Last of Us are written in ways that weren't possible 20 or 30 years ago. Metal Gear Solid was one of the few games that had pretty impressive voice-acting and wit that games in that generation like Resident Evil did not. Now many games have better writing overall compared to their contemporaries generations back.

 

Something like Undertale is written better than most games of the NES generation games that I can think of. For example, even indie games that look like 8-bit or 16-bit games typically don't have this in them:

 

I think there's a legitimate argument where technology just isn't there to accommodate making a compelling and timeless game. Which is the case for Atari and any home console in the 70s. But we definitely hit the bare minimum with early 80s arcade and beyond.

 

I think your Undertale example goes against some of your point though. There's nothing technologically in that game that couldn't have been done on the NES, that game is just the result of experience and a mature industry and the growing expectations of consumers. Which of course does fit with your argument that there's a trend that games are improving.

 

Obviously I can't argue that there's a lot of things possible now than there ever was in the past, and growing consumer demands have contributed to higher quality writing and presentation. However, I still don't think any of this necessarily equates to a trend of better games.

 

And just to stir the pot, I would play Metal Gear Solid over MGS4 or MGS5 (probably even MGS2). I also think The Witcher is the best game in the trilogy, The Witcher 2 is awful, and The Witcher 3 is bloated and not very compelling on a gameplay level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are DEFINITELY in the minority regarding The Witcher. The gameplay in the first game is laughably bad. It just is. I have yet to finish it after several attempts.  there is nothing "bloated" about Tge Witcher 3... you and I are clearly at opposite ends of the spectrum on this...

 

Oh and SnakeEater is the best Metal Gear game to date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, Now that I have read through the thread. I will Say NES is a great console but the arcade conversions where crap and don't age well. I say this as someone that played the arcade versions and was disappointed at many attempts. TMNT2 on NES was trash on the NES compared to the Arcade counterpart and I played the hell out of the arcade version. DoubleDragon on the NES was also not great on the NES as it took away co-op and not great. However Contra was a great NES port as was Donkey Kong on the NES. Also many of these arcade releases got released later in compilations or as downloadable games on consoles. The SNES and Genesis started to get more faithful arcade ports. Then PlayStation and Saturn got nearly perfect arcade ports. For Example I would play Street Fighter 2 on Saturn before I would play it on SNES.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SaysWho? said:

This really doesn't matter. For most of the same games back then, if released now, would not be considered best in class because games are continuing to do better than what came before. The fact that FFXIII was a step down from previous iterations doesn't really change the larger point. Games can try to go a different direction; FFXV's open-world was different than the world map in older FFs or the linear ones like X. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't (which always happens if you try something completely new or new within a series).

 

But the overall trend keeps improving, which is why people's favorite "old" consoles are never Atari; you're not getting the same quality game as you would the Genesis or SNES. Games like Witcher 3 or Horizon or God of War or Last of Us are written in ways that weren't possible 20 or 30 years ago. Metal Gear Solid was one of the few games that had pretty impressive voice-acting and wit that games in that generation like Resident Evil did not. Now many games have better writing overall compared to their contemporaries generations back.

That trend hasn't caught up with Halo yet. FPS games in general are on a decline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Final Fantasy went to shit after IX. 

 

You weak mofos keep comparing TMNT in the arcade vs. NES, bitches I own both. The NES port is perfectly competent, though brutal and I much prefer the arcade version based on that alone.

 

RE4 was a fantastic and revolutionary game for its time and I think it still holds up today, though it's been surpassed by newer and better games.

 

I can't imagine how anyone could find The Witcher 3 bloated. It was some of the best side content I've ever seen in a game. Nothing really felt wasted. 

 

Just a few thoughts after reading the last couple pages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

Final Fantasy went to shit after IX. 

 

You weak mofos keep comparing TMNT in the arcade vs. NES, bitches I own both. The NES port is perfectly competent, though brutal and I much prefer the arcade version based on that alone.

 

RE4 was a fantastic and revolutionary game for its time and I think it still holds up today, though it's been surpassed by newer and better games.

 

I can't imagine how anyone could find The Witcher 3 bloated. It was some of the best side content I've ever seen in a game. Nothing really felt wasted. 

 

Just a few thoughts after reading the last couple pages.

 

I felt most of the side content was rinse and repeat. Some of the larger quests were good, but many didn't have to do with the main quest and so I lost interest. Whereas The Witcher 1 almost every quest served to flesh out the main story or Geralt's character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

Final Fantasy went to shit after IX. 

X is good, but very flawed. If it didn’t have the awful VA I think people would like it more (when I say people I mean fans prior to X). 

 

XII is actually very good as well, it’s just a huge departure. 

 

It’s not until XIII until the series goes to utter shit. And man, what a shit game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hated FFX. Really enjoyed FFXIII. At the time, it was total eye and ear candy with an amazing battle system, one of the best FF protagonists (Lightning),  and serviceable anime story. And I still listen to the soundtrack to this day. Easily one of the best of FF. Of course the linearity, the hand holding, the lack of character customization and the lack of exploration brought it down a few pegs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Someone hasn't played Doom or Titanfall 2's campaigns

While I think Titanfall 2's campaign is overhyped, its still a really solid campaign. Thats another discussion though.

 

Two games that are two years old isn't really any evidence that the genre isn't in a decline. When was the last really good campaign before then? What about multiplayer? Lawbreakers failed, Quake isn't doing amazingly hot, Halo isn't doing great, CoD isn't going great, Battlefront is a bust, Battlefield is okay? Overwatch is the only thing that really comes to mind that has been a success so far multiplayer wise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bjomesphat said:

 

I think there's a legitimate argument where technology just isn't there to accommodate making a compelling and timeless game. Which is the case for Atari and any home console in the 70s. But we definitely hit the bare minimum with early 80s arcade and beyond.

 

I think your Undertale example goes against some of your point though. There's nothing technologically in that game that couldn't have been done on the NES, that game is just the result of experience and a mature industry and the growing expectations of consumers. Which of course does fit with your argument that there's a trend that games are improving.

 

Obviously I can't argue that there's a lot of things possible now than there ever was in the past, and growing consumer demands have contributed to higher quality writing and presentation. However, I still don't think any of this necessarily equates to a trend of better games.

 

And just to stir the pot, I would play Metal Gear Solid over MGS4 or MGS5 (probably even MGS2). I also think The Witcher is the best game in the trilogy, The Witcher 2 is awful, and The Witcher 3 is bloated and not very compelling on a gameplay level.

 

Oh hell naw, I'd take 5 over 1 in a heartbeat. 1 is my "least" favorite, which I put in quotes because I love all five of the main games and also Peace Walker. The bad first-person view (more noticeable during the Sniper Wolf battle and the jeep sequence at the end) really hurts during those parts, and the lack of options for stealth are noticeable once you've played future games in the series. I went from 5 to 1 and 2 back in 2015 because 

Spoiler

I was so disgusted with Huey (in a good way, he was a very compelling character but a terrible human being even if what he said made some sense) that I had to remember how much better a person his son was.

 And it was so apparent how much better everything about the controls were and the amount I could do and the way both stealth and brute force felt great to play. 

 

Witcher 1 I haven't played, but for people starting the series, 1 is usually far harder to get through IIRC. The less fluid gameplay is also apparent going from Uncharted 4 or Lost Legacy and back to 1. Sonic Mania I think is also a great example of iterating on a franchise and making arguably the best Sonic game (can't wait for the sequel). Doesn't mean the previous games don't have a place in history or aren't enjoyable/good games now, but there have been big improvements in so many fronts.

 

3 minutes ago, Nokt said:

While I think Titanfall 2's campaign is overhyped, its still a really solid campaign. Thats another discussion though.

 

Two games that are two years old isn't really any evidence that the genre isn't in a decline. When was the last really good campaign before then? What about multiplayer? Lawbreakers failed, Quake isn't doing amazingly hot, Halo isn't doing great, CoD isn't going great, Battlefront is a bust, Battlefield is okay? Overwatch is the only thing that really comes to mind that has been a success so far multiplayer wise.

 

Call of Duty was the best-selling game last year and Battlefront was number 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Nokt said:

While I think Titanfall 2's campaign is overhyped, its still a really solid campaign. Thats another discussion though.

 

Two games that are two years old isn't really any evidence that the genre isn't in a decline. When was the last really good campaign before then? What about multiplayer? Lawbreakers failed, Quake isn't doing amazingly hot, Halo isn't doing great, CoD isn't going great, Battlefront is a bust, Battlefield is okay? Overwatch is the only thing that really comes to mind that has been a success so far multiplayer wise.

PuBG? Rainbow Six Seige?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

Call of Duty was the best-selling game last year and Battlefront was number 2.

Battlefront was number 2 in December. 8th overall for the year.

It isn't abnormal for bad Call of Duty games to top the chart. Even its worst titles top the charts (Advance Warframe 2014)

 

Money alone isn't what makes a game good though.

When was the last memorable CoD campaign? When was the last multiplayer that was loved by fans? What was the last CoD that scored above a 90 on metacritic? Heck when was the last time a FPS scored above a 90 on metacritic.

 

15 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

PuBG? Rainbow Six Seige?

FPS wasn't available at launch, but I guess we could count it.

Rainbow Six Seige did make a pretty good comeback, however I don't think its a widespread success, it just found its niche and makes it work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Nokt said:

Battlefront was number 2 is December. 8th overall for the year.

It isn't abnormal for bad Call of Duty games to top the chart. Even its worst titles top the charts (Advance Warframe 2014)

 

Money alone isn't what makes a game good though.

When was the last memorable CoD campaign? When was the last multiplayer that was loved by fans? What was the last CoD that scored above a 90 on metacritic? Heck when was the last time a FPS scored above a 90 on metacritic.

 

You said success in regards to Overwatch, so I brought up the sales. Also, 8th for the year and only being out for two months is pretty fantastic.

 

I don't really look at Metacritic as a good comparison since reviewers used to hand out 100s like hot cakes. Many of the high-scoring FPSs of yesteryear, like Goldeneye and Perfect Dark, are slideshow games now with their horrid frame rate, and have weird decisions nowadays like auto-aim and a lack of jumping. So you can cite their Metacritic scores, but I wouldn't put too much stock into them if you did. :p 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...