This is the new games thread

[Me!]

Ps2 is probably the best console ever made, as far as library goes. The xbox was a bust.

SNES has something to say about that.

[Having Fun!]

Skin-crawling realization that some members of AST may have grown up with the Playstation and N64 as their first video game system. Mama-Mia, indeed.

[Cameron]

Skin-crawling realization that some members of AST may have grown up with the Playstation and N64 as their first video game system. Mama-Mia, indeed.

Wait, what is the average AST poster's age?

I'm 21, and I kind of assumed I was towards the younger end here. I got started with the NES.

[I love nny]

same as Cameron. My first system i actually owned my self was the genesis, but my friend has an nes and even cooler a DK arcade cabinet. hell for a brief time i had an atari 2600. and im only 24

[ASR]

I'm 19 and my first console was an SNES, but I played NES (specifically MegaMan) all the time at a friend's house.

I would think you'd have to be around 16 or something right now to have started off with an N64.

[nathansmart]

SNES has something to say about that.

You know I was going to post this as well, but now I'm thinking a bit here... I kind of feel like the Nintendo 64 completely changed everything for Nintendo and that the PS2 was the true sequel to the SNES (which makes sense because originally it was). If that's true, then someone really needs to sit down and make some comparisons between the game libraries of the two to see which one really had the better games.

Of course, I'm a sucker for 16-bit gaming so I almost have to go with the SNES, but it would be interesting to read an in-depth article about it.

[nathansmart]

I meant to say the PS1 - sorry

[TimBuktu]

Uhhh... PS2 wins. The library is insane.

[Umlaut]

Not to mention PS2 being the first system to play DVDs. The Wii still can't even do that.

[nathansmart]

Not that I want to get into the PS2 because I meant the PS1 but the SNES was a powerhouse when it came to their games library. And you have to consider the time periods, so you can't say that the games are more capable on the PS2. You have to line the systems up, side-by-side with their competitors, and you have also take into account the ratio of good to bad which the PS2 was notorious for (the amount of bad games they had).

But, like I said, I'd rather discuss the PS1 vs. SNES because it's hard to have a clear head when you're talking complete jumps in generations.

*oh, and I'm strictly talking library so DVD capability means nothing

[isoS]

Of course, I'm a sucker for 16-bit gaming so I almost have to go with the SNES, but it would be interesting to read an in-depth article about it.

I think you're forgetting an important point...

GENESIS DOES...
WHAT NINTENDON'T.

[nathansmart]

Until they did it with the SNES

[bridgetosolace]

SNES has something to say about that.

SNES had 720 games, playstation has, with a conservative estimate (since the wiki mentions not all the games where released), more than 1500.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tation_2_games

Ignoring the nostalgia factor, games get better as the generations go on, which I think is said well here (mostly at the beginning and end):

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/vide...LA-Double-Bill

So yeah, I'd say there is more quality on the ps2 than the SNES.

[isoS]

There were great games on the PS2, but there was also a LOT of crap (partly owing to the fact that they relied so heavily on 3rd party support), whereas any Nintendo system is going to have exceptional first-party titles (and also some crap, of course). I might argue the point that games get better as generations go on -- the Sega Saturn/PS1 generation took a step backwards in my mind as developers tried to port everything to 3D without always knowing how. And advances in technology and graphics don't necessarily correlate to playability and controls. Older games might be simpler in some ways, but they can also be more fun and have way more re-playability. That's why you see things like that MegaMan project, and the popularity of classic titles on the Wii Virtual Console and the XBox Marketplace or whatever they call it. I have to assume that graphics will eventually plateau, and then we'll be left with the question of what makes a game fun, something the best games figured out almost 30 years ago. There's also something to be said for technological limitations leading to more creative solutions and more interesting games. You see that a lot in movies, where CGI has allowed filmmakers to create anything, and the result is often less interesting than when they couldn't show everything and were forced to find creative ways around that obstacle.

[nathansmart]

Again, I didn't want to make this about the PS2 but it seems everyone does so I'll just roll with it.*

SNES had 720 games, playstation has, with a conservative estimate (since the wiki mentions not all the games where released), more than 1500.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tation_2_games

I mentioned it before, but I'll say it again: what is the ratio of good to bad games on the PS2 vs. the SNES? I know it would be hard to know that without major research and I recall so many bad games on the PS2... that was always a talking point.

Ignoring the nostalgia factor, games get better as the generations go on, which I think is said well here (mostly at the beginning and end):

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/vide...LA-Double-Bill

So yeah, I'd say there is more quality on the ps2 than the SNES.

That's so unfair to the systems at the time though. Of course you could argue that something like Gears of War is better than any game on the Atari 2600 but that would be unfair to the knowledge of those older programmers. But, if you take the good-to-bad games ratio of the 360 vs. the Atari - at this point in the game, it's clear that the 360 kills the clone-tastic Atari 2600.

*Anyone have any opinions on PS1 vs. SNES?

[Berliner]

Too many caveats!

[nathansmart]

my only caveat is that you judge good-to-bad games ratio...

(which in my mind covers all the other stuff I said)

[nathansmart]

wait - maybe I don't know what caveat means

[Berliner]

my only caveat is that you judge good-to-bad games ratio...

(which in my mind covers all the other stuff I said)

Well, why judge it on a ratio instead of absolute numbers? Even assuming that half of the PS2's games were completely terrible, that still leaves more good games than the entire SNES library.

Edit: Also, I can see comparing the SNES with the Genesis and PS2 with the XBOX, etc, but comparing the SNES with the PS2 seems pretty futile.

[nathansmart]

Because as the generations get older, more companies are jumping on the bandwagon and are creating games. So, it's only fair that current video game systems will have more than older video game systems. That's just technology moving on. That's why I don't count that.

And, I didn't want to compare the SNES to the PS2. I wanted to do PS1 which is more N64 territory, but I think the PS1 is closer to the SNES than N64. Besides, of course it's probably easier to compare consoles within their own generations but I think it's an interesting thing to discuss when you go outside of that. Most people would probably say that they had the most fun playing the NES more than any other system in their life (and that's chalked up to being a kid during that time) but when you take away the nostalgia and kid factor the only thing that holds up is the games themselves.

I go back and play a lot of games from the NES era that I absolutely loved when I was a kid and I HATE them now. But, there are so many games from the SNES era that I can always go back to and have fun. That's why I hold onto that system so much.