In "top 10 games of all time" lists the only Playstation game you tend to see is FFVII, which deserves its place but is more a triumph of storytelling than gameplay; from the N64 Ocarina of Time and Goldeneye both regularly feature. It was only towards the end of its life that we saw Playstation games comparable to those in technical terms (heck, while it's been overshadowed by later instalments I remember being blown away by Rogue Squadron back in '97 or so), and I don't think we ever saw the equal of Perfect Dark until the next console generation and Halo.
IMO the original is much much harder than the follow-ups. Those licence tests were hard. (And a great part of the game play that they only really realised in much later incarnations, that tiny short challenge had the "just one more try" feature that's important for good addictive game play.)
Tomb raider is an interesting choice. It's a huge franchise, and very very popular. Some parts of the games were really good. But the games did suffer from unnecessary bugginess. Which is weird because that company produced other great games that were not full of bugs.
Owning many systems is, obviously, something that people who love games should be doing. BomberMan on SNES is god-like multiplayer; MicroMachines on Genesis / megadrive is the best version; etc.
It's a shame that as the hardware (and the storage medium) is dying that people have to rely on emulation. Mostly this is great. But for some systems it's not, and for all systems it's not legal.
It'd be nice if there was a simple way to pay for playing roms, and if people could work on emulators for dead systems without facing scary legal stuff.
There's a clear reason why the N64 sold way less than the PS1: it was just a much better deal to get a PS1 if you wanted to play lots of different games. The market is not stupid :)
Sure, but I think it extends to top100 or even top1000 games; my point was that the N64 has more of the high end. Unless you're a video game reviewer or something you're probably going to play <50 games over the life of a system, and for most people who play a variety of games (sure, not if you're a dedicated fan of a single genre) I think the N64 top 50 beats the PS1 top 50.
The PS1 undeniably had more third-party support and far more games, and sure that means more variety. But if you're talking about whether something's a "poor system for games", I'm more bothered about having the best games than having a wide variety of genres. (Hell, I count the Game Gear as a "good system")
>There's a clear reason why the N64 sold way less than the PS1: it was just a much better deal to get a PS1 if you wanted to play lots of different games. The market is not stupid :)
Careful. By that logic the Wii is the best of the current generation (and I don't think either of us believes that).
