Support NeoGAF

[Do The Mario]

Well after reading some comparisons in the MGS3 thread I thought it would be a good idea to make an 2004 vs 1998 thread!

I would have to say personally 1998 was the better year.

Banjo Kazooie was the finest 3D platformer I have played
-Charming Music and Graphics
-Great level design
- Superb challenge having to collect almost all the jiggies
- Great and original Game show finale
- Great mini games, I still remember Mr Vile the crocodile!
- Unlike other platformers Banjo uses his full array of Moves

Dam I want Banjo on the Xbox or Xbox 2

Baldurs Gate the finest gaming experience ever IMO when combined with the squeal and add on packs, a 400-600 hour saga of RPG greatness. Upon finishing BG2:TOB with you’re god like characters I would always remember chasing Kobolds down caves at the start of game and wish I could start over!

Zelda OOT, jaw dropping visuals at the time, with superb dungeon design an absolute classic Title!

MGS the game that got me hooked on the MGS franchise along with the BG saga set the bench market in voice acting and music.


Tekken 3 the king of fighting games last gen

GT1 The first real driving simulator was head and shoulders better then anything else on the market!

Halflife has been the back bone of online PC gaming over the last 6 years

FIGHT!

 

[Screenboy]

Zelda OOT = Greatest game ever made => 1998 = Best Gaming Year ever.



+MGS
+RE2
+Tekken 3




-SB

 

[AniHawk]

1998:
Banjo-Kazooie
Rogue Squadron
Turok 2
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
Pokemon Red/Blue
Resident Evil 2
Metal Gear Solid
Half-Life
Tekken 3
Gran Turismo
Panzer Dragoon Saga
Shining Force III
House of the Dead
Baldur's Gate
Final Fantasy Tactics
Xenogears
Starcraft
1080 Snowboarding
Sonic Adventure... I guess

2004:
Halo 2
Half-Life 2
Ninja Gaiden
DOOM 3
Knights of the Old Republic II
Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
Ratchet & Clank: Up Your Arsenal
Chronicles of Riddick
Pikmin 2
Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door
Metroid Prime 2: Echoes
Gran Turismo 4
Ace Combat 5
Fable
Four Swords Adventures
Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater
Tales of Symphonia
Metroid Zero Mission
Katamari Damacy
Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne
Shadow Hearts: Covenant

 

[Solid]

Ani you forgot Twin Snakes...

 

[AniHawk]

Ani you forgot Twin Snakes...

No remakes. That means no Zero Mission, Fire Red/Leaf Green, or TTS.

 

[Solid]

No remakes. That means no Zero Mission, Fire Red/Leaf Green, or TTS.

Boo :<

 

[Mercurial]

For overall quality I'd tip the balance in favor of 2004. However, Xenogears, Ocarina of Time, Metal Gear Solid and Half-Life were just so fucking exceptional and in a way, revolutionary, that 1998 wins me over. Go 1998.

 

[Do The Mario]

Boo :<

Leaf green, Fire red and TTS are all remakes of 1998 games!!!

 

[hobart]

To be honest and fair... I think to need to let 2004 settle a bit before we can make PROPER comparisons.

 

[Solid]

Leaf green, Fire red and TTS are all remakes of 1998 games!!!

Hehe ironically!

 

[soundwave05]

Add 1080 Snowboarding, Final Fantasy Tactics, and StarCraft (PC) to the 1998 list. Two of those sold more than many of the games that made the 2004 list, and FFT sold its fair share and got rave reviews.

1998 wins IMO, by a good margin at that.

Zelda: OoT recieved an award for artistic merit from the Japanese government for crying out loud. Gran Turismo changed the racing genre forever. Metal Gear Solid effectively launched the 3D espionage genre. Resident Evil 2, Tekken 3, Starcraft, etc. were all sequels that delivered huge, and may be the pinnacle of popularity for each of their genres.

Half-Life revolutionized the way people view FPS'.

There's nothing from 2004 as revolutionary as any one of Zelda: OoT, Gran Turismo, Half-Life, or MGS.

People say 2004 had more quality software ... but looking at those lists, its pretty even.

 

[Grubdog]

Nintendo DS makes 2004 the winner. 2005 will be even better though. Hell, every year just keeps getting better in my opinion. It's not like the games become unplayable after they're released.

 

[AniHawk]

It's not like the games become unplayable after they're released.

Except for Do the Mario's copy of Halo 2.

 

[Lazy8s]

The Dreamcast's launch and later, Sonic Adventure, in 1998 in Japan as well.

 

[SantaC]

wasn't there a FF game released in 1998 as well?

 

[Do The Mario]

Except for Do the Mario's copy of Halo 2.

WHAT!

I am a halo 2 whore!

best game this gen!

 

[PkunkFury]

2004 has Katamari Damashi

 

[soundwave05]

Also interestingly enough, the original Grand Theft Auto came out in 1998. Yeah you could count Sonic Adventure on the Dreamcast too (too bad Sega had somewhat of a weak launch), as that was out in Japan in 1998.

 

[soundwave05]

Damn, I also forget.

Add Turok 2 (89% ranking at Game Ranking) and Star Wars: Rogue Squadron (84.9%) to the very distinquished class of 1998. Both were million sellers (I think Turok 2 actually sold closer to 2 million). Even though Turok 2 got some gripes over the whole framerate/Expansion Pak issue, man I remember the game was probably the best looking title on the N64 or PSOne at that time.

The fall was really like the peak for the N64.

Personally I feel F-Zero X should be on the 1998 list as well. It's really one of the N64's more underrated and deepest titles.

 

[Do The Mario]

God I hated turok 2, I tried my hardest to like it but it was so dull. The levels just dragged on and on, and could become maze like and confusing.

Rouge Squad was a great game

 

[Amir0x]

Add 1080 Snowboarding, Final Fantasy Tactics, and StarCraft (PC) to the 1998 list. Two of those sold more than many of the games that made the 2004 list, and FFT sold its fair share and got rave reviews.

1998 wins IMO, by a good margin at that.

Zelda: OoT recieved an award for artistic merit from the Japanese government for crying out loud. Gran Turismo changed the racing genre forever. Metal Gear Solid effectively launched the 3D espionage genre. Resident Evil 2, Tekken 3, Starcraft, etc. were all sequels that delivered huge, and may be the pinnacle of popularity for each of their genres.

Half-Life revolutionized the way people view FPS'.

There's nothing from 2004 as revolutionary as any one of Zelda: OoT, Gran Turismo, Half-Life, or MGS.

People say 2004 had more quality software ... but looking at those lists, its pretty even.

If we're adding games like FFT from 1998, then we have to add games like Phantom Brave from 2004 which is a much better game. Or we'd have to add something like Shin Megami Tensei in, or basically just a buttload of other great niche titles.

1998 was best for revolutionary change in the industry. 2004 with most consistent quality overall.

 

[soundwave05]

I think that's debatable. FF Tactics is still a phenomenonal game to this day. The soundtrack is to die for as well.

Xenosaga is better than any RPG release this year IMO.

FF8 I believe came out in early 1999 in Japan followed by a September 9th release in North America (of course).

Unreal also came out on PC in 1998.

'98 launched a lot of great franchises ... Gran Turismo, Half-Life, Xenosaga, Star Wars: Rogue Squadron, Unreal, Banjo-Kazooie, Grand Theft Auto, Pokemon (USA) etc.

 

[ElyrionX]

Tough one but I tip my vote to 2004 for the moment....

And I agree that we need 2004 to settle a bit more before we can draw any conclusions.

 

[Amir0x]

I think that's debatable. FF Tactics is still a phenomenonal game to this day. The soundtrack is to die for as well.

Xenosaga is better than any RPG release this year IMO.

FF8 I believe came out in early 1999 in Japan followed by a September 9th release in North America (of course).

Ok, first as a hardcore SRPG fan, I take issue with the first being 'debatable.' It's debatable only in the way that EVERYTHING is debatable, because there's always someone who must disagree. But if you look at the issues, it becomes much more clear. While it is true that FFT had a fantastic soundtrack, soundtrack alone is not enough to make up for the plethora of balance issues, which were just so phenomenally bad at times that it was ridiculous. The fact that you can beat everyone down with just Orlandu or a Holy Knight was sad enough, not to mention the host of other balancing issues. Or a story so convoluted that not even by reading all the texts the game included with it could you come to a competent understanding, as people still debate what certain events meant what. And not because the game was deep, but because the game couldn't come across clearly.

Now, I was overly harsh just now on my critique of FFT, but that was only because as a hardcore SRPG fan, I realize nearly everything about Phantom Brave is better, and it's better where it counts - gameplay. The balancing is, for the most part, superb and it deals with aspects of SRPG in a much more intelligent manner. Now unless you're simply whoring yourself away by leveling up over and over, Phantom Brave is going to feel very, very well rounded in both difficulty and balance.

On Xenogears, I won't even comment on how CD2 completely fell apart or how the entire game was filled with hilariously shitty psuedo-philosophical/theological musings as told by a seventh grade student on crack. But I realize that holds a close place in some gamers hearts, so I won't comment further.

FF8, was, heh... I won't even start there.

 

[Kiriku]

1998 wins without question. Some of the best games ever was released that year as far as I'm concerned. Few games have really caught my attention this year, although I guess it was easier to make something fresh back in '98 compared to '04.

 

[SolidSnakex]

2004. The games are simply better now which is all that matters to me.

 

[soundwave05]

I think 1998 clearly blows 2004 away for original content.

2004 wins for sequels, but its still pretty close. Zelda: OoT (given the size of the game market in '98) was as big for that time as Halo 2 is now.

Would Metal Gear Solid be considered a sequel or a new franchise?

 

[Do The Mario]

I think 1998 clearly blows 2004 away for original content.

2004 wins for sequels, but its still pretty close. Zelda: OoT (given the size of the game market in '98) was as big for that time as Halo 2 is now.

Would Metal Gear Solid be considered a sequel or a new franchise?

Well MGS was a reinvention of a franchise It also (along with BG) set the bench mark for Voice acting and music in video games.

 

[AniHawk]

Zelda: OoT (given the size of the game market in '98) was as big for that time as Halo 2 is now.

And it was universally praised. Hell, it just got a 10/10 a week ago.

 

[JasoNsider]

If this year was really better than 1998, there wouldn't be any topics about it on the forum. People would be too busy playing the actual games. For myself, I barely have time to log on since I'm so busy with all the releases.

 

[Do The Mario]

BTW ani was you’re remark about my copy of Halo 2 a reference to my OMG I just jazzed on Halo 2 thread?

If so ROFL

 

[AniHawk]

BTW ani was you’re remark about my copy of Halo 2 a reference to my OMG I just jazzed on Halo 2 thread?

My, you catch on fast.

 

[Do The Mario]

My, you catch on fast.

Just forgot it existed, mike works closed it and I have been trying to suppress it from my memory.

 

[Prine]

Halo 2 = best game i played

2004 > 1998

1998 = me a unemployed school boy

 

[ElyrionX]

I believe there is way too much nostalgia involved when considering this scenario. I mean, people look back at 1998 and think back on all the wonderful memories associated with the games in those days. I know that's the case because I'm doing it too. The only way this 2004 vs 1998 can have any sort of conclusion would be if we considered this question when we're in 2006.

Ok, first as a hardcore SRPG fan, I take issue with the first being 'debatable.' It's debatable only in the way that EVERYTHING is debatable, because there's always someone who must disagree. But if you look at the issues, it becomes much more clear. While it is true that FFT had a fantastic soundtrack, soundtrack alone is not enough to make up for the plethora of balance issues, which were just so phenomenally bad at times that it was ridiculous. The fact that you can beat everyone down with just Orlandu or a Holy Knight was sad enough, not to mention the host of other balancing issues. Or a story so convoluted that not even by reading all the texts the game included with it could you come to a competent understanding, as people still debate what certain events meant what. And not because the game was deep, but because the game couldn't come across clearly.

It's not just about the soundtrack. It's about how the entire game came together and delivered one hell of an experience. I'm a relatively hardcore gamer (in that I play a lot of different games across many platforms) and Final Fantasy Tactics easily stands as my Top 3 games of all time. Sure, you can talk about how flawed certain aspects of it is. But you know what? Despite all the imbalances you claimed it had, well, I played the game with the official strategy guide in hand and there wasn't a single point of time in which I thought my characters were overpowered. The game was still challenging even after Orlandu joined my party. I'm not one of those RPG gamers who go around spending hours levelling your party to obscene/insane levels because I believe it's pretty pointless.

I played the game just the way I wanted to play it and I personally did not notice any severe balance issues as you claimed. I know there are some balance issues but did it affect my game experience? No. Ultimately, FFT is easily one of the most absorbing and FUN games I have ever played and to many of us, that's all that matters.

I have never touched Phantom Brave and I don't intend to (unless you're willing to send me a free copy). I'm pretty sure you're right that it is more well-rounded and whatever. But I seriously doubt that it can dethrone FFT from its lofty perch. It may be a better strategy RPG but when taking a holistic view of things, I doubt it even comes close to FFT.

 

[Wellington]

1998:
Banjo-Kazooie
Rogue Squadron
Turok 2
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
Pokemon Red/Blue
Resident Evil 2
Metal Gear Solid
Half-Life
Tekken 3
Gran Turismo
Panzer Dragoon Saga
Shining Force III
House of the Dead
Baldur's Gate
Final Fantasy Tactics
Xenogears
Starcraft
1080 Snowboarding


2004:
Halo 2
Half-Life 2
Ninja Gaiden
DOOM 3
Knights of the Old Republic II
Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
Ratchet & Clank: Up Your Arsenal
Chronicles of Riddick
Pikmin 2
Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door
Metroid Prime 2: Echoes
Gran Turismo 4
Ace Combat 5
Fable
Four Swords Adventures
Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater
Tales of Symphonia
Metroid Zero Mission
Katamari Damacy

Bolded games are the awesome ones, the unbolded ones either suck or I haven't played them. '98 wins!

 

[disabledHeliocentric]

Next year should be interesting. This year was dull and predictable. Sequelitis has become this rampant disease stamping out any echo or murmur of originality. 1998 defined the modern video game. You had Ocarina, Metal gear Solid, Half Life 2.
As far as quality holliday releases this year might win. But I want more than that. I want games like Jade Empire, Wanda, Okami, FF XII, Zelda Reborn etc. I want next year. I don't want "1998 the sequel"

 

[sonycowboy]

1998 still stands tall above every other year, easily.

 

[Do The Mario]

Next year should be interesting. This year was dull and predictable. Sequelitis has become this rampant disease stamping out any echo or murmur of originality. 1998 defined the modern video game. You had Ocarina, Metal gear Solid, Half Life 2.
As far as quality holliday releases this year might win. But I want more than that. I want games like Jade Empire, Wanda, Okami, FF XII, Zelda Reborn etc. I want next year. I don't want "1998 the sequel"

Jade empire excites me, great to see bioware not getting bogged down on a single franchise. Sure Baldurs gate/Baldurs gate 2 SOA are the best games ever IMO but I would rather see the developer move on.

 

[JackFrost2012]

2004 is good but 1998 will live forever! I find it funny how MGS1 and HL1 came out on the same day ... now, six years later, the incredible sequels of MGS3 and HL2 arrive on the same day! OMG WTF.

 

[Amir0x]

It's not just about the soundtrack. It's about how the entire game came together and delivered one hell of an experience. I'm a relatively hardcore gamer (in that I play a lot of different games across many platforms) and Final Fantasy Tactics easily stands as my Top 3 games of all time.

The mere fact that you would put such a flawed game in your top three speaks volumes about just how objective you can be about such an experience. As someone who has gone out of my way to play every Strategy RPG available on the market, and who has compared SRPG after SRPG I can say that I've come pretty far in determining the differences between each specific title. I'm not even the most hardcore SRPG person I know, and it's extremely hard to find any true SRPG fan who would disagree that Phantom Brave is fundamentally a better game - or, at the very least, a more well balanced one. But I digress.

Sure, you can talk about how flawed certain aspects of it is. But you know what? Despite all the imbalances you claimed it had, well, I played the game with the official strategy guide in hand and there wasn't a single point of time in which I thought my characters were overpowered. The game was still challenging even after Orlandu joined my party. I'm not one of those RPG gamers who go around spending hours levelling your party to obscene/insane levels because I believe it's pretty pointless.

Ok, arguing about Orlandu is not even objective. It is a fact that the second you obtained him nearly every other battle in the game became so easy that the thought of battling forward without him became not only absurd, but downright stupid. If you cannot see just how pathetically unbalanced the game became only when considering Orlandu, then we can't go further with this discussion because you're blinding yourself to the truth. It's not even a matter of objectivity. If you had Orlandu in your party and you lost, you suck at SRPGs. There's no easier way to put it.

Additionally, the fact that you used a Strategy Guide says more about where the guide led you than the ability to exploit extreme weaknesses in the FFT system, which was inherent in every corner of Final Fantasy Tactics. Even if you wanted to argue that you can play most of the game without Orlandu, that doesn't take into account the Holy Knights which you aquire along your play which are also extremely powerful. And even if you claim you didn't use the Holy Knights for most of your FFT experience, there was class after class that could be exploited in order to tip the balance scales in such a fashion that simply should not be allowed in a SRPG game unless you power level. At least in Phantom Brave (or Disgaea, to a lesser extent) you could not do such a thing unless you kept leveling up over and over.

I played the game just the way I wanted to play it and I personally did not notice any severe balance issues as you claimed. I know there are some balance issues but did it affect my game experience? No. Ultimately, FFT is easily one of the most absorbing and FUN games I have ever played and to many of us, that's all that matters.

If it is fun for you, more power to you. I respect your opinion. But what I am arguing, especially for someone who has not played a superior SRPG like Phantom Brave (or Disgaea) is that you should at least make your way to try them out before coming to such a conclusion. I don't know how you could even consider FFT a top three with all its problems, but perhaps they'd be more evident to you after you played a good SRPG. Maybe a Tactics Ogre to start you off with, and then an Ogre Battle 64 followed ultimately by Disgaea and Phantom Brave.

I have never touched Phantom Brave and I don't intend to (unless you're willing to send me a free copy). I'm pretty sure you're right that it is more well-rounded and whatever. But I seriously doubt that it can dethrone FFT from its lofty perch. It may be a better strategy RPG but when taking a holistic view of things, I doubt it even comes close to FFT.

All I can do is tell you to play it. If you're a real SRPG fan and are being objective, then there's two things you must admit are crucial to a great SRPG - balance and story. And while FFT couldn't manage to get either of those done well (especially balance wise), Phantom Brave manages to damn near perfect one [balance] while offer a moderately engrossing story. Until you play both, you really can't even sit here debating with me - you only know one side of the story, and that's your memory with FFT.

 

[ElyrionX]

Jade empire excites me, great to see bioware not getting bogged down on a single franchise. Sure Baldurs gate/Baldurs gate 2 SOA are the best games ever IMO but I would rather see the developer move on.

Oh yeah! But you know what I really want to see? I want to see the Baldur's Gate series given the KOTOR treatment. Full 3D with full voice-acting......

 

[JackFrost2012]

The mere fact that you would put such a flawed game in your top three speaks volumes about just how objective you can be about such an experience. As someone who has gone out of my way to play every Strategy RPG available on the market, and who has compared SRPG after SRPG I can say that I've come pretty far in determining the differences between each specific title.

Shut up, you stupid fucking asshole.

 

[sonycowboy]

Shut up, you stupid fucking asshole.

:lol

IAWTP

 

[Amir0x]

Shut up, you stupid fucking asshole.

I'm sorry, did you have something worthwhile to add or do you want to fester in your own shit?

 

[TheGreenGiant]

2004 wins because of my inner graphic whore.

 

[ElyrionX]

If it is fun for you, more power to you. I respect your opinion. But what I am arguing, especially for someone who has not played a superior SRPG like Phantom Brave (or Disgaea) is that you should at least make your way to try them out before coming to such a conclusion. I don't know how you could even consider FFT a top three with all its problems, but perhaps they'd be more evident to you after you played a good SRPG. Maybe a Tactics Ogre to start you off with, and then an Ogre Battle 64 followed ultimately by Disgaea and Phantom Brave.

Actually, I did play Tactics Ogre on the GBA. It was called Knight of Lodis right? I completed the game and I'm not really impressed.

The best part of FFT for me was how each and every individual class had a unique set of skills to use. I mean, I played Tactics Ogre: KoL and sure there were many classes to choose from but ultimately a lot of them played the same. There was hardly any unique skills/abilities for each class. Like the Angel Knight and the normal Knight. Both of them involved just running around to your opponent's back and hitting them with a sword from there. But with FFT, I get Holy Knights who can hit with powerful skills that have different AOEs and I get Knights who can break weapons. It's the variety in FFT that was great. You had so many interesting classes to choose from. You had so many ways of attacking. Tell me that Phantom Brave offers something similiar and I might just pick it up.

It goes beyond just being a balanced strategy role-playing game. It's about the GAME as a whole. If a game like Phantom Brave is more balanced, it does not necessarily make it a BETTER game based upon that fact alone.

 

[JackFrost2012]

I'm sorry, did you have something worthwhile to add or do you want to fester in your own shit?

"I used math to prove that FFT is a bad game! My opinion is better than yours because I'm a serious gamer and you're an undiscriminating casual! I'm going to write seven paragraphs about how liking FFT means you're an idiot who can't appreciate a 'true' SRPG like I can!"

Get the fuck over yourself.

 

[Amir0x]

Actually, I did play Tactics Ogre on the GBA. It was called Knight of Lodis right? I completed the game and I'm not really impressed.

Gah, I should have been more clear. Tactics Ogre: Knights of Lodis wasn't the game I was talking about.

The best part of FFT for me was how each and every individual class had a unique set of skills to use. I mean, I played Tactics Ogre: KoL and sure there were many classes to choose from but ultimately a lot of them played the same. There was hardly any unique skills/abilities for each class. Like the Angel Knight and the normal Knight. Both of them involved just running around to your opponent's back and hitting them with a sword from there. But with FFT, I get Holy Knights who can hit with powerful skills that have different AOEs and I get Knights who can break weapons. It's the variety in FFT that was great. You had so many interesting classes to choose from. You had so many ways of attacking. Tell me that Phantom Brave offers something similiar and I might just pick it up.

Phantom Brave's power is in, as I said, perfect balance. But I assure you there are many, MANY different things you can do with the system, and customization is high. So if you like customization of skills, you'll adore Phantom Brave.

It goes beyond just being a balanced strategy role-playing game. It's about the GAME as a whole. If a game like Phantom Brave is more balanced, it does not necessarily make it a BETTER game based upon that fact alone.

On the whole, I would say that I still like FFT's visual presentation and musical score significantly more than Phantom Brave. If that's enough to put FFT over the top for you, then I respect that. It's just that when considering SRPGs, I put balance so much further up the list that it's no comparrison.

 

[Azih]

I'm going to have to say that balance would be by far the most important aspect of a strategy game.