I've been jumping on the Kingdom Hearts train again, but slowly as I still have limited free time.

On a side note but still related, I found my copy of the Survivor computer game that I have had since I was Ike 10....

gta4 was shit.

I'm playing FFIX on my own and FFVIII with my GF. Playing them side by side it's honestly hard to tell which I prefer. They're both really good for different reasons. FFIX can be more fun but as much as I like the stuff with Terra, Bran Bal and so on, it kind of goes off the beaten track there and the ending is really disappointing. Everything about Memoria just feels empty and pointless. Probably because I didn't play all the old games through and don't get the bazillion and one references. Also I don't like how the ensemble cast get reduced to a backdrop after spending so long developing them.

FFVIII however stays consistent and only gets better when it takes a level in crazy. I know a lot of people roll their eyes at the orphanage and time compression but I actually think most of the events in the game are paced well, it's just that a lot of it requires deeper playing. The plot isn't fed to you on a plate. You really have to go exploring, talking to people and digging up clues to work out the entire story. When you do, the end result is mesmerising because it's such a tightly plotted game. So many story elements can pass by unnoticed and there are plot devices and themes that reoccur all the time.

The characters are more bland and so is the world though. Gaia is a lovingly crafted masterpiece whereas the world in VIII (does it even have a name?) just feels drab and boring and above all devoid of content. I'll still argue that it has more depth to it than the world in VII which actually instills a sense of complete isolation in me due to how sparse it is. I know, advancing technology etc. but since that's the poster-child for the series I can't resist a swipe.

So VIII has a better story, IX has a more fun story. The gameplay is about on a level. The sheer abundance of random battles and the time they take to play out can make IX into a chore at times, but there are so many fun things to do in between it's forgivable. VIII has the card game and that Chocobo thing which isn't really very fun at all. But you aren't forced to battle endlessly (if you play smartly, you can pretty much avoid battles from the end of the first disk onwards should you want to).

FVIII is more like an interactive story whereas IX is more like an actual game. It's hard to rank them because I like bits of both. I still think VIII trumps it just slightly.

It's worth noting that neither can be faulted on the score. I want to have Uematsu's babies.

Bryce @ 11/12/2012 3:54

On a side note but still related, I found my copy of the Survivor computer game that I have had since I was Ike 10....

Was that the first one, or the "Ultimate" one? The first one only had people from Borneo and Australia, and Ultimate had up to Marquesas.

The second one was kinda meh, but the first one's dialogue options made it interesting during the rare moments when it wasn't crashing. Probably the best part was the visible shock that other people would exhibit when you selected the dialogue option "I think you is planning to vote against you."

Mercator @ 10/12/2012 23:10

I've been playing Saints Row which I got from the Humble bundle (http://www.humblebundle.com/), which I recommend you guys get if you haven't already. It's basically how GTA should be, fuck realism, have fun. I bludgeoned a horde of zombies with a huge purple dildo.

oh man am I slowpoke for just seeing humble bundle now? Just 1 day left! I bought it but wont be able to play until the exams are over

Rob @ 10/12/2012 23:24

Bryce @ 11/12/2012 3:54 On a side note but still related, I found my copy of the Survivor computer game that I have had since I was Ike 10.... Was that the first one, or the "Ultimate" one? The first one only had people from Borneo and Australia, and Ultimate had up to Marquesas. The second one was kinda meh, but the first one's dialogue options made it interesting during the rare moments when it wasn't crashing. Probably the best part was the visible shock that other people would exhibit when you selected the dialogue option "I think you is planning to vote against you."

Hahaha yes!!

The first one has decent interactive challenges and the talking that builds trust, but no matter how much you two trust each other, they will always vote you out if you have the highest strength left in the game. Same with tribal stages if you're the weakest.

The second one has more people, but the challenges aren't as good, but some of them can be challenging where you might not win the every time. There is strategy and alliances involved in this one and they stick with you, but if people don't agree with you, they'll vote however they want.

I wish they continued with them and possibly got the strategy, betrayal, social game all worked up better, but they're probably done making them. I wish they could create a game that goes over online play on Xbox/PS3 where you can play against other people or just computer simulation that is actually run well.

Bryce @ 11/12/2012 17:35

The first one has decent interactive challenges and the talking that builds trust, but no matter how much you two trust each other, they will always vote you out if you have the highest strength left in the game. Same with tribal stages if you're the weakest.

Yeah, the one and only time I managed a full playthrough, I went on the world's most improbable immunity run as Mitchell, after purposely losing every single premerge IC to downplay my reputation as a threat.

Is that even possible? Not just to downplay yourself as a threat, but to go on an immunity run as Mitchell.

Mercator @ 10/12/2012 23:10

I've been playing Saints Row which I got from the Humble bundle (http://www.humblebundle.com/), which I recommend you guys get if you haven't already.

i read about that a week ago or so. definitely a deal to be done there...but i find this questionable to be honest. THQ obviously is in need of money. And now people are buying their games and pay less than they do when they go eat a hamburger at mc donalds or some shit like that. take metro 2033....worth every penny, should still be bought at the prize it was valued on release date. long sotry short: it's an epic game, hands down. if you don't want CoD shoved down your throat again and again and again you gotta support such raw quality games by "smaller" developer teams. think of all the hours of manpower that went into it. many mouths gotta be fed and they deserve to get paid for what they created. i guess THQ REALLY needs money and so was willing to go down that road. now every scumbag is like yeah i just bought that game for 1 € and yeah i bought this one for 2,50 €.....and they're SO happy they made a "good deal". this feels wrong if you ask me. i don't know.

Mercator @ 10/12/2012 23:10

It's basically how GTA should be, fuck realism, have fun. I bludgeoned a horde of zombies with a huge purple dildo.

GTA San Andreas, Las Venturas, Mission #40 something (just a wild guess) - you got your purple dildo right there, and a gimp suit.
anyway, GTA should be nothing but a platform of action. that it is, and has always been. over the years, decades, the vibe and tone of
the games just became more "mature" every time. different certainly. GTA games are cutting edge, that's what R* stands for basically.
and realism is a good thing in a video game if you ask me. Ambitious storytelling, a breathing living world around you, authentic
movements of characters, a compelling soundtrack. all that pulls me deep into the game. realism and authenticity is almost
mandatory to keep me entertained. GTA is still FUN, you just can't laugh at it maybe. or something's in your way of enjoying it. well...


oh men...R* is a phenomena, kinda like Matt and Trey behind South Park. All that, which left a footprint in entertainment-history really. and there's that other phenomena. while the one mentioned before is developer-related, this is related to the audience. it's that "i don't like it, it's too real, not so funny anymore...back in the days it was better" - syndrome. you see it a lot, in many aspects and on many issues really. not only entertainment-wise. that's a state of mind thing...but let's "try" to not ramble too far away from the point.

i'm replaying GTA 4 extensively right now, and having VC and SA installed aswell, i can see the genius behind GTA 4. and the realism just adds depth. so it's not rly a bad thing, at all....if you ask me

Dutchiee @ 11/12/2012 4:31

gta4 was shit.

nuh mate it really isn't. not tryin to front here, just tryin to make you look at it from a different angle maybe. of course you could say ya didn't like GTA 4, but i don't think you can legitimately say it sucks or whatever. i know just a week or to ago i said "GTA 4 < GTA SA" but really, it's not true. you can't rly compare the two games in a way that makes much sense i guess.

San Andreas was the last game of a development cycle for the PS2. R* knew where they could go, what they could do with the hardware. they learned and further developed from GTA 3 to VC to SA, the peak of that cycle. now GTA 4 was the first step into the PS3 generation and a new develoment-cycle that began. a HUGE jump was made really. it's amazing if you really think about it, and rly it's not shit ;D GTA gets better every time, simply because they make it bigger and more cutting edge every time. as they have better hardware to operate with, further develop their tools and engine, cause they simply have attained more knowledge on how to operate with that stuff. so really you can't say the games is shit. whether you like it or not is of course another question, totally up to you, your expectations and likes and what not.

btw GTA 5 will feel very similar to GTA 4, but have a much different vibe and further developed technology. this time it will take less time to "get used to", a problem some were having with GTA 4. since it was the first game for a new hardware platform, the PS3 generation. now GTA 5 will be the last game for this cycle, the peak, again. from GTA 4, to Red Dead, and now Max Payne 3. R* knows where they can go, what they can do. GTA 5 will bring all the good aspects of earlier games together, added in with a some innovations of course. like having 3 characters for example.

whoa...my point. GTA 4 isn't shit. totally not. as i said it was a HUGE jump. consequences would never be the same so to speak. evolution, progress, a reflection of reality, time, technology's state of the art. all those things some people seem to have problem of coping with - the "everything was better back then" syndrome etc. but when you can shake that off and look at GTA 4 with a refresh'd pair of eyes you can see that it's a great game, offering a unique freedom, offering amazing graphics, offering a hell of an amount of content.

to the windoooooows, to the WAAAAALL (:

Henry_42 @ 11/12/2012 23:20

GTA San Andreas, Las Venturas, Mission #40 something (just a wild guess) - you got your purple dildo right there, and a gimp suit.

This is one of the many reasons GTA SA is my favorite GTA game, I didn't like GTA4, if I want realism in my games I want it done right (see Mafia).

Henry_42 @ 11/12/2012 23:20

Dutchiee @ 11/12/2012 4:31 gta4 was shit. nuh mate it really isn't. not tryin to front here, just tryin to make you look at it from a different angle maybe. of course you could say ya didn't like GTA 4, but i don't think you can legitimately say it sucks or whatever. i know just a week or to ago i said "GTA 4 < GTA SA" but really, it's not true. you can't rly compare the two games in a way that makes much sense i guess. San Andreas was the last game of a development cycle for the PS2. R* knew where they could go, what they could do with the hardware. they learned and further developed from GTA 3 to VC to SA, the peak of that cycle. now GTA 4 was the first step into the PS3 generation and a new develoment-cycle that began. a HUGE jump was made really. it's amazing if you really think about it, and rly it's not shit ;D GTA gets better every time, simply because they make it bigger and more cutting edge every time. as they have better hardware to operate with, further develop their tools and engine, cause they simply have attained more knowledge on how to operate with that stuff. so really you can't say the games is shit. whether you like it or not is of course another question, totally up to you, your expectations and likes and what not. btw GTA 5 will feel very similar to GTA 4, but have a much different vibe and further developed technology. this time it will take less time to "get used to", a problem some were having with GTA 4. since it was the first game for a new hardware platform, the PS3 generation. now GTA 5 will be the last game for this cycle, the peak, again. from GTA 4, to Red Dead, and now Max Payne 3. R* knows where they can go, what they can do. GTA 5 will bring all the good aspects of earlier games together, added in with a some innovations of course. like having 3 characters for example. whoa...my point. GTA 4 isn't shit. totally not. as i said it was a HUGE jump. consequences would never be the same so to speak. evolution, progress, a reflection of reality, time, technology's state of the art. all those things some people seem to have problem of coping with - the "everything was better back then" syndrome etc. but when you can shake that off and look at GTA 4 with a refresh'd pair of eyes you can see that it's a great game, offering a unique freedom, offering amazing graphics, offering a hell of an amount of content.

A huge jump was made in graphics and some specific aspects, sure.
But in terms of a gameplay I disagree, And that is what is important (for me anyway). There was so much fun shit to do in SA, remember the territory war?
SA also had a much better map, which naturally allowed for more freedom and fun. GTA4 was like.. OH Hai a new area... oh hai its basically the same... oh wait china town wowz!

hyperbole with the shit statement. I recognize this was a decent game (and the DLC were better then the actual game imo.. which did add a bit) and I agree it was really a dip in the "new generation pond" for R*. But the game was flawed, and they took out some of the great things from SA that made the experience a lot less enjoyable. Man when I finished SA (and read dead FYI - which is arguably my favorite game) I went nuts... game was so sweet..... then when I finished GTA4... I was on the island after the final mission so just started sniping people and unloaded all my weapons on a craze criminal run... but then i died... and i was like meh, theres nothing i cbf in this game anymore.

Even the story was a bit d/p compared to sa and vc. It just lacked the real nutty characters (again the dlc for 4 was better in this regard). nothing really memorable, and niko was probably the shittest main character. Tommy Vercetti was a pure badass... niko was an errand boy.

was a good game, but unremarkable and memorable like VC or SA.

Mercator @ 12/12/2012 0:21

Henry_42 @ 11/12/2012 23:20 GTA San Andreas, Las Venturas, Mission #40 something (just a wild guess) - you got your purple dildo right there, and a gimp suit. This is one of the many reasons GTA SA is my favorite GTA game, I didn't like GTA4, if I want realism in my games I want it done right (see Mafia).

mafia 2 was the shit.

Bryce @ 11/12/2012 23:12

Is that even possible? Not just to downplay yourself as a threat, but to go on an immunity run as Mitchell.

Yeah. I managed to oust Colby just before the merge, so it was me and Amber versus the entire Kucha tribe. Apparently they all suck out loud, so I managed to dominate the whole thing.