So who's getting a PSP this month?

[OB1]

SNES does have more great games than GB, though. So does the NES. That's because it was second fiddle for its whole life... it was never the focus. And it spent three or four years in no so great shape... before Pokemon saved it, it was definitely struggling for a while except for a few great games. But still... GB managed a solid lineup of titles more than large enough for anyone to have a great, and reasonably large, collection.

Wow, I'm glad you've finally admitted that. That's exactly my point: the GB did not have as good a selection of games as Nintendo's home consoles. Now as for how good you thought the games were, well, you can rate them however well you want.

GBC came out in time for christmas of 1998, actually. But as I said, yes, it should have had more games but spent several years with only a few bright lights popping up every so often. And the good games are good enough so that few people, I'm sure, regretted getting one.

Look at the list I posted. The GBC had plenty of good games. Look at the dozens of games that scored an average of 9's and 8's.

It's a LOT easier to develop for PSP than it is for DS. You just make something like you've made before. DS is new, so it's tougher... so it's expected that even the first-party titles show signs of being not as good as they could be.

The potential that the DS creates makes coming up with new ideas more difficult, yes. But actually developing games for the DS is several times easier and less expensive than it is for the PSP. And most developers would love to try something new and different.

I'm defending 2d games, that's what I'm doing. Oh, and the '3d doesn't work as well on handhelds' thing isn't just my invention, it's something I've heard before. It definitely can be made to work, though. For some game types 3d is obviously better on handhelds too... but with the small screens, some of the benefits of 3d are lessened and some of the problems made greater...

You're defending 2d gaming from who?? I love 2D games, I want more 2D games to be made. But just because I know for a fact that 3D games look terrific on a PSP doesn't mean that I'm "attacking" 2D gaming. The way you twist around whatever I say to fit your warped agenda is amazing.

I absolutely disagree with this. You keep returning to this as your main point against the GB: Its games are awful when compared to Nintendo's REAL good games. Etc. You say it again in the same post, actually...

Most of them, yes. And you even admitted that the GB didn't have as good a lineup as the NES and SNES!

I just don't agree. Your premise is that because the games aren't quite as great as the major-console titles, they stink and the GB is a comparitively bad system. I definitely don't think that that is true at all. So they aren't quite as awesome. So? They're still awesome! And there are a lot more games than that that are just as good as major-console titles: Mega Man I, IV, and V, Mole Mania, Final Fantasy Adventure, the Micro Machines games, Tetris, Bionic Commando, Gradius, etc... it's just not as bad as you say and the quality difference, while there, is a small gap, not a huge gulf.

Well fine, you don't think those games stink as much as I do. Wee.

Yeah, the holiday season definitely includes early January because of all the delayed good games that come out then. But by February or March, it's died down to what I said. Oh, and some of those are perfect 'release at an off time' games -- like Star Fox Assualt for instance. That just wouldn't hold up as well if it was released at a time with lots of stuff coming out.

This entire argument right here is completely broken. Just admit it and give up already. Most of the games I listed came out in February and March, and the biggest ones JUST came out, like DMC3 and GT4, both HUGE titles. So you are VERY wrong.

My point was that putting it anywhere near the level of the VB is incredibly insulting to a great console.

What the fuck is the matter with you?? Saying "EXCEPT FOR THE VB" means that the VIRTUA BOY IS NOT INCLUDED, you WEIRD little man you! That's like someone saying "Well FDR wasn't evil like Hitler" and you replying with "How DARE you compare FDR to Hitler??!!"

You are seriously messed up in the head, you know that? I hope you know that.

We need to wait for the DS to show its true potential first...

Ah, yes. So basically what you're saying is that your point is complete bullshit and you have nothing to back it up except for "well in the FUTURE that might change!". Wonderful.

The amount of work required well might be similar, but you're not actually changing the movie...

In the sense that you are loosing a great percentage of the picture, yes, it IS changing the movie.

As for Mario Land: Fun game. It really is. So it's not as great as SMB... it's still a really good game that is a lot of fun to play! It's got variety too, with the side-scrolling levels ... a bit short, but other than that a very good game.

Yeah... those side scrolling levels were a great departure from the side scrolling levels.
...
Oh are you trying to say the SHOOTER levels? Yeah maybe that would have made more sense.

As for Mario World (as opposed to SMB)... it's close to as good as Mario World (sorry, but the first Mario Bros. is better than SMB.)... not quite as good, especially because of the short length, but... it's a Mario game! Once you get past the bad graphics, the game is pretty good.

...
Was that post supposed to make sense?

But they aren't actually FF games, so you shouldn't expect them to be the same...

They have the name, they are RPGs. They are not as good as the console games. End of discussion.

(then OB1 says he dislikes DKL)

Yeah that's exactly what I said.

I also liked it. Very good game. Sure, it doesn't have the minigames of the SNES title and has fewer levels. Oh well. It's tough, it's a lot of fun, and the levels are well designed, so who cares? I sure didn't! It's a worthy title in the series every bit as good as the other three. Why don't you agree, OB1? I don't see how it's so different from the other titles at all, other than the lack of color!

Or is it the sprite-blurring you dislike so much (how the characters blend into the backgrounds)? I mostly played it on my GBC, I'm pretty sure, so I didn't have that problem.

What part of "DKL isn't as good as DKC" means "OMG DKL SUCKS!!"
L-E-A-R-N T-O R-E-A-D.

But nor did you put it on your good list. Of course, you forgot a whole lot of fantastic GB games on your good list, and that's just one of them...

I got sick of Mega Man by number four.

I have no idea why at some point you decided to hate the Game Boy, but it's just wrong. "I didn't say it's a bad system, I just said that it has a poor selection of games and I really, really strongly disagree with you if you want to say that you think it's a good system!" is ... well, let's just say that you really, really strongly contradict your initial statement that you don't think it's a bad system.

Nintendo DID make great games for it! It's the third parties that produced the bad stuff. Nintendo's games are great. So they're shorter. Portable games are meant to be shorter, so you can't consider that a huge bad thing. Complexity? Yes, GB games often lack there. That is true. But once you accept the kinds of games it does best, you see how good the console is... What you get is better than most major-console stuff and almost as good as the best. Indesputably.

Mole Mania, for instance, isn't just good by handheld standards. It's good by any standards and is a worthy follow-up to the gameplay you find in the Adventures of LoLo.

The system had a lineup of games that was crap compared to any of Nintendo's home console. That doesn't mean that the games were shit on their own, but I never gave handhelds a handicap like you guys obviously did. Why the hell should I play Mario Land when I can play much better Mario games on my NES and SNES? Why, pray tell? Because I can play them wherever I want to? Well sure, that's correct. But that doesn't make them pale in comparison any less.