?>
GTX0 NewestRepliesHottestMy Active
NIFE UpdatesRoadmapRequests | HelpDiscuss Game Worlds


Unpopular Opinion: I wish they'd still occasionally put out games for older systems
Posted: Posted February 25th
Edited February 25th by I killed Mufasa

Instead of chasing technology. A good example of this is Square-Enix. Between 1997 and 2001, they pumped out basically the 4 amazing games that would be their legacy and then we waited until 2006 for 12, 2009 for 13, and 2015 for 15. And those three were the worst received three since FF2. Like, I dunno if I'm the minority here, but if Square released 3 games over the next 3 years that looked like FF9/FF8 level graphics but were actual old school brand new amazing Final Fantasy games I would be fucking ecstatic. I would shit out lemons. Sometimes you don't need to be on the cutting edge of everything, sometimes people loved you for what you used to be. And how much money would it really cost to develop a PS1 or PS2 game these days?

Rareware suffered an even worse fate than Square. After basically dominating the 90s even arguably outdoing Nintendo themselves, they just stopped making good games because their cost to keep up with technology was too high.

People still develop games for the original wii, but it's poor indie devs. Imagine if big budget triple A devs did it. We'd have way more games way faster and most of us wouldn't care that they look butt ugly.

Nintendo literally agrees with me, that's why they stopped chasing technology after the gamecube days. They decided to stay 5 years graphically behind everyone else. And it paid off. The wii and switch have had amazing sales. The only console that didn't sell well was the Wii U, which was the only time (for about a year) that they were the graphics kings again.

Graphics aren't just "not everything" - not at all - chasing them is actually detrimental to making an amazing game unless you have a massive budget and monetize everything in a scummy manner like we see from Activision in Black Ops 4. Or SWBF2 for EA. Yeah both of those games look amazing, but last time I checked when you go to the movies it costs just as much to go see Get Out as it does to see Black Panther even though one of those movies costs a LOT more to make.

Would it really be so bad to see what FF11 SHOULD have been? Or Super Mario World 3? Super Mario 128? Banjo Threeie? Perfect Dark 2? You know, the proper way with the systems that are tried and true and graphics that look like ass?

There are 73 Replies
Page:
1 2 ... 7 8 Load all posts
settingsSettings

Are you asking for games made for actual older systems or games made in the style of the games for older systems?

As far as games being made for older systems, I don't think it's the cost that would be prohibitive. I think it would be the availability and marketability. Making a game for an older system would be very niche and it would vastly restrict the audience you'd be making the game for. Developer's and game producers want their games to be available to as many consumers as possible so releasing games on newer systems helps them to achieve that goal.

As an example, there are still some games that are being released on Dreamcast. Without going to google or another search site, can you name them? Do you have a Dreamcast?

Again without going to google, can you tell me the SNES game that came out in 2018? Do you have an SNES? Did you know there was a SNES game released in 2018?

I'd be surprised if anyone did, and I barely knew about them. Only reason I know of them is because some of the youtubers I watch brought them up. But I didn't buy them.

I think you summarized it well when you mentioned Nintendo Switch doing well. Many classic and retro style games are making a comeback. These games are made by both Indie developers and AAA Studios such as square enix. Look at Octopath Traveler, which became immensely popular when it was released to the point that physical cards of the game were sold out for a short time.

I would love for more retro 16bit style RPG's to be released on newer consoles and I think that market for those games is alive and well. However, even though I own most of the major consoles made since the Mid 1980's I dont see actually releasing games for them to be a good idea as those games would suffer from not having the customer base they would deserve.

So in short, yes I agree that retro style games should be made as I think they would do well. However I do not think that releasing them on older hardware that most people have either sold off or packed up is a good idea as it would severely restrict their consumer pool. However, I think the Switch is the perfect platform for them to be released on as people are not buying a switch as a graphics powerhouse platform but for a system with fun games that have colorful but not super realistic graphics. I also think those kind of games would do well on the PS4 and X1 as well.

Edited February 25th by Q
Q
 

PS2 and Wii have the kind of install bases that would have made them workable. Wii arguably still is. PS1 has 100 million. Hell, the PS1 classic could have had online service and the new games could have been released on that occasionally. Same with the nes and snes classic systems could have featured online. The only thing stopping this from happening is greed because the industry needs you to continue to buy the latest and greatest technology (and the 100+dollars of monetization bullshit that comes with every game released today because they're expensive and EA's CEO wants 12 yachts instead of 9.)

I agree that the switch is a good place to do it, as are the Vita and 3DS, But PS3 still has a massive install base and can emulate PS1 games as well. I'd say PS4 if it actually acquired backwards compatibility. Nintendo needs to get Snes and N64 on Nintendo Online. I'm hoping this alliance with Micrososft will allow Rare to make good old school games again.

But the main problem is convincing a game company like Square-Enix to abandon their ego and get them to stop pushing graphics in favor of making more great games per year. FF15 looks AMAAAAAAAZEBALLS but it's not a very good game and jesus, there's 50 dlc items. KH3 is pretty alright, but what makes it good is that the battle system doesn't stray far from KH1 and 2. How many years did that take, again?

Almost everyone I know has a wii in a closet somewhere. How hard would it be to bring back online service for it?

Edited February 25th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

I'd be surprised if anyone did, and I barely knew about them. Only reason I know of them is because some of the youtubers I watch brought them up. But I didn't buy them.

I too love metaljesus

I dont think this is an unpopular opinion. Its an opinion that hasnt really crossed my mind tbh. It is my understanding there are some people out there still making games for older consoles. But that market is very niche and not profitable for current day developers.

I think a cooler option would be to do what they did with the Halo 2 remake. Be able to switch from 15 year old graphics to modern graphics on the fly. that would be neat.

Posted February 25th by S.O.H.
S.O.H.
 

literally making them for older systems seems like a bad risk, as a lot of people get rid of them and backward compatibility hasn't really been something to count on in recent years. Digital distribution can mitigate that problem, but at that point why not just make, say, a PS4 game that merely *looks* like it's PS2? And even then, you're guaranteeing the ire of all those who do care about their games looking good. Lots of people buy the "updated" consoles and 4K TVs and shit, so I imagine they'd like to make the most of them. Graphics aren't the biggest deal to me either, but I acknowledge that my opinion is likely an outlier and that catering to me isn't necessarily the best financial move.


A good example of this is Square-Enix. Between 1997 and 2001, they pumped out basically the 4 amazing games that would be their legacy and then we waited until 2006 for 12, 2009 for 13, and 2015 for 15. And those three were the worst received three since FF2.

final fantasy is the abused child of the squenix family; their big new releases seem to focus too much on looks without sufficient care for the rest of the package. 15 was a beautiful game with a lot of stupid decisions hampering the rest of it.

meanwhile, their other releases last year included:


Dragon Quest XI, which manages to look really nice and also function as a fun game (that doesn't completely abandon its roots like FFXV, which laughably claimed to be some kind of tribute to fans of the series).


Octopath Traveler, which opts for an old-school aesthetic and is also a really good SNES-style RPG. It's from the same people behind the Bravely games, which scratched a similar itch of "it doesn't have to look state-of-the-art, focus on making a game."

so really, I think it's more the fault of the particular teams working on those games, or possibly just the way the company views each of its properties.

(both of those images are significantly larger than gtx0 displays, if you open them in a new browser tab or something for a better look)

(also square-enix didn't exist until 2003, you were just talking about square's games...doesn't change your point, but just for accuracy's sake)

Edited February 25th by Pirate_Ninja

The problem with Octopath Traveler is it's $80 fucking bucks CAD at release. It should be like $30 bucks CAD. It's a glorified snes game. And there should one every year. The whole point of making OLD games is development costs are so low that you don't need to charge full price. Example, Cuphead. That game was about 30 CAD when it came out.

Square's excuse for not remaking FFVIII is that they don't have the source code. They could remake it from scratch and give it a minor face lift to 720p and throw it on switch and ios steam android and the other two consoles and it would sell millions. Then, they could make NEW final fantasy games in the same style and charge 30 bucks like they do with FF9. FF8 is an easy game to remake even without the source code. They have the whole plot ready, and all the cinematics which need to be updated to wide screen. These guys have millions. They're just lazy and egotistical like remaking 8 is beneath them but no one else can do it because they have the rights.

--

@PN

And even then, you're guaranteeing the ire of all those who do care about their games looking good. Lots of people buy the "updated" consoles and 4K TVs and shit, so I imagine they'd like to make the most of them.

They probably do. But I'm sure they'd rather have a great game every year than a great game every 4 years. Look at The Last Of Us 2, it's probably gonna be a launch title for PS5 at this point. Halo Infinite is being discussed as a launch game for the next Xbox. Does that mean Xbox One Owners won't get a single competent halo game this gen? Jesus, just release Halo 3 in 1080p with a new plot, and new multiplayer levels. How hard it it? Add more levels to halo reach and give it xbox one x enhancement.

I own an xbox one x and a 4k monitor and I have nothing to play on it except for ultra monetized bullshit and old 360 games. And the 360 games are amazing.

Edited February 25th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

.

Edited February 25th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

"PS2 and Wii have the kind of install bases that would have made them workable. Wii arguably still is. PS1 has 100 million."

I agree that those systems sold TONS of units. My parents still have their Wii. The problem with those older systems is that they are not made anymore and are really old. The PS2 has been known to have hardware issues, even when it was new. You also have to figure that the PS2 and Wii used composite/component video cables, many TV's made today don't have inputs for those.

"Hell, the PS1 classic could have had online service and the new games could have been released on that occasionally. Same with the nes and snes classic systems could have featured online."

I agree that those systems having an online store would have been nice, but it would have added to thier cost. The Classic systems (NES, SNES, Playstation) were so cheap because they were literally a system on a chip and a cheap circuit board to output video. By adding online capability you now have to add WiFi, and additional memory chips to handle the extra software. I think it is something that i very doable but you'd likely turn a $80 item into a $120, which starts to put it out of reach of impulse buyers. Too bad there couldn't have been 2 versions of them made.

"I agree that the switch is a good place to do it, as are the Vita and 3DS, But PS3 still has a massive install base and can emulate PS1 games as well. I'd say PS4 if it actually acquired backwards compatibility. Nintendo needs to get Snes and N64 on Nintendo Online. I'm hoping this alliance with Micrososft will allow Rare to make good old school games again. "

Many people I know traded their PS3 in on a PS4. Same for the XBOX360 on a XBOX ONE. The truth is the average person doesnt keep thier older consoles, they sell them or trade them in on newer hardware. SONY could literally not care less about backwards compatibility. They dropped it on the PS3 a couple years after launch, and have stated many times they don't think gamers want it. They half-assed the PlayStation classic just to cash in for the holidays.

I too am hoping for N64 and SNES games to come to the Switch's NES Online service and I think Nintendo knows people want them.

"But the main problem is convincing a game company like Square-Enix to abandon their ego and get them to stop pushing graphics in favor of making more great games per year. FF15 looks AMAAAAAAAZEBALLS but it's not a very good game and jesus, there's 50 dlc items. KH3 is pretty alright, but what makes it good is that the battle system doesn't stray far from KH1 and 2. How many years did that take, again? "

I think Square Enix is starting to get the picture. They have started releasing more classic style JRPG's such as I am Setsuna and Lost Sphere. I always say to send messages to game developers with your wallet. Don't buy the overblown trashy games that push graphics and DLC over gameplay and content. I can promise you that you are not the only person that despises that model for game design.

"Almost everyone I know has a wii in a closet somewhere. How hard would it be to bring back online service for it?"

Well, it's likely that Nintendo dismantled the servers that maintained the Wii online service. There comes a point that maintaining older technology becomes more expensive than converting to newer technology. You don't have to like it, I know I don't. I hated the day that Microsoft took the XBOX Live servers for the original XBOX offline for good as it took away the ability to play Halo 2 and Mech Assault 2 online away. You also can't download any of the DLC for those games anymore.

Posted February 25th by Q
Q
 

SONY could literally not care less about backwards compatibility. They dropped it on the PS3 a couple years after launch.

For disks, sure. But I can play Persona 2, 3, 4, and FF 6,7,8,9 on it because I bought them digitally. THIS is what I'm talking about. Why the hell can't I access these on PS4 when I can access most of them on a Vita. I would sell my PS3 if PS4's BWC was more impressive, but the PS3 right now too useful to me because it has all my digital classics on it. And I still use it to play Black Ops II.

You also have to figure that the PS2 and Wii used composite/component video cables, many TV's made today don't have inputs for those.

But I mean the whole point is that making 480p games is super super cheap. If indies keep making games that nobody even knows about for Wii why can't EA, Nintendo, Activision, abandon the graphics formula and make games for it that are based on story and gameplay instead? Sell the games for 30 bucks and make them for super cheap and sell millions. Or put them on switch if you have to, but a gamecube game looks better on a CRT anyway. I think they should sell CRTs as a niche product brand new too.


Edited February 25th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

"For disks, sure. But I can play Persona 2, 3, 4, and FF 6,7,8,9 on it because i bought them digitally. THIS is what I'm talking about. Why the hell can't I access these on PS4 when I can access most of them on a Vita."

It's true you can still play PS1 games on the PS3, and I bought many through the PS Store. I also am able to play my PS1 discs in it, but you cannot play any PS2 games unless you buy the remastered ones, even if you own the disc unless you own the first generation PS3's.

And even though the PS4 could easily emulate PS1 and PS2 games, they decided not to add that feature which is just so damn silly.

Posted February 25th by Q
Q
 

but you cannot play any PS2 games unless you buy the remastered ones

There are some digital PS2 games like Persona 3,4 (amazing games) and GTA III, San Andreas and Bully.

Edited February 25th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

"There are some digital PS2 games like Persona 3,4 (amazing games) and GTA III, San Andreas and Bully."

Those are the ones I am referring to. You have to repurchase them through the PS3 store even if you own the PS2 discs.

Posted February 25th by Q
Q
 

A good example of this is Square-Enix. Between 1997 and 2001, they pumped out basically the 4 amazing games that would be their legacy


The idea of the Final Fantasy legacy not being at least partially codified by Final Fantasy VI is nonsensical at best and insulting at worst, when you consider the idea that you're including the extremely divisive Final Fantasy X over Final Fantasy VI.

Like, I dunno if I'm the minority here, but if Square released 3 games over the next 3 years that looked like FF9/FF8 level graphics but were actual old school brand new amazing Final Fantasy games I would be fucking ecstatic.


FFIX is pretty decent in terms of graphics. FFVIII looks like hammered shit due to the extreme aliasing and, while the art style was well-realized for what it was, I didn't enjoy it. It felt overly sanitized to me. FFVIII was probably my least-enjoyed FF game after II.

Graphics aren't just "not everything" - not at all - chasing them is actually detrimental to making an amazing game unless you have a massive budget and monetize everything


If what you mean by "graphics" is inherently moving toward photorealistic graphics, then yes. You don't get the old-school aesthetic and quality that you want by not chasing graphics - that shit takes actual work and direction just like higher-definition graphics do.

Would it really be so bad to see what FF11 SHOULD have been?


Any particular Final Fantasy game doesn't NEED to be whatever you want it to be.

You know, the proper way with the systems that are tried and true and graphics that look like ass?


The idea that graphics become bad just because they're old is idiotic.

FFVI had amazing graphics and still does to this day, because the aesthetic, design and mastery of the resources was there. It looked good then and it looks good now.

FFVII had very nice handpainted backgrounds, but the character models looked like dog shit because the mastery of the resources was not there like it was with XI. It always looked bad.

Some part of people saying that stuff ages poorly isn't because something was good for the time and not anymore, though that does happen sometimes. It's sometimes just because people are young and dumb, but learn more over time and become more critical of what was always flawed.

The problem with Octopath Traveler is it's $80 fucking bucks CAD at release. It should be like $30 bucks CAD. It's a glorified snes game.


$80 CAD is $60 USD. That's perfectly in line with what AAA games have traditionally cost - and it's cheap for the mainstream, if you consider how much work bigger projects like RPGs take and how inflation have made the dollar worth less ($60 USD in 1991 would be $110 today). If you care, wait a little bit and find a sale or bundle.

FF8 is an easy game to remake even without the source code.


lmao

Posted February 25th by nullfather

Sure, but for PS4 if it had reasonable BWC you'd own them if you bought them on PS3 digitally. Like you own FF8 on PSP, PS3, and Vita if you buy it once. Why isn't PS4 in that family? It's ridiculous.

Posted February 25th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

I don't think this is an unpopular opinion. I just think what you're suggesting, while ostensibly pretty simple and straightforward, would be pretty unfeasible.

And how much money would it really cost to develop a PS1 or PS2 game these days?

To make a good game?

You'd still need writers, designers, engineers and a lot of time and money to go into it, just like any other game. And it could actually be harder to design a game on an obsolete system nowadays.

Plus, who would buy it? Only people who still have those systems, which aren't being made anymore.

It goes against a lot of the basic business structure of gaming industries, is my completely ignorant opinion of said industries.

Posted February 25th by Agis
Agis
 

The idea of the Final Fantasy legacy not being at least partially codified by Final Fantasy VI is nonsensical at best and insulting at worst

I do include IV and VI, it just looked better for the point I was making to say 1997-2001 since they cranked out 4 amazing games in 4 years. You don't personally have to like 8 or 10 for them to be amazing games that critics and fans loved.

If you care, wait a little bit and find a sale or bundle.

Oh believe me, I do. But Square would build up it's fan base again if they released a game like Octopath Traveler cheaper and more frequently, in the same why they built up their fan base in the mid to late 90s. And I don't know why you're lolling at FF8 being easy to remake without the source code. Yeah it would take more work than the paint job FF7 and 9 and 10 got, but it would still be less work than a NEW game because they already know what the plot and the basic mechanics and cinematics are supposed to look like. So from that side of things Square would be able to move faster than if they made a brand new FF9 tier game. And we are talking about a game that sold 9 million copies on PS1 and a multitude of copies on Psp/ps3/steam. It's not like they wouldn't make their money back and profit heavily. It's pure laziness that they won't do it. FF8 is in the top 5-6 saleswise all time on PS1.


Edited February 25th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

Everyone in this thread seems to be focused on Final Fantasy. I know I trashed Square, but my original point was larger than that. But why can't Nintendo release a 16 bit Mario game spiritual successor to Super Mario World and Yoshi's Island? That would definitely sell millions whether it was on switch, wii, 3ds or whatever, and it wouldn't be difficult or expensive to make. Why can't we get a 16 bit zelda successor to a link to the past, or hell, Null, a successor to your beloved FFVI in 16 bit?

Edited February 25th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

And I don't know why you're lolling at FF8 being easy to remake without the source code. Yeah it would take more work than the paint job FF7 and 9 and 10 got, but it would still be less work than a NEW game because they already know what the plot and the basic mechanics and cinematics are supposed to look like.


It would take less work than a brand new game by an unappreciable amount. Changing the fundamental hardware, rendering capability, effects, etc. implies a massive amount of work with regard to even simple things like making sure that the outdated character designs don't look like shit in a massively modernized engine.

I really don't think that you grasp the idea of how much detail, engineering and craftsmanship goes into realizing a broadly-drawn big picture. You're talking like a dime-a-dozen Ideas Man™ - yeah, just take this thing and put it in that thing, it'll be easy and people will love it. Pro tip: ideas don't take work. Making a video game does.

"Just rebuild this 60-hour video game from the ground up in a completely new system, lol"

Idiotic.

Posted February 25th by nullfather

But it's Square's job to make video games and as a company to make money and there is a huge demand for FF8 whether you like the game or not. It's a proven best-seller, even more so than 9, 10, or 6 and it's the year of it's 20th anniversary and they've had years of production time to know how much work it is. They should have gotten started on it already. They flubbed it. There could have been so much hype.

The game could benefit from having a few of it's game mechanics taken out anyway, like that cringey junction system and the seemingly endless scene at Trabia garden.

At the very least they could have treated FF8 like it actually exists, on it's birthday.

Edited February 25th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

"Everyone in this thread seems to be focused on Final Fantasy."

Not everyone as I never once brought up Final Fantasy until just now in this context.

"I know I trashed Square, but my original point was larger than that. But why can't Nintendo release a 16 bit Mario game spiritual successor to Super Mario World and Yoshi's Island? That would definitely sell millions whether it was on switch, wii, 3ds or whatever, and it wouldn't be difficult or expensive to make."

We can and Nintendo has. Yoshi's New Island, New Super Mario bros. franchise, Super Mario Maker. Those games may not have the exact 16 bit pixlated graphics from the SNES era, but graphically and gamplay wise they are very similar.

"Why can't we get a 16 bit zelda successor to a link to the past, or hell, Null, a successor to your beloved FFVI in 16 bit?"

Nintendo released A Link Between Worlds that is basically the gameplay from Link to the Past with updated graphics and new gameplay elements. Again, not the 16 bit pixlated graphics, but its in the same vain as what you are asking for.

Posted February 25th by Q
Q
 

Like why can't Square atleast give us a lazy direct port of FF8 on PS4/Xbox/Switch? Don't remodel it at all. Give it to us as it is. Don't pretend it never existed. That's idiotic.

Posted February 25th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

But it's Square's job to make video games and as a company to make money and there is a huge demand for FF8 whether you like the game or not. It's a proven best-seller, even more so than 9, 10, or 6


If the people with vastly more information about the situation thought that they could make a significant amount of money off of it, they would, in fact, be working on it.

Posted February 25th by nullfather

These are the same morons who waited a decade before realizing an FF7 remake is a literal money printer. They're ultra reserved and conservative fiscally, but have an ego and need to max out splendor and graphics whenever they make a new game (once every 5 years per main series at minimum.) They've forgotten who they used to be. They used to be able to pop out a great game year after year.

I'm honestly surprised Kingdom Hearts 3 is pretty good. Congratulations Square. I guess Organization 13 stands for the 13 years of development time between KH2 and 3.

Edited February 25th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

"Like why can't Square atleast give us a lazy direct port of FF8 on PS4/Xbox/Switch? Don't remodel it at all. Give it to us as it is. Don't pretend it never existed. That's idiotic."

Because people don't want a lazy port and Square Enix would likely get blasted for doing that. PS1 era games with 3D models don't look that great when up-converted to HD. I don't want a lazy port, I would like for them to give the game some love and attention. Clean up and menus, remaster the audio and redo the spells and visuals. If Square just lazily ports it over alot of new gamers that never experienced it before will be turned off by the ugly jagged graphics and blurry backgrounds.

Posted February 25th by Q
Q
 

Worth pointing out that square has *always* pushed the envelope with graphics. When ff7 came out it was regarded as one of the most graphically amazing games of the day. The graphics haven't aged well because that was in the early days of 3d games, but at the time it cost a lot of money to produce.



Posted February 25th by Xhin
Xhin
Nature is beautiful

Because people don't want a lazy port and Square Enix would likely get blasted for doing that.

People in the know are aware they don't have the source code for FF8 though. Some people just want to play it on Nintendo Switch with the rest of their library. Maybe xbox x enhancements could make it look a bit better.

The graphics haven't aged well because that was in the early days of 3d games, but at the time it cost a lot of money to produce.

It would cost almost nothing to make a game that looks and plays like FF9 nowadays though. And if the story and mechanics were tight, it would sell millions if it was at a good price point. Square needs to remember who they are.

Edited February 25th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

I don't think this is an unpopular opinion but I think it's a misguided one. You're making the mistake of assuming just because it's developed for an older console it will come at a lower price and also be of better quality.

The issue with modern games has very little to do with "technology chasing". The issue is more with trend chasing, half-assed work or simply ideas you don't like but others do. (EDIT: and also greedy companies).

Rareware suffered an even worse fate than Square. After basically dominating the 90s even arguably outdoing Nintendo themselves, they just stopped making good games because their cost to keep up with technology was too high.


With financial backing from Microsoft I find it hard to believe that costs were the issue. The Playtonic devs (the original team consisted almost entirely of ex-Rare devs) have actually shed a lot of light into what happened with Rare and they all agreed it was simply that the ideas they wanted to try ended up not working out as they'd hoped. After which Microsoft moved them onto Kinect projects for a while.

They actually made some very good games on the Xbox 360. The problem was they didn't sell all that well, at least one of them because they had the hubris to assume that sticking the name Banjo Kazooie on a game that wasn't a sequel to Tooie would end well. Despite it actually being a really fun racing game.

This can probably be applied to much of what I am liking going to say in this reply but the fact of the matter is game developers are human. They have desires. They get bored. They don't want to be stuck making the same game over and over and over and over. This is why Naughty Dog went from being known as a company who made platformers to being known for action-adventure games and why next decade they might end up being known for doing a different genre again.

Nintendo literally agrees with me, that's why they stopped chasing technology after the gamecube days. They decided to stay 5 years graphically behind everyone else. And it paid off. The wii and switch have had amazing sales. The only console that didn't sell well was the Wii U, which was the only time (for about a year) that they were the graphics kings again.


I disagree with you very much here. Nintendo are basically the embodiment of "technology chasing" in all of their post-gamecube consoles. From motion control to secondary screen to handheld-home console hybrid. They might not be going for the latest and greatest in graphical and processing but they're still doing the same thing as everyone else.

Graphics aren't just "not everything" - not at all - chasing them is actually detrimental to making an amazing game unless you have a massive budget and monetize everything in a scummy manner like we see from Activision in Black Ops 4. Or SWBF2 for EA.


I feel like you fundamentally misunderstand the issue with those games. It's somewhat wrong to say they can't afford to make those games with just the retail price. They absolutely can afford to do that. Here's a quick rundown of the numbers:

SWB2 had a budget of $235 million.
Assuming all sales at $60 (though if it's like the UK the price of games has probably gone up). In reality this isn't accurate because of special editions and/or those who got it when a deal was on but I imagine the two things balance each other out.
The game sold over 7 million copies.
$60 x 7 million = $420 million

They more than made back the money they spent making it. The cost of producing the game isn't the issue. The issue is every year EA has to make more money than the previous year otherwise their investors/shareholders/whatever get upset. So on top of making their money back with extra they have to make even more money to beat the previous years profits.

This is something that has slowly been spiralling out of control and it's why we're seeing more and more layoffs in companies despite increasing profits, because they're squeezing customers so much that there is very little else they can squeeze out of us so they're now firing staff to reduce operating costs to make up the money there.

The issues with modern gaming has nothing to do with costs to produce games and has everything to do with the flawed nature of the businesses that are making them.

__________________________________________________

However to stick to your original discussion: there's nothing to stop companies making these "simpler" games on modern consoles at a lower production costs and releasing them at lower prices without all he bullshit monetisation. I don't see why you would necessarily want them to do it on on old unsupported consoles that there is only a limited number of in the world because they're no longer produce. Why not just want them to do it on modern consoles? It's not like that extra power of a modern console prevents it from running these kinds of games.

Edited February 25th by Moonray
Moonray
 

"People in the know are aware they don't have the source code for FF8 though. Some people just want to play it on Nintendo Switch with the rest of their library."

Why wouldn't they? How would they not have the source code to FF8 but have it for FF7 and FF9? If you want FF8 remastered and released on Switch and other consoles then show Square by buying FF9 and FF7 when it comes out. Show Square that FF8 remaster would do well. Again, speak with your wallet.

Posted February 25th by Q
Q
 

Also FFX sold more than FFVIII, BTW.

These are the same morons who waited a decade before realizing an FF7 remake is a literal money printer.


"Someone people on the internet said that they should do this thing right now so they're dumb for waiting, building hype, doing it right and not wasting their resources by completely rebuilding a game every few years".

Idiotic.

Posted February 25th by nullfather

The Perfect Dark remake on Xbox 360 came out in 2010 and it's a polished beautiful thing. It feels great to play, and the draw distrance was so poor in the original that it's a much better game because you can see what you're shooting at and shoot at it without frame rate issues. God that's a good port. All Rare would have to do is put that kind of quality into every port they make and they'd be relevant again.

Posted February 25th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

It would cost almost nothing to make a game that looks and plays like FF9 nowadays though. And if the story and mechanics were tight, it would sell millions if it was at a good price point.


You are a delusional Ideas Man that wants people to feed you 60-hour AAA RPGs for bargain bin prices.

Posted February 25th by nullfather

@Null

FFX on PS2 did not sell more than FFVIII. It sold about 6 million to FFVIII's 9 million. It has since probably sold more than VIII's intial tally thanks to it's PS3 and PS4 and Vita and Steam ports sure. But that doesn't make it more of an initial best seller than FF8. That's an idiotic argument because you didn't do your research and you aren't taking into account the potential sales FF8 would have if it had that kind of install base that FFX has. FF8 is number 2 in sales on PS3/PSP backwards compatibility after FF7.

Edited February 25th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

All Rare would have to do is put that kind of quality into every port they make and they'd be relevant again.


If Rare just remade all of "their" old classics I would not consider them relevant. I would consider them less relevant.

Remakes & remasters are nice. I love that Crash & Spyro are back. But I want new games in those series as well and if all Vicarious Visions and Toys for Bob do is keep remaking old games I won't really care much for any product they put out that isn't from those franchises. If they make a brand new Crash or Spyro game that I like I would be much more likely to consider buying other games they put out.

Posted February 25th by Moonray
Moonray
 

Even if the numbers are higher for VIII than they are for X, X is still more impressive because of market saturation.

That's an idiotic argument because you didn;t do your research and you aren't taking into account the potential sales FF8 would have if it had that kind of install base that FFX has


"That's an idiotic argument because you aren't accounting for the made-up sales that I'd like to include".

Posted February 25th by nullfather

I'd like a good sequel to Chrono Trigger.

...

Just throwing that out there.

Posted February 25th by Agis
Agis
 

You are a delusional Ideas Man that wants people to feed you 60-hour AAA RPGs for bargain bin prices.

Well right now I can go on the PS3 store and buy at least 5 60+ hour all-time-great rpgs for 9.99 CAD. So yeah, that's what I think they're worth. But I would still buy a brand new one for $30. Octopath Traveler at $80 CAD is a joke. And if I ever don't put CAD in my number just assume it's what I mean because I'm Canadian.

Why do you feel the need to take a crack at my intelligence every time you post, anyway? I'm glad you're no longer staff so you can be honest again. But I haven't insulted anything but your opinion. Personal shots aren't okay.

Posted February 25th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

"I'd like a good sequel to Chrono Trigger."

I think it's safe to say that anyone who has played Chrono trigger would agree with that statement.

Posted February 25th by Q
Q
 

Market Saturation? PS2 had an install base of 150 million and FFX had almost it's entire life span to reach FFVIII's total. PS1 had an install base of 100 million only 2/3 of PS2's and FFX when it came out was objectively the best-looking JRPG that had ever come out and it had no competition in that regard for years. Even if it did offend your personal sensibilities.

9 million out of 100 million PS1 owners had FF8 and 6 million out of 150 PS2 owners had FFX. It's a clear win for FFVIII.



Edited February 25th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

Well right now I can go on the PS3 store and buy at least 5 60+ hour all-time-great rpgs for 9.99 CAD. So yeah, that's what I think they're worth. But I would still buy a brand new one for $30. Octopath Traveler at $80 CAD is a joke.


Just want to note that when those 9.99CAD games came out they actually cost way more than 9.99CAD. Like I don't remember how much games on the N64 & PS1 cost here in the UK but I know it was plenty more than that.

If those games were made today like that they might not cost the same as Octopath (or maybe they would) but they wouldn't be that cheap either.

Posted February 25th by Moonray
Moonray
 

Well right now I can go on the PS3 store and buy at least 5 60+ hour all-time-great rpgs for 9.99 CAD


So?

Octopath Traveler at $80 CAD is a joke.


A game that you admit is essentially a SNES RPG costs the same price that SNES RPGs used to (before inflation)? Wow, what a joke.

Why do you feel the need to take a crack at my intelligence every time you post, anyway?


What I'm saying is that the kind of things that you are saying are inane, idiotic and ignorant.

Edited February 25th by nullfather

Not a fan of chrono cross?

Posted February 25th by Xhin
Xhin
Nature is beautiful

A game that you admit is essentially a SNES RPG costs the same price that SNES RPGs used to (before inflation)? Wow, what a joke.

Because it's cheaper to make and easier to develop than it was in 1995. Why should it cost the same? It should be a budget gamer's option.

Posted February 25th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

I never had a playstation, so never played it.

Posted February 25th by Agis
Agis
 

"Not a fan of chrono cross?"

Chrono Cross is a good game and RPG, but when you play it you don't feel any real connection to the world of Chrono Trigger. It's been in my collection for 17 years.

Posted February 25th by Q
Q
 

What I'm saying is that the kind of things that you are saying are inane, idiotic and ignorant.

Calling me a delusional "ideas man" is an attack against me personally, not against my opinion. I was fine with it when you were saying what I was saying is idiotic. I already know we have heavy disagreements Final Fantasy. We've talked about it before.

Edited February 25th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

Because it's cheaper to make and easier to develop than it was in 1995. Why should it cost the same? It should be a budget gamer's option.


It doesn't cost the same. Like I already explained, inflation devalued the dollar to the point that $60 in 1991 would be $110 in 2019. Something costing $60 now is a half-price option - the whale option is going to one of those big, shiny blockbuster AAA action games that have season passes and DLC that costs $100 to $200 for the full experience.

So these $60 games are a half-price option in the mainstream scene, but the overall idea of a massive RPG like that NEEDING to be a bargain bin option at release is fucking stupid. Once again, you're completely discounting the actual work that gets put into these things. Because, guess what, there are a lot of low-budget RPGs out there for little money. We're not talking about them because they're jank and unpopular because you can't just pull a decent fully-featured RPG out of your ass.

Posted February 25th by nullfather

Inflation is only one factor. Technology has improved greatly so making a game like super mario world would no longer take months or years, it would take weeks. That's what I'm getting at. Inflation has no bearing on anything we're talking about. I've already factored it into what I'm saying.

Posted February 25th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

Inflation is only one factor. Technology has improved greatly so making a game like super mario world would no longer take months or years, it would take weeks.


Depends on what you mean "like" SMW. If you mean a random shitty indie pixel platformer...then you're still wrong, because it still takes more than a few weeks to put a serious product together. Look at the shit that 24-hour, weekend and weeklong game jams put out. The creators often put months more work into those projects in order to turn them into actual sellable products.

While it's more towards the outlier side, the indie pixel platformer Fez had a five year development cycle.

Inflation has no bearing on anything we're talking about


Except it does, because you're complaining about the price of games. Saying that you don't care about that point doesn't make you right.

Edited February 25th by nullfather

you can't just pull a decent fully-featured RPG out of your ass.

But Square could do what Team Salvato did, release their game for free (or cheap) and sell merch based on the game instead. I spent 80 dollars (US this time) on merch for the free game. The game was only 3 hours long but I smile every time I look up at my plush dokis. I smile when I look up at my RWBY posters too. There are a number of ways to monetize things that aren't scummy. Nintendo's amiibos for instance. Making a game 80 bucks means less people play it and you sell less merch. Make the customer feel like they're getting something (because they are).

Jesus, if you give people a good deal they like you more and want to keep doing business, what a concept. Octopath is probably a good game. I've never played it or looked very far into it. Maybe it has anime cinematics or something that boost it's value beyond what a snes game could offer. But it costs the same as Persona 5, God of War, The Last of Us, which all obviously have much huger budgets. That's what I'm getting at. Square won't pass the savings on to the consumer and it hurts them because if they had more players they could sell a hell of a lot more merch and Octopath could be a huge franchise in a couple years.

Edited February 25th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

And no, I meant a Nintendo-grade 16 bit platformer when I used SMW as my example. It doesn't take as long to make anymore, period.

Except it (Inflation) does, because you're complaining about the price of games. Saying that you don't care about that point doesn't make you right.

I have already accounted for inflation, I told you. It's not that I don't care it's just a pointless thing to mention. You're trying to make it seem like I can't math.

Does inflation account for how retarded it is to spend 140 USD on Black Ops 4's Ultimate or whatever edition and then even more on loot crates when Fortnite and Apex Legends are free to play and loot boxes are optional? Super Smash Bros Ultimate in base form has more value than BO4's ultimate edition. At 80 bucks CAD. Do you think SSBU offers less or more value than Octopath Travelers?

Money has inflated but it hasn't inflated THAT much. Activision are just greedy.

I'm not going to address inflation with Square because my previous post does a better job explaining why I think a cheaper price point is better for both Square and the consumer. At least in the case of Octopath. Not for games like FF15 or KH3.

Edited February 25th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

I have already accounted for inflation, I told you.


I don't care.

Does inflation account for how retarded it is to spend 140 USD on Black Ops 4


Let me stop you right there. I didn't say shit about the latest microtransaction extravaganza and how exploitative it is or isn't. You complained about a game costing less that it did in the past.

Posted February 25th by nullfather

And I consolidated my complaint by comparing a glorified snes game to an actual modern 3D AAA game that's a good deal. Super Smash Bros Ultimate. Which has more value than Octopath. I could use breath or the Wild or Super Mario Odyssey to illustrate my point. These games are much more expensive to make and push gameplay elements to their maximum.

Why should Octopath cost the same at launch as games that cost dozens or hundreds of times more to produce? There's no point in making a 2D/16 bit game if the consumer doesn't save some money due to the developer saving money vs the developers of say God of War, Uncharted 4, Horizon Zero Dawn, etc. I have no problem with a game like FF15 or KH3 being 80 dollars at launch. My reason for having a problem with full price Octopath is because it's scummy and Square could easily sell it cheaper and still profit, and if they did sell it cheaper they'd sell more copies, more merch, and grow the franchise into something relevant.

Edited February 25th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

Super Smash Bros Ultimate. Which has more value than Octopath.


How do you plan on justifying this claim?

My reason for having a problem with full price Octopath is because it's scummy and Square could easily sell it cheaper and still profit,


I thought companies were supposed to try to make money?

and if they did sell it cheaper they'd sell more copies, more merch, and grow the franchise into something relevant.


You have no way of knowing this.

This entire thread is brainlet shit.

Posted February 25th by nullfather

How do you plan on justifying this claim?

SSBU's soundtrack alone is worth the price of admission.

You've reached the point where I'm no longer interested in discussing this with you because you have nothing but inane questions and insults and no content of your own.

Edited February 25th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

Chrono Cross is okay, but it is no Trigger.

I wish they'd still occasionally put out games for older systems ... Instead of chasing technology.

The great thing about independent development is that there is almost certainly a team or two making exactly the sort of experience you're looking for. I might have preferred it if Konami was still making quality Castlevania games, but it's hardly a downgrade to follow Koji Igarashi to his new studio and play Bloodstained instead. Curse of the Moon is the best "Castlevania" game in years, and perhaps even better than Dracula's Curse, from which it draws the most inspiration. The music is killer too.





Old school enough for you?

Now sure, Iga is a god (or an unfathomably powerful, immortal creature of the night) among men, but my point is that you're more likely to have your particular niche catered to now than at any point in the past. That has certainly been my experience. The only reason I haven't played Hollow Knight and Banner Saga 3 yet is because I've been distracted by Pathfinder: Kingmaker, Kenshi, and random Neverwinter Nights modules. I'm supposed to get Sekiro next month (the closest thing to a "AAA" release I'll play all year), but I won't be ready for it. There are too many games to play, and there always will be.

If Indie games (which are doing more or less precisely what you say you want) aren't your thing, you can always go back and check out all the old classics that you've yet to play. As I recall from a previous conversation, you're a huge Suikoden fan but you've yet to play the second game. This needs to be fixed immediately. It really is that good, especially if you like the first that much.

I don't think that tacky monetization schemes are the result of inflated technology budgets. The maximization of profit is itself the incentive. Lootboxes and the like are merely the result of companies latching on to a successful money making trend, and one that has quickly overstayed its welcome. The best antidote to this is, as always, to vote with your wallet. There's no doubt in my mind that the worst of these practices will fall to the wayside, if they haven't begun to already. Does anyone even like Battlefront anymore?

Posted February 25th by Famov

Hey Famov, what's up buddy?

Bloodstained: Curse of the Moon is free on xbox live right now, and I downloaded it. I haven't played it yet. It certainly does look interesting. :)

I never liked Battlefront if we are talking about the modern gen ones. They look awesome and that's the only praise I have. Imagine if it wasn't EA at the helm but Nintendo or almost anyone but EA, Acti or Ubisoft. The devs did such amazing work on the visuals. It's sad to see potential go down the toilet like that.





Posted February 25th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

Kenshi


One of my friends keeps raving about Kenshi, but I'm not going to play it in order to spite him. He still hasn't checked out half of the shit that I have recommended to him.

Posted February 25th by nullfather

I don't see why you would necessarily want them to do it on on old unsupported consoles that there is only a limited number of in the world because they're no longer produce.



Well that's the thing: you aren't just expecting people to be able to have access to working consoles of yore; you also need them to have old televisions. That stuff takes up space (and have not been supported by television companies for some time, now, if I recall correctly).

So you would be pouring money into a very limited pool of potential buyers. The bottom line is, as has been pretty notably pointed out, the market it just too small to really justify this. Especially since these companies aren't exactly the biggest fan of third party companies developing and selling technology to play their games (I don't have a NES anymore. Mine broke. But I did get one of those devices that plays NES/SNES cartridges).




Re; Chrono Cross:

I actually maintain that it is one of the most criminally under-appreciated games of all-time. I really love it, and I don't mind the lack of connection to Trigger. No Final Fantasies connect, after all. The connection in game is sort of...strange. And I certainly get why people find it disappointing and unsatisfying. (And yeah, on a base level, it is definitely no Chrono Trigger.) Still great, in my opinion.

Posted February 25th by Jet Presto

Especially since these companies aren't exactly the biggest fan of third party companies developing and selling technology to play their games.

Jet I'm not really sure what you meant by this part.

Posted February 25th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

Converter cables solve the "doesn't work on newer TV's" problem. It doesn't solve the "looks like shit comparatively" problem, but then lower-resolution screens aren't going to solve that problem either.

Posted February 25th by Xhin
Xhin
Nature is beautiful

At least a CRT has nostalgia benefit though. And no black lines or lag.

Edited February 25th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

One of my friends keeps raving about Kenshi, but I'm not going to play it in order to spite him. He still hasn't checked out half of the shit that I have recommended to him.

Haha, I have a friend who does that shit and anything I recommend him just gets struck down with a "nah" and then he tells me again to check out something. Once I did check something out he recommended, finished it, loved it, then found out he hadn't played more than 1/2 of the game.

Posted February 25th by Fox Forever

fucking lol @ the childish bullshit this thread devolved into

Octopath is probably a good game. I've never played it or looked very far into it. Maybe it has anime cinematics or something that boost it's value beyond what a snes game could offer. But it costs the same as Persona 5, God of War, The Last of Us, which all obviously have much huger budgets.

Why should Octopath cost the same at launch as games that cost dozens or hundreds of times more to produce?

Octopath gave me probably 5-6 times the play hours that TLoU Remastered did, for one

Posted February 25th by Pirate_Ninja

I spend probably half my waking life on Pokemon Showdown and it's free.

Posted February 25th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

What I mean is that there are companies that DO make consoles designed to play old cartridges. Nintendo doesn't sell old NES or SNES consoles anymore, but you can look online to find some other company making a device that will play your old games. (This is largely how I have been able to play my SNES games - as I have now gone through two SNES that no longer work and have had to look around eBay for other ones.)

But Nintendo - and Sony and Microsoft - are not exactly fans of these companies making these things. They want exclusive rights to even the technology they don't support anymore. The legality of these companies making consoles that play NES/SNES/SEGA Genesis games is a bit murky, and I for one don't trust that Nintendo isn't just constantly trying to shut those companies down through legal action.

Posted February 25th by Jet Presto

Oh okay, yeah. Third party consoles. Well I think Nintendo needs to take the stick out of their butts on that one. If they don't plan to sell super nintendo's themselves anymore then it shouldn't bother them that other people will. I could see a case for their frustration if third party sellers were actually competing with nintendo or making third party switches or 3ds systems. I've never heard of anyone faking a playstation or xbox though. The original xbox is the ultimate emulation machine though hilariously enough.

Which is the best third party snes console?

Edited February 25th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

That's what PC gaming's for, man. You want a game like Harvest Moon? Pick up Stardew Valley for $15. A fan of Mega Man X 1-3? Grab 20XX for, again, $15. The newest Disgaea game is on Steam for just $40. Less, if you wait for a sale. Want a simulation game? Game Dev Tycoon costs $10. Recettear's a great game, and only costs $20. Secrets of Grindea is an old-school action-RPG and costs $15 (It's still being developed, but you can easily get 10 hours or so out of what's currently there). I could keep going, but I think this gets my point across.

Posted February 27th by Axem Great Water

“Which is the best third party snes console?”

It depends on how much you are wanting to spend really. Why not get a snes Classic and hack it? Takes 5-10 min to hack one and out roms onto it, plugs in through HDMI and you get save states.

Posted February 27th by Q
Q
 

I have a snes classic and I have hacked a different one before. (gave it to my nephews)

It's alright but the controller cord is really short. And really you might as well just play snes games on PC at that point. I bet you could port the entire snes classic experience over to pc if you wanted to, the menu, the catchy music, all of it.

Posted February 27th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

"It's alright but the controller cord is really short."

Yeah, I got a couple of 10 foot extension cables for $12 total that helped out alot.

"And really you might as well just play snes games on PC at that point. I bet you could port the entire snes classic experience over to pc if you wanted to, the menu, the catchy music, all of it."

I think all of the roms that were on it have been ripped off of it. As far as the UI and music, I'm not sure but the thing I dislike about PC emulators is having to fiddle with the settings to get everything to run right, and most of the time you don't. The classic is great for throwing a bunch of roms on it and then putting it in your living room for some good old couch gaming.

If you want a system that will play the SNES carts you already have I've heard the Analoue Super Nt is pretty good.
https://www.analogue.co/super-nt/

Posted February 27th by Q
Q
 

That's what PC gaming's for, man. You want a game like Harvest Moon? Pick up Stardew Valley for $15. A fan of Mega Man X 1-3? Grab 20XX for, again, $15. The newest Disgaea game is on Steam for just $40. Less, if you wait for a sale. Want a simulation game? Game Dev Tycoon costs $10. Recettear's a great game, and only costs $20. Secrets of Grindea is an old-school action-RPG and costs $15 (It's still being developed, but you can easily get 10 hours or so out of what's currently there). I could keep going, but I think this gets my point across.

I mean basically yeah. The difficult part is wading through the waters of shovelware trying to find a gem (like undertale for instance).

Yeah, I got a couple of 10 foot extension cables for $12 total that helped out alot.

Probably a good idea. A wireless controller would be nice too.

Edited February 27th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

Look up the 8Bitdo SN30 Pro Controller on amazon and the 8Bitdo Retro Receiver for SNES Classic. You can use the SN30 Pro controller on the Switch and PC as well making it a very verstaile controller. Has rumble and motion controls built in but it doest have the NFC reader for Amiibos. I have one and use it all the time when playing my Switch in docked mode.
https://www.amazon.com/8Bitdo-SN30-Controller-Windows-macOS-Android/dp/B0748S1VDC/ref=sr_1_5?crid=1F8PLKMOSU8PF&keywords=8bitdo&qid=1551297201&s=gateway&sprefix=8b%2Caps%2C126&sr=8-5&th=1 https://www.amazon.com/8Bitdo-Retro-Receiver-Classic-Bluetooth-nintendo/dp/B076B995TL/ref=pd_bxgy_img_2/144-3161317-8141265?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B076B995TL&pd_rd_r=5abe505f-3ac9-11e9-a69f-f727b54b72aa&pd_rd_w=52YDB&pd_rd_wg=Jqa1U&pf_rd_p=6725dbd6-9917-451d-beba-16af7874e407&pf_rd_r=J2EC75325S5VGFGMY9HV&psc=1&refRID=J2EC75325S5VGFGMY9HV

Posted February 27th by Q
Q
 

I mean basically yeah. The difficult part is wading through the waters of shovelware trying to find a gem (like undertale for instance).
That's what the "sort by" option is for. Set it to user reviews.

Posted February 27th by Axem Great Water
Load next page Load rest of pages
Reply to: Unpopular Opinion: I wish they'd still occasionally put out games for older systems
Enter your message here

Site Rules | Complaints Process | Give Feedback Facebook Page
GTX0 © 2009-2019 Xhin GameTalk © 1999-2008 lives on