Why is FFIX always stuck in FFX's shadow?

[Monterossa]

Back in the day, FFX released just a year after FFIX and stole all the attentions from IX (because X is the better game btw).

And now... FFIX was getting more loves from the fans on Steam. Hell yeah!! this game is so underrated (in IX fans' opinion, which is not true) and it's now being loved!

Then FFX appears on Steam very shortly after IX release! And now it's the fastest selling FF game on Steam, with more than 10,000 players playing at the same time, breaking all the records including FFIX's records.

Why, oh... why?

[TekHighwind]

When I got a PS2 at the age of thirteen the first game I went out to get was FFIX. It was just out in Europe (2001) and that is why it was overshadowed by FFX one year later. And if you put VII, VIII and X in order with the Nomura design and more mature style, IX is the odd one out. Even though it is more true to the roots and the story is way darker then the initial vibe of this game make you to believe. I understand why a lot of people don't really get FFIX, but for me Hironobu Sakaguchi and Hiroyuki Ito delivered one of the greatest stories in gaming history with this episode in the series. Now upgraded for Steam/Mobile devices it still really holds up after all these years. Mind you this was a PSX game!

IX's gameplay with learning abilities trough equipment remains great. The Battle system is as any other older FF. So don't get why you would complain about that aspect...

The only two main things that always bugged me was its graphics (with the Steam Remaster I have no more complaints allthough with improved backgrounds we'd be in gaming heaven) and the slower pace of the game (the faster pace in FFX battles are one of my favorite battlesystems in the series).

[TekHighwind]

Originally posted by Mobius:

then if we take a look at his achievements in HIS favorite game, we see that he have unlock the 99.999 damage and the all the skills of the ronso BEFORE complete the first temple, so our great baby player is already use the boosters from the beginning of his first game :FFIX_Oglop: lol

hahaha

[Fli]

[An Irate Walrus]

Originally posted by Zunnoab #931:

Originally posted by Ed:

Sales does not equate to the quality of a game. You just gave a perfect example of it. FFX is ♥♥♥♥ but people still buy and play it-- because of nostalgia or just because people like you aren't cultured enough to judge a games quality. FF9 is the most critically acclaimed Final Fantasy for a reason; as well as being a fan favourite(most fan discussions mention FF6 and FF9 as being the best ones).

Cultured enough? I will never understand how some people grow up and still do not understand the difference between opinion and fact.

Here, this may help you:
http://pbskids.org/arthur/games/factsopinions/

In fairness, posters like Ed, even if I happen to agree with their taste relative to IX (I prefer it to X) do their cause no favors by using the same tone and approach as the OP. As you correctly point out, preference for an entry in a franchise cannot be boiled down to objective superiority of one entry over another; what a person draws joy from is generally subjective.

[Zunnoab #931]

I actually love IX about as much as I like VII. I just like FFVI and FFX a little more.

[An Irate Walrus]

Originally posted by Zunnoab #931:

I actually love IX about as much as I like VII. I just like FFVI and FFX a little more.

VI happens to be my personal favorite (came out when I was 13; between it and Chrono Trigger, my eighth and ninth grade years were pretty well sewn up--still have my carts for both). IX is a close second.

I never really cared much for X, and really only got into VII because it was the hot new thing; after I'd finished it once, I sorta moved away from it altogether.

But, again, that's my experience; it stands for no one else's, nor can it be used to argue anyone else's.

Hell, I'm sure there's -someone- out there who loves Mystic Quest. That's the good thing about the franchise; every fan loves some part of it intensely--they just disagree on which one. ;)

[Zunnoab #931]

FF: MQ's music being so far ahead of all other aspects of the game amuses me greatly. I liked the game. I don't think it's spectacular but I don't think it's abysmal.

[An Irate Walrus]

I rented MQ on a lark. It was so vast a departure from its contemporaries in the franchise that I just -couldn't- bring myself to progress all that far in it.

My wife and I have one of those retro combo systems that still plays a variety of old carts; maybe I'll look up a copy and see if I can't bull through it now.

[(GDI)NEO29UK]

no way i have a play list of games some move up and down but i have committed to this and the story must continue

[Moogy]

Lol
IX is 5x better than FFX
Even though X is fantastic.

[KiritoSaoFan]

Originally posted by Moogy:

Lol
IX is 5x better than FFX
Even though X is fantastic.

You can't compare a Ps1 game with a Ps2 game....are two separate world.And console specs are too much different...Here Playstation 1 specs:


CPU: 32-bit RISC MIPS R3000A compatible MIPS R3051 (33.8688 MHz)

MDEC (motion decoder) for FMV playback

SPU (sound processing unit)

RAM: 2 MB main, 1 MB video

Graphics: GPU and Geometry Transformation Engine (GTE), with 2D rotation, scaling, transparency and fading, and 3D texture mapping and shading

Colors: 16.7 million

Sprites: 4,000

Polygons: 180,000 per second (textured), 360,000 per second (flat-shaded)

Resolution: 256×224 to 640×480 pixels

Sound: 16-bit, 24 channel PCM


And this are Playstation 2:


CPU "Emotion Engine" clocked at 294.912 MHz (launch), 299 MHz (newer models), with 128-bit SIMD capabilities

Memory 32 MB of Direct RAMBUS or RDRAM

4 MB eDRAM

Display

Composite video
S-Video
RGB

SCART
VGA (progressive scan capable software only)

YPBPR component video/D-Terminal

GPU "Graphics Synthesizer" clocked at 147.456 MHz

Sound

Dolby Digital 5.1
DTS 5.1

If you want to compare two games need to be on the same machine.....

[Fli]

Originally posted by Shirayuki474:

Both games are at the same quality page, lower than VII and VIII but better than anything else.

This is beyond wrong.

[An Irate Walrus]

Originally posted by Shirayuki474:

It is really simple.

Both games are at the same quality page, lower than VII and VIII but better than anything else, also both games weren't released on PC for a long time, however IX was already finished on pc long ime ago via many people via easy emulation where X wasn't that easy, then we got remastered editions with western release of X-2 DLC.

Then we got ♥♥♥♥ IX mobile port for PC with many problems and downgrades and THEN we got almost perfect FF X/X-2 port which basically has no cons except for few individuals.


Quick conclusion - it is not about games theirself, FF IX was already finished by everyone and got ♥♥♥♥ release so nobody cared anyway and FF X/X-2 Remaster was still something fresh and got basically perfect (and surprised) release.

I'm really surprised OP that you're surprised. IX steam vs X/X-2 Steam is like worm vs human

Though IX was always in the shadow of X in terms of popularity however I explained why difference is so big on steam.

Your assessment of the relative "quality" of VII, VIII, IX, and X/X-2 is phrased as a statement of objective fact.

It is not. It is a statement of subjective opinion.

I could pretty easily prepare for you a lengthy argument comparing the melodrama of VII's plot, principle characters, and narrative tropes to the general design of FF IX, and provide solid support for the idea that FF IX--which features a narrative framework loosely based on a multi-act play--is actually the more technically sound product from a narrative standpoint.

Such an argument would, however, inherently be tainted by my personal biases regarding VII and IX (I did not care for VII, apart from a couple of weeks around launch--and then I moved away from it).

My biases do not establish objective fact. They establish subjective opinion--and an opinion that cannot dictate that reality mold itself to suit said opinion.

[Lvl1. Slime]

Originally posted by An Irate Walrus:

Originally posted by Shirayuki474:

It is really simple.

Both games are at the same quality page, lower than VII and VIII but better than anything else, also both games weren't released on PC for a long time, however IX was already finished on pc long ime ago via many people via easy emulation where X wasn't that easy, then we got remastered editions with western release of X-2 DLC.

Then we got ♥♥♥♥ IX mobile port for PC with many problems and downgrades and THEN we got almost perfect FF X/X-2 port which basically has no cons except for few individuals.


Quick conclusion - it is not about games theirself, FF IX was already finished by everyone and got ♥♥♥♥ release so nobody cared anyway and FF X/X-2 Remaster was still something fresh and got basically perfect (and surprised) release.

I'm really surprised OP that you're surprised. IX steam vs X/X-2 Steam is like worm vs human

Though IX was always in the shadow of X in terms of popularity however I explained why difference is so big on steam.

Your assessment of the relative "quality" of VII, VIII, IX, and X/X-2 is phrased as a statement of objective fact.

It is not. It is a statement of subjective opinion.

I could pretty easily prepare for you a lengthy argument comparing the melodrama of VII's plot, principle characters, and narrative tropes to the general design of FF IX, and provide solid support for the idea that FF IX--which features a narrative framework loosely based on a multi-act play--is actually the more technically sound product from a narrative standpoint.

Such an argument would, however, inherently be tainted by my personal biases regarding VII and IX (I did not care for VII, apart from a couple of weeks around launch--and then I moved away from it).

My biases do not establish objective fact. They establish subjective opinion--and an opinion that cannot dictate that reality mold itself to suit said opinion.

You're right. It's an opinion, as is mine, as is yours, as is OP's. However, when it's a majority opinion, it says a lot.

VII and X are popular, perhaps the most popular. However, in fan discussions IV, VI, VII, and IX are the ones that come up as the popular favourites.
I could point out flaws in each and every one of those games, including IX. That being said, they're still all very good games, and have less flaws than X.

[An Irate Walrus]

Originally posted by Genghiskhan:

You're right. It's an opinion, as is mine, as is yours, as is OP's. However, when it's a majority opinion, it says a lot.

VII and X are popular, perhaps the most popular. However, in fan discussions IV, VI, VII, and IX are the ones that come up as the popular favourites.
I could point out flaws in each and every one of those games, including IX. That being said, they're still all very good games, and have less flaws than X.

Ah, but when you say "popular," you're implicitly acknowledging two very different metrics; if IV, VI (my personal favorite), VII and IX consistently come up as favorites in fan discussions, then the only metric by which VII and X could be considered "the most popular" would be the number of units sold.

It's been pretty well established that VII and X both enjoyed very significant sales numbers--but they were also the first FF games on new hardware. VI, which garnered its own share of critical acclaim, hit fairly close to the time the PSX released--and only three years prior to FF VII; VII was going to move units precisely because people were excited to see what the series would do on the then-new PSX hardware.

Same story applies to the sales relationship between IX and X; IX hit during the twilight of the PSX's run, and X was meant to drive hardware sales. It did so exceptionally well, precisely because the initial release of the game provided such a significant leap forward in terms of graphical fidelity for the franchise.

So, er, "majority opinion," if we're looking at sales as the primary indicator, seems to largely be based on the "hot new thing," rather than any other established metric.

Again, preference for individual entries is entirely subjective, which was my point to begin with; my response was entirely predicated on Shirayuki attempting to objectively quantify the relative "quality" of entries in the franchise.