"Modern" Gaming

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Microsteve (1226 posts) -

Is it just me or have consoles just been totally devoid of charm since the shift to polygon based graphics? I just can't imagine anything from the PS/Saturn era and beyond being remembered anywhere near as fondly as the 8-bit and 16-bit eras

#2 Posted by Dudersaper (32950 posts) -
It's just you.
#3 Posted by Bubble_Man (3098 posts) -

It's just you.Dudersaper

Agreed.

#4 Posted by WitIsWisdom (3837 posts) -

While unfortunately most stuff that comes out today is the same rehashed garbage with pretty graphics, there can still be some charm found here and thee. I would also say that this generation is the first I feel that lost its charm... After the Wii gimmick started feeling stale and SONY and Microsoft jumped on the band wagon, this generation kind of faded away. It feels to me as if technology was a little ahead of the stuff it was supposed to run on... lol

I have a lot of hope for this upcoming gen though, and with the promise of 10 time faster loading times, and the possibility of ABSOLUTELY HUGE worlds, and easier dev kits, I am looking forward to what SONY and Microsft BOTH have to offer this next gen. Charm is easy to create when all your time isnt going into trying to get programming to work with consoles that arent optimized for running the code, and then having deadlines that you cant possibly make, beating you back so that you have to release a half finished game and then patch it for 6 months until the game is finished... heh

I have faith that this next gen will be FULL of charm and new ideas making both SONY and Microsoft look brilliant! Mark my words next gen will make this one look very very bad which it was, so it kind of works out.

1,000's of hours of manwork cut out from development and consoles powerful enough to run the tech. brilliant eh? If I'm wrong, I'll be the first to admit it, and anybody and everybody can call me out.

Getting back on topic though, I think that this coming gen will have the most charm since the end of the SNES/GEN reign of supremacy. The possibililities are huge, and this "guinea pig era" is drawing to a close :)

#5 Posted by Byshop (12590 posts) -

Is it just me or have consoles just been totally devoid of charm since the shift to polygon based graphics? I just can't imagine anything from the PS/Saturn era and beyond being remembered anywhere near as fondly as the 8-bit and 16-bit eras

Microsteve

TELL THAT TO AERIS YOU HEARTLESS JERK!

(sobs)

-Byshop

#6 Posted by AcidSoldner (7051 posts) -
It's just you.Dudersaper
#7 Posted by d_parker (1725 posts) -

It's you.

You really need to try more games out.

#8 Posted by Kevlar101 (6250 posts) -

It's you.

You really need to try more games out.

d_parker
#9 Posted by Shenmue_Jehuty (5207 posts) -

It's just you.Dudersaper

Yeeeepp!!!

#10 Posted by fend_oblivion (6210 posts) -
It's just you.Dudersaper
#11 Posted by Darkman2007 (17929 posts) -
[QUOTE="Dudersaper"]It's just you.fend_oblivion

exactly, every generation has its charm , and its good games. the argument one could really have is that the market is saturated with FPS games , although one can say the same for alot of generations, just replace FPS with Space Invaders/Pac Man clones in the early 80s , SMB and Double Dragon Clones in the late 80s, or Sonic/Mario/Street Fighter clones in the early 90s. now, one can have preferences for genres and such , but I don't think games have gotten that much better or worse (Im excluding annoying things like DLC), there were alot of boring and repetitive copycat games back in the day, just like there are now
#12 Posted by Farsendor1 (431 posts) -

imo indies saved this gen or should i say last gen

wiiu started a new gen of gaming

#13 Posted by WitIsWisdom (3837 posts) -

imo indies saved this gen or should i say last gen

wiiu started a new gen of gaming

Farsendor1

Technically it cant be called last gen if 66% of the big 3 are still "this gen.." lol

So the Wii U isnt next gen, it is simply Nintendos NOWGEN... ok, I got nuthin... heh

#14 Posted by fend_oblivion (6210 posts) -

imo indies saved this gen or should i say last gen

wiiu started a new gen of gaming

Farsendor1
Wii U started a new gen of gaming? Are you referring to its hardware or its games? If it's hardware, I don't think I would call it "next gen" because the Wii U struggles to run games that released on 6-7 year older architecture. The only thing the Wii U trumps the PS3 and Xbox 360 is in terms of its low power consumption. If it's in terms of games, I'd call the Wii U several steps back. So far, most of the games have been multiplatform games that run worse than their PS3 and 360 counterparts. And the Wii U exclusives so far are a joke. The Wii U needs some new IPs and should bolster their existing IPs so that they greatly revitalize their series akin to how Resident Evil 4 breathed life into a stale, and decadent Resident Evil series. Indie games are great. My personal favorite this gen was a gem called Gemini Rue. Fantastic game :)
#15 Posted by MonkeySpot (6070 posts) -

[QUOTE="Farsendor1"]

imo indies saved this gen or should i say last gen

wiiu started a new gen of gaming

fend_oblivion

Wii U started a new gen of gaming? Are you referring to its hardware or its games? If it's hardware, I don't think I would call it "next gen" because the Wii U struggles to run games that released on 6-7 year older architecture. The only thing the Wii U trumps the PS3 and Xbox 360 is in terms of its low power consumption. If it's in terms of games, I'd call the Wii U several steps back. So far, most of the games have been multiplatform games that run worse than their PS3 and 360 counterparts. And the Wii U exclusives so far are a joke. The Wii U needs some new IPs and should bolster their existing IPs so that they greatly revitalize their series akin to how Resident Evil 4 breathed life into a stale, and decadent Resident Evil series. Indie games are great. My personal favorite this gen was a gem called Gemini Rue. Fantastic game :)

"Decadent"?

:?

Who are you? Nikita Khrushchev? Just kidding, I see your point. Although I didn't then, nor do I see it now, as failing or crumbling by RE3, Veronica, etc., ... There were some failures like "Dead Aim", and misfires like "Outbreak", but then there were also "Zero" and "REmake" which held the old formula but refreshed it at the same time, with the increased processing power of the GameCube.

One man's floor is another man's ceiling, as always. I respect your view.

:)

I also agree that the Wii-U is a bit of a joke. But so was the 3DS at launch, and it's managed to pick up some steam here & there... I don't think the console will be judge-able for a few years.

To get back on-topic and answer the original question, It's You, TC. It's You.

#16 Posted by Eikichi-Onizuka (8127 posts) -
It's just you.Dudersaper
#17 Posted by Byshop (12590 posts) -

[QUOTE="fend_oblivion"][QUOTE="Farsendor1"]

imo indies saved this gen or should i say last gen

wiiu started a new gen of gaming

MonkeySpot

Wii U started a new gen of gaming? Are you referring to its hardware or its games? If it's hardware, I don't think I would call it "next gen" because the Wii U struggles to run games that released on 6-7 year older architecture. The only thing the Wii U trumps the PS3 and Xbox 360 is in terms of its low power consumption. If it's in terms of games, I'd call the Wii U several steps back. So far, most of the games have been multiplatform games that run worse than their PS3 and 360 counterparts. And the Wii U exclusives so far are a joke. The Wii U needs some new IPs and should bolster their existing IPs so that they greatly revitalize their series akin to how Resident Evil 4 breathed life into a stale, and decadent Resident Evil series. Indie games are great. My personal favorite this gen was a gem called Gemini Rue. Fantastic game :)

"Decadent"?

:?

Who are you? Nikita Khrushchev? Just kidding, I see your point. Although I didn't then, nor do I see it now, as failing or crumbling by RE3, Veronica, etc., ... There were some failures like "Dead Aim", and misfires like "Outbreak", but then there were also "Zero" and "REmake" which held the old formula but refreshed it at the same time, with the increased processing power of the GameCube.

One man's floor is another man's ceiling, as always. I respect your view.

:)

I also agree that the Wii-U is a bit of a joke. But so was the 3DS at launch, and it's managed to pick up some steam here & there... I don't think the console will be judge-able for a few years.

To get back on-topic and answer the original question, It's You, TC. It's You.

The Wii was the vastly inferior of it's generation, but it went on to outsell the PS3 and 360 in spite of this. I'm not saying it's better, but just because the specs on a system aren't as good as the competition that doesn't mean it'll be a commercial failure.

-Byshop

#18 Posted by Talldude80 (6321 posts) -

i think more and more games now are hidden gems, and the most popular/best selling games are just money makers. I LOVE Fallout3 and New Vegas, and don't think they are any worse than my retro games. My older games are great for quick pick-up and play. but they lack the depth that many newer games have. Also there are a lot of cool little Indie games on Xboxlive that are similar to NES, SNES, and even Atari 2600 games. Some of those indie games are a total blast too! I LOVE the game that is like Oregon trail but it's new and it's called Super Amazing Wagon Adventure

#19 Posted by Darkman2007 (17929 posts) -

[QUOTE="MonkeySpot"]

[QUOTE="fend_oblivion"] Wii U started a new gen of gaming? Are you referring to its hardware or its games? If it's hardware, I don't think I would call it "next gen" because the Wii U struggles to run games that released on 6-7 year older architecture. The only thing the Wii U trumps the PS3 and Xbox 360 is in terms of its low power consumption. If it's in terms of games, I'd call the Wii U several steps back. So far, most of the games have been multiplatform games that run worse than their PS3 and 360 counterparts. And the Wii U exclusives so far are a joke. The Wii U needs some new IPs and should bolster their existing IPs so that they greatly revitalize their series akin to how Resident Evil 4 breathed life into a stale, and decadent Resident Evil series. Indie games are great. My personal favorite this gen was a gem called Gemini Rue. Fantastic game :)Byshop

"Decadent"?

:?

Who are you? Nikita Khrushchev? Just kidding, I see your point. Although I didn't then, nor do I see it now, as failing or crumbling by RE3, Veronica, etc., ... There were some failures like "Dead Aim", and misfires like "Outbreak", but then there were also "Zero" and "REmake" which held the old formula but refreshed it at the same time, with the increased processing power of the GameCube.

One man's floor is another man's ceiling, as always. I respect your view.

:)

I also agree that the Wii-U is a bit of a joke. But so was the 3DS at launch, and it's managed to pick up some steam here & there... I don't think the console will be judge-able for a few years.

To get back on-topic and answer the original question, It's You, TC. It's You.

The Wii was the vastly inferior of it's generation, but it went on to outsell the PS3 and 360 in spite of this. I'm not saying it's better, but just because the specs on a system aren't as good as the competition that doesn't mean it'll be a commercial failure.

-Byshop

it sold better because it had the motion control gimmick to pull in alot of new gamers (there were people who bought a Wii because it was "cool" ) , and that crowd eventually moved away to mobile gaming and such. had the Wii been a traditional system in the vein of the other 2 , it would have most likely gotten massacred. I mean , youre right that specs aren't everything, but there is a threshold so to speak , some consoles really do suffer because they are technically (and thus graphically) inferior,
#20 Posted by Byshop (12590 posts) -

it sold better because it had the motion control gimmick to pull in alot of new gamers (there were people who bought a Wii because it was "cool" ) , and that crowd eventually moved away to mobile gaming and such. had the Wii been a traditional system in the vein of the other 2 , it would have most likely gotten massacred. I mean , youre right that specs aren't everything, but there is a threshold so to speak , some consoles really do suffer because they are technically (and thus graphically) inferior,Darkman2007

Sure it would have been killed without the motion control but you can't cherry pick. The Wii -is- the motion control. The PS2 wasn't technically as good as the Xbox but it had awesome 3rd party support, the DS blew away technically superior PSP, etc. I can think of more examples where the technically inferior system actually sold more. Factors like price and software support often matter more than raw specs.

What system are you thinking of?

-Byshop

#21 Posted by GeoffZak (3715 posts) -

The charm was lost at the start of this generation of consoles.

(Or it has at least been diminished greatly)

#22 Posted by fend_oblivion (6210 posts) -
The Wii was the vastly inferior of it's generation, but it went on to outsell the PS3 and 360 in spite of this. I'm not saying it's better, but just because the specs on a system aren't as good as the competition that doesn't mean it'll be a commercial failure.

-Byshop

Byshop
True, specs don't matter. But it does matter when the Wii U costs more than a technically superior 360 and PS3. I don't really agree with the title of "next gen console" on the Wii U. If it was called a current gen console, I'd be more forgiving but there is nothing next gen about the Wii U. Commercial success or not, I couldn't care less. What matters to me are the games. That is why I have fond memories of Sega Saturn, Dreamcast and Gamecube, even though they were commercial failures.
#23 Posted by Darkman2007 (17929 posts) -

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]it sold better because it had the motion control gimmick to pull in alot of new gamers (there were people who bought a Wii because it was "cool" ) , and that crowd eventually moved away to mobile gaming and such. had the Wii been a traditional system in the vein of the other 2 , it would have most likely gotten massacred. I mean , youre right that specs aren't everything, but there is a threshold so to speak , some consoles really do suffer because they are technically (and thus graphically) inferior,Byshop

Sure it would have been killed without the motion control but you can't cherry pick. The Wii -is- the motion control. The PS2 wasn't technically as good as the Xbox but it had awesome 3rd party support, the DS blew away technically superior PSP, etc. I can think of more examples where the technically inferior system actually sold more. Factors like price and software support often matter more than raw specs.

What system are you thinking of?

-Byshop

of course, its the system as a whole, Im just saying that without something like that, people will start to look at specs and graphics more. as for what systems I think were hurt because of their specs, one could bring up something like the Jaguar, which didn't impress much after the "real" 5th gen systems were released, although in that case it had its fair share of other problems too. you could even argue the Mega Drive was hurt by it, I can imagine quite a few SNES consoles being sold due to the games looking better in general. same goes for Saturn , I can imagine quite a few people buying a PS1 early on because of the visual differences between Ridge Racer/Toshinden , and Daytona/VF, even if at the end, the latter were arguably better games from a gameplay standpoint. of course you obviously have examples of the Neo Geo where a systems fails because of the specs (or high price caused by the specs) , but in that case its more out of the ordinary, the Neo Geo was not an ordinary system per se. in the case of the PS2 , what helped it was the DVD drive and brand loyalty, forcing developers to make games for the system
#24 Posted by Jebus213 (8920 posts) -
It's just you.Dudersaper
#25 Posted by Byshop (12590 posts) -

of course, its the system as a whole, Im just saying that without something like that, people will start to look at specs and graphics more. as for what systems I think were hurt because of their specs, one could bring up something like the Jaguar, which didn't impress much after the "real" 5th gen systems were released, although in that case it had its fair share of other problems too. you could even argue the Mega Drive was hurt by it, I can imagine quite a few SNES consoles being sold due to the games looking better in general. same goes for Saturn , I can imagine quite a few people buying a PS1 early on because of the visual differences between Ridge Racer/Toshinden , and Daytona/VF, even if at the end, the latter were arguably better games from a gameplay standpoint. of course you obviously have examples of the Neo Geo where a systems fails because of the specs (or high price caused by the specs) , but in that case its more out of the ordinary, the Neo Geo was not an ordinary system per se. in the case of the PS2 , what helped it was the DVD drive and brand loyalty, forcing developers to make games for the systemDarkman2007

The Jaguar's biggest problem wasn't the specs but that Atari can't market worth a crap and by that time they have virtually no 3rd party support. There were literally two decent games for that whole system over its lifespan and when it came out the only people who even knew it existed were avid video game magazine readers like myself. The average lay-person knew what a Nintendo and Super Nintendo was, or a Sega Genesis and Saturn, but most people at that time had never even heard of a Jaguar. This has traditionally been Atari's problem with every system they came out with since the 2600 and 5200. I owned an Atari 7800 (same era system as the NES) which on paper was about as good as an NES -and- played the entire Atari 2600 library, but nobody knew it existed. The same thing happened with the Atari Lynx (a system that was vastly superior to the original Gameboy, which was its direct competition).

How is the Mega Drive an example of this? In Japan it had trouble getting a good foothold, but that's also because the Turbografix 16 already had a strong foothold by the time it came out. In the US (where the TG16 was practically non-existent) the Genesis and SNES were pretty much even.

The PS2's DVD drive wasn't any sort of advantage since it's direct competition (the Xbox) had the same feature. Developers weren't "forced" to develop for it due to brand loyalty, they developed for it because it made the most sense because it was already established (like I said, it had great 3rd party support).

My point is, specs don't really matter unless the gap between systems is HUGE, and most of the time it isn't. It's a large combination of factors that determines the success of a console, including software support, price, marketing, public perception of the console (is it for kids or is it for adults), and even timing of its release. Specs are practically the last thing people care about, because to the lay person the subtle differences between a PS1 and a Dreamcast are negligible. Sure, to avid gamers like you and me the difference is night and day, but we do not make up the majority of the console buying population. I hear what you're saying and I think it's possible that specs -could- hurt a system, but when I think over the history of consoles I can think of far more examples of the lesser of two systems being the more successful than the other way around.

-Byshop

#26 Posted by Darkman2007 (17929 posts) -

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]of course, its the system as a whole, Im just saying that without something like that, people will start to look at specs and graphics more. as for what systems I think were hurt because of their specs, one could bring up something like the Jaguar, which didn't impress much after the "real" 5th gen systems were released, although in that case it had its fair share of other problems too. you could even argue the Mega Drive was hurt by it, I can imagine quite a few SNES consoles being sold due to the games looking better in general. same goes for Saturn , I can imagine quite a few people buying a PS1 early on because of the visual differences between Ridge Racer/Toshinden , and Daytona/VF, even if at the end, the latter were arguably better games from a gameplay standpoint. of course you obviously have examples of the Neo Geo where a systems fails because of the specs (or high price caused by the specs) , but in that case its more out of the ordinary, the Neo Geo was not an ordinary system per se. in the case of the PS2 , what helped it was the DVD drive and brand loyalty, forcing developers to make games for the systemByshop

The Jaguar's biggest problem wasn't the specs but that Atari can't market worth a crap and by that time they have virtually no 3rd party support. There were literally two decent games for that whole system over its lifespan and when it came out the only people who even knew it existed were avid video game magazine readers like myself. The average lay-person knew what a Nintendo and Super Nintendo was, or a Sega Genesis and Saturn, but most people at that time had never even heard of a Jaguar. This has traditionally been Atari's problem with every system they came out with since the 2600 and 5200. I owned an Atari 7800 (same era system as the NES) which on paper was about as good as an NES -and- played the entire Atari 2600 library, but nobody knew it existed. The same thing happened with the Atari Lynx (a system that was vastly superior to the original Gameboy, which was its direct competition).

How is the Mega Drive an example of this? In Japan it had trouble getting a good foothold, but that's also because the Turbografix 16 already had a strong foothold by the time it came out. In the US (where the TG16 was practically non-existent) the Genesis and SNES were pretty much even.

The PS2's DVD drive wasn't any sort of advantage since it's direct competition (the Xbox) had the same feature. Developers weren't "forced" to develop for it due to brand loyalty, they developed for it because it made the most sense because it was already established (like I said, it had great 3rd party support).

My point is, specs don't really matter unless the gap between systems is HUGE, and most of the time it isn't. It's a large combination of factors that determines the success of a console, including software support, price, marketing, public perception of the console (is it for kids or is it for adults), and even timing of its release. Specs are practically the last thing people care about, because to the lay person the subtle differences between a PS1 and a Dreamcast are negligible. Sure, to avid gamers like you and me the difference is night and day, but we do not make up the majority of the console buying population. I hear what you're saying and I think it's possible that specs -could- hurt a system, but when I think over the history of consoles I can think of far more examples of the lesser of two systems being the more successful than the other way around.

-Byshop

well I think youre mixing the words hurt and fail , I said the system could hurt if it gets a reputation for having worse visuals, its not the only thing, of course, and I think the average person woudl look at the specs of a console and it would be like a foreign language to most, but visuals are one aspect of it of course, I myself got a PS2 back in the day instead of an Xbox, despite the fact that I knew Xbox games generally looekd better, and that was simply because I wanted FF10 and MGS2 , and the compatibility with the PS1, so visuals weren't the main aspect for me either I used the MD as an example because to put it simply, the SNES generally had better looking/sounding games, or at least more colourful games, and Im willing to bet the Mega Drive lost some potential customers over this
#27 Posted by Byshop (12590 posts) -

well I think youre mixing the words hurt and fail , I said the system could hurt if it gets a reputation for having worse visuals, its not the only thing, of course, and I think the average person woudl look at the specs of a console and it would be like a foreign language to most, but visuals are one aspect of it of course, I myself got a PS2 back in the day instead of an Xbox, despite the fact that I knew Xbox games generally looekd better, and that was simply because I wanted FF10 and MGS2 , and the compatibility with the PS1, so visuals weren't the main aspect for me either I used the MD as an example because to put it simply, the SNES generally had better looking/sounding games, or at least more colourful games, and Im willing to bet the Mega Drive lost some potential customers over thisDarkman2007

Like I said, I get what you're saying. But historically, there are FAR more examples of the technically inferrior system outselling the superior one for all the reasons I listed in my last post, so "no" I don't agree with your point. The majority of people buy what they think is popular and what their friends have. As long as the gap between two systems isn't gigantic (and sometimes even if it is, as was the case between the Gameboy and Lynx), people buy what they think is the "one to get". Now "why" a system is "the one to get" can vary for a number of reasons (Wii motion control, backwards compatiblity, or even timing of release) but technical superiority is rarely the deciding factor.

-Byshop

#28 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

Well, the early 3D consoles have their quirks.

The graphics are usually pixelated, foggy, blocky, low-rez, the framerates are often choppy, the load times are long (applys to CD systems), there are camera issues, clipping, texture distortion, jaggies, ect. (old PC games aged better in this regard)

However, without 3D graphics, groundbreaking games like Mario 64, Ocarina, MGS, FFVII, or even Star Fox, would not be possible.

Some genres may be better in 2D (such as platformers, strategies, puzzlers, fighters, beat em ups, ect.) but some genres got better due to 3D graphics (FPS, racers, sports games, ect.) and several genres got several improvements like more freedom and options. (such as platformers, action-adventures, fighters, ect.)

If several of those game series were better in 2D is a matter of opinion but there's no denying that 3D brought several novelities to the established franchises as well as created whole new genres and games.

Also, 2D gaming never really died, it just took a back seat.

High-quality 2D games still get released even today. (prime examples being Rayman Origins, World of Goo, Braid, ect.)

#29 Posted by Ricardomz (2715 posts) -

Well I know for a fact that God of War III shall remain in my memories for a loooooong time.

#30 Posted by Legolas_Katarn (15555 posts) -

It's you. You really need to try more games out.

It's just you. There are many great games out there once you look past the Call of Dutys, Halos, and other mainstream titles.

[QUOTE="Farsendor1"]

imo indies saved this gen or should i say last gen

wiiu started a new gen of gaming

WitIsWisdom

Technically it cant be called last gen if 66% of the big 3 are still "this gen.." lol

So the Wii U isnt next gen, it is simply Nintendos NOWGEN... ok, I got nuthin... heh

It doesn't help that many of the games on the WiiU are also on 360 and PS3 with no real changes other than a worse online service.
#31 Posted by BarbaricAvatar (977 posts) -

There have been games with charm on every game system i've ever owned/played on.

I haven't a clue regarding X360 or PS3 though because i haven't tried either. But i'm sure there will be something on both systems that's wonderfully odd, you're just not looking hard enough.

#32 Posted by WiiCubeM1 (4729 posts) -

It's just you. Most of us are past the age that Nostalgia kicks in, but There are many, many games from this gen and last that are very memorable.

My personal favorite this gen so far is Portal 2, and it's memorable as hell.