PDA

View Full Version : Anyone Else think the 360/PS3/Wii Era is a bust???



erik
10-17-2008, 05:52 PM
There is one thing that has been on my mind the last year or so. It is the fact that the current generation of systems, though selling well, are seriously lacking in must-have games. The PS1 and PS2 era were incredible with new franchises, types of gameplay and quality games coming out every month. As for the PS3, there are really only one or two exclusive games worth playing. I am not just talking about the PS3 though - the Xbox 360 and Wii seem to only get great games every 6 months as well, if even that. The only game I am really looking forward to is Resident Evil 5..........which comes out in...........5 months!!! My point is that many of our current releases are so dummied down for the 'lowest common denominator' in order to appeal to a more mainstream audience. Does anybody else think this way? Are hardcore gamers like us becoming an endangered species?? Let me know your opinions are...

ProgrammingAce
10-17-2008, 05:58 PM
lolwut?

Frankie_Says_Relax
10-17-2008, 06:02 PM
Negative.

If you can't find games to suit your taste in this day and age ... you might not be looking hard enough and/or trying enough new properties.

heybtbm
10-17-2008, 06:06 PM
Not even close. This is the best console generation since the 16-bit days IMO. I'd say the "problem" is the exact opposite of what you're saying. There's too many good games. Too little time.

SpaceHarrier
10-17-2008, 06:27 PM
I feel certain franchise updates haven't innovated in the way that I would have liked, but others have blown my mind.

swlovinist
10-17-2008, 06:37 PM
Negative.

If you can't find games to suit your taste in this day and age ... you might not be looking hard enough and/or trying enough new properties.

Retro, Puzzle, Classic Shooter, Shooter, Survival Horror, Casual, Hardcore are all represented in some way shape and form on the Wii, 360, and PS3.


Heck, even if you like pure retro, games like Geometry Wars and Pac Man CE are pretty sweet.

Overbite
10-17-2008, 06:38 PM
Bullshit, the 360 has a bunch of must have games. Ps3 and Wii not so much.

Though I agree that the ps1/ps2 had a lot more must haves.

Sudo
10-17-2008, 06:44 PM
Hell no. There are a lot of great games I've played on both the PS3 and 360 so far, and to a much lesser extent the Wii.

Poofta!
10-17-2008, 06:51 PM
http://www.progarchives.com/forum/uploads/18240/lolwut.jpg

i disagree completely, and have little pity for you for not enjoying some of these awesome titles. i too agree that this generation is probably the best since the 16/32bit golden years (89 to like 97).
of course a lot (most) of todays games depend heavily on the graphical wow factor, so maybe that 24" crt is due for an upgrade. nevertheless they are all married to excellent gameplay.

s1lence
10-17-2008, 06:52 PM
Howz about no............

parallaxscroll
10-17-2008, 07:00 PM
Not a complete bust, but in SOME ways, yes. Though probably not what everyone else is thinking.

I am most disappointed in PS3 and Xbox 360. Even though both consoles are much more powerful than Wii, they disappointed me as far as what I believed they would be capable of back in 2002,2003,2004 and early 2005 before the 360 launched. I was thinking that Xbox2 & PS3 would be capable of much better graphics than what turned out to be. Everyone focuses on High Definition. They do HD but not a heck of alot beyond last-gen Xbox1 graphics, in HD. Yes the 360/PS3 offer better graphics than PS2/Xbox1, but not a true generational leap, like we saw from PS1/N64 to PS2/GCN/Xbox1. Framerates are also a huge disappointment.

So while the Wii is clearly last-gen in terms of CPU & GPU power, and outputs in standard definition, it offers something clearly more interesting than 360/PS3 do. The consumer agrees. Wii is outselling 360 & PS3 combined. By the time October NPD comes out, Wii will have surpassed the total LTD install bases of both HD consoles.


I hope that next gen (XB3, Wii HD, PS4) offer both a large leap in gameplay/control/interface and visual prowess.

dylan0228
10-17-2008, 07:09 PM
I can`t believe this is even a topic! I think the graphical difference from the last gen is leaps & bounds better. And if you can`t find a game that interests you on today`s systems, you need to find a new hobby. There is an abundance of titles that gravitate to genres we have never seen before. Plenty of options for the hardcore & casual gamer!

Nebagram
10-17-2008, 07:19 PM
I can see why you might think the 7th gen is a bust- very few new franchises, few new gameplay mecahnics not seen in the previous gens, no absolute pants-shittingly jaw-droppingly awesome and completely brand new games (think Mario 64, OoT, FFVII for examples)... but I still have to disagree. I see this gen as taking what exists and seeing how it can improved, tweaked, stretched, altered to give different gameplay experiences... and for the most part, it's succeeding. Bioshock is the first example that springs to mind, closely followed by Mario Galaxy. And that's before we get to the whole 'online for all' argument...

Damaramu
10-17-2008, 07:21 PM
This thread is a bust.

Seriously though. As said before, if you can't find SOMETHING that appeals to you, I recommend you sell your PS3/Wii/360 and games and find a new hobby.

Like knitting...

Bojay1997
10-17-2008, 07:24 PM
I agree on both the technical front and on the variety front. The reality is that the difference between the 16 bit and the PSOne/Saturn, and then the leap from that generation to the PS2/Xbox were much more significant in scope than the leap from the last generation to the 360 and PS3. The fact is, we are now in a situation where it takes hundreds of people to make games with large teams of graphics and animators, sound people and people that focus on design. Even with these massive teams, there is only so much time and money you can invest in a game and until computers can program themselves, truly massive games with CGI style graphics like we have been promised all along are probably not going to happen. Truthfully, there are quite a few Xbox 360 games that could have run pretty well on the Xbox and while this difference might grow over time, we are already mid-way through this console cycle and not a whole lot has changed.

On the variety front, I agree as well. With higher budgets come bigger financial risks and more conservative choices. While there are some bright spots out there, there is also a lot of very derivative content. For example, I finally played Dead Space today and after two hours, I don't really see the difference between it and Dreamcast games like Blue Stinger or Carrier. It's basically the same concept and play mechanics with similar are design.

Yes, there are a few obscure Japanese titles and Wiiware or Xbox Live Marketplace games that pop-up now and then, but there was a time when the American software development industry was creating literally thousands of new IPs a year. Nowadays, if you take out all the sequels and derivative junk, you're lucky to see a couple of dozen innovative games. As a collector and a hardcore gamer, that's just not enough for me and I agree that something has to change to keep my interest in this generation.

FlufflePuff
10-17-2008, 07:25 PM
Couldn't disagree more. The gen has tons of great games. There are continuations of existing series (MGS4, GTA4, CoD4...too many 4s) and great new franchises (Bioshock, Gears of War, Resistance, Dead Space). Combine that with full online play for all three systems and the excellent DLC (Mega Man 9, Braid, Etc) and you have something for everyone. I would say that we are judging the prior generations by their whole lifespan versus the 2-3 years of this generations lifespan. Even if you haven't found something yet, keep looking and I'm sure you'll find your niche.

The 1 2 P
10-17-2008, 07:45 PM
if you can't find SOMETHING that appeals to you, I recommend you sell your PS3/Wii/360 and games and find a new hobby.

Like knitting...

QFT, although knitting(like gaming) requires skill, so I'd suggest he tackles the intensity-laden hobby of "watching paint dry"ROFL

erik
10-17-2008, 08:07 PM
I am the original poster and what I am trying to say is that this generation of consoles simply has nowhere near as many good games as the PS1/PS2 eras. That is the main reason why I am dissapointed. Yes, I do agree that there are some awesome games like Bioshock, Mario Galaxy, Gears of War, Orange Box, and Smash Bros, and I love them to death. This era seems to mirror the N64 lifespan - some awesome games, but not enough of them and often paced 6 months apart. I am 34 years old, so maybe I am just growing out of the hobby. Anyone else out there feel the same way?

chicnstu
10-17-2008, 08:07 PM
I'm pretty disappointed with this generation so far. Last generation it felt like there was more variety. This generation, many of the highly rated games are FPS or TPS, I'm not very interested in those. I enjoy Ratchet and Clank, Resident Evil, and Lost Planet but that's about it when it comes to a game where I get to shoot stuff.

I'm like RPGs, action RPGs, platform, things like that, and there just isn't much of that this generation, except on DS and PSP.

So far this generation I have found only 7 games I've loved (in order of favorite to least favorite):

Mario Galaxy
Devil May Cry 4
Oblivion
Lost Planet
Blue Dragon
Zelda: Twilight Princess
Smash Bros.

But I still keep finding games for PS2 that I love (not many are new releases obviously).

I'm hoping that I will like Fallout 3, Fable 2, and Animal Crossing and luckily there are a few games coming out next year that I'm excited for.

erik
10-17-2008, 08:13 PM
I agree on both the technical front and on the variety front. The reality is that the difference between the 16 bit and the PSOne/Saturn, and then the leap from that generation to the PS2/Xbox were much more significant in scope than the leap from the last generation to the 360 and PS3. The fact is, we are now in a situation where it takes hundreds of people to make games with large teams of graphics and animators, sound people and people that focus on design. Even with these massive teams, there is only so much time and money you can invest in a game and until computers can program themselves, truly massive games with CGI style graphics like we have been promised all along are probably not going to happen. Truthfully, there are quite a few Xbox 360 games that could have run pretty well on the Xbox and while this difference might grow over time, we are already mid-way through this console cycle and not a whole lot has changed.

On the variety front, I agree as well. With higher budgets come bigger financial risks and more conservative choices. While there are some bright spots out there, there is also a lot of very derivative content. For example, I finally played Dead Space today and after two hours, I don't really see the difference between it and Dreamcast games like Blue Stinger or Carrier. It's basically the same concept and play mechanics with similar are design.

Yes, there are a few obscure Japanese titles and Wiiware or Xbox Live Marketplace games that pop-up now and then, but there was a time when the American software development industry was creating literally thousands of new IPs a year. Nowadays, if you take out all the sequels and derivative junk, you're lucky to see a couple of dozen innovative games. As a collector and a hardcore gamer, that's just not enough for me and I agree that something has to change to keep my interest in this generation.

Very well said, I couldn't agree more.

The 1 2 P
10-17-2008, 08:29 PM
This era seems to mirror the N64 lifespan - some awesome games, but not enough of them and often paced 6 months apart.

If you had a Gamecube or Wii than I would agree, but the 360 gets good games year round, not once every 6 months.

TheRealist50
10-17-2008, 09:16 PM
I have a 360 and Wii and there are a lot of games I enjoy for both. Mainly 360 but even the Wii has a nice selection. 360 has all sorts of different games from FPS to fighters to RPGs to adventure games. lots are variety of different genres each filled with quality games.

Its pretty interesting reading everyone's opinions on this matter. Some much more different then others.

FrakAttack
10-17-2008, 09:35 PM
Yeah, innovation has suffered due to the growing cost of game development, but I'm hoping some upstart indies will pull us out of the rut, same way rebellious directors shook up the film industry in the '60s (and need to do again.)

Then again, I've got such a backlog of old games I've never even touched that I'm not in a hurry to buy a bunch of new stuff anyway.

tomaitheous
10-17-2008, 09:53 PM
PS2 generation wasn't a bust, but it was lacking for me. The early part of last generation was great, but then...

This generation is awesome. I wasn't into FPS until this generation. Also, I was really getting sick of PS2's aging graphics, low polys, low res and colorless textures, resolution edgies, etc of last generation. This generation couldn't have come soon enough.

Press_Start
10-17-2008, 10:18 PM
Although not the best generation, it certainly isn't the worst. We're just at a junction point with the Wii's motion-sensitive technology, XBLA/PSN/VC, the return of retrogaming, and a new generation of gamer brought about by Nintendo in addition to next-gen graphics. It a whole lot for company and consumer to adjust and when they do, the next-gen console will even better.

If you kept up with recent news, then you know there's a whole cornucopia of new titles coming out for PS3, Wii, and 360. Valkyria Chronicles, Sin and Punishment 2, Punch-Out Wii, Mirror's Edge, and more. So don't jump the trains just yet, this gen has more good years to go. :D

Why not try some of these titles if you're still not convinced: Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles, No More Heroes, Zack & Wiki, Dewy's Adventures, Disgaea 3.

aclbandit
10-17-2008, 11:13 PM
I agree that it's not quite the same as it used to be. I still prefer my Famicom/NES over anything else.

But I wouldn't call this one a bust just yet. Still a few that I'm really waiting for (Here's to hoping that mirror's edge doesn't blow, eh?), but nothing like my level of "OMFG" from the PSX era (FFVIII, RE3, and all that jazz).

Not a bust, but not epic. This generation leaves me with a feeling of "meh."

EDIT: That is, So Far. ^_^

ANONPLOX
10-17-2008, 11:38 PM
PS2 generation wasn't a bust, but it was lacking for me. The early part of last generation was great, but then...

This generation is awesome. I wasn't into FPS until this generation. Also, I was really getting sick of PS2's aging graphics, low polys, low res and colorless textures, resolution edgies, etc of last generation. This generation couldn't have come soon enough.

that why iv started importing PS2 wrestling/fighters/shooters from japan to breath new (and harder) life into my PS2 but if it was easier to play Japanese games on my 360 id be doing that also but id have to mod it since they dont have a swap disc/mod USB dongle option.

Dangerboy
10-17-2008, 11:44 PM
Okay, I think I'll add an odd perspective.

It's not so much that this next generation is bust (we're only 2 years / 3 years in, jeez), but it's the fact that the saturation has dramatically changed. I fell out of last generation's era after playing Black; it was the end all be all game, to me. I haven't played about 95% of the GC / PS2 / Xbox libraries combined, for various reasons.

The 'saturation' part I refer to in regards to LAST generation is that there was a false sense of choice. The PS2 is at the largest fault; there were just too many damn games that were too close to each other. You had endless copy / pasted RPGs, which were compounded by the 'chapter' based ones like Dot. Hack; you had too many sequels with their "in-family xeroxing" (Dynasty Warriors, Samurai Warriors, Warriors Orochi), with the final nail being the "ambulance chasing". That is, if a game did well, EVERY FREAKING COMPANY had to quickly drop their version onto the market and flood the category. DDR gave way to Dance Factory, Pump it Up, In the Groove...World Series of Poker gives way to World Championship, World Tour Poker...and on and on and on...

The problem with this generation is that not only is the saturation level at an all time high (read: MINI-GAMES AND ANYTHING DS), but you know have a *severe* lack of creativity in the presentation department. Walk into any game store with a large 'front face' display of games. Here's what you'll see visually: brown, brown, brown, white, white, black, brown, blue, brown, black, brown, brown. Game covers nowadays are in the same CG work that their game represents; since damn near EVERYTHING these days is based in realism, so goes the cover to the dirt, dust, and evil darkness that most game stories contain. It's the rare few like Tales of Vesperia, Battle Fantasia (brown cover, but hand drawn!), and say, Project Gotham 4 that actually bring attention to themselves because they don't look like everything else on the shelf.

This is partially why I went with and still stand by the Wii; yes it's drowning in mini-games and shitty shovelware, but the gems it does have shine brighter than most. I'll take Wii Sports, Zack and Wiki, Elebits, Excitetruck, and others over anything on the PS3. Little Big Planet will probably be the first PS3 game that actually holds me for more than 3 hours.

The 360 shines in its Arcade experience; yes Halo 3, Bioshock, and others are great, but goddamn there are a TON of gems on that online service. Considering I originally bought my 360 just to play Hexic, it's a golden era of smaller game development.

So no, it's not lacking. Sometimes nostalgia just comes on too quickly.

badinsults
10-18-2008, 12:43 AM
I don't know man, I was just playing Braid, and I am glad that there is finally some good 2D platforming coming back.

Matt-El
10-18-2008, 12:49 AM
Pretty much it's like this: If you can't find anything good about new games, PLAY OLD GAMES.


Nuff Said, Excelsior, etc.

j_factor
10-18-2008, 01:24 AM
I agree, but only to an extent. For me, as games get bigger and more serious, I get more easily bored. I got Rainbow Six Vegas 2 for free and I just don't get what people see in these games.

DiabolicalAdvocate
10-18-2008, 04:56 AM
I've never loved gaming more than I do now.

Nature Boy
10-18-2008, 09:03 AM
I like every new generation for what it offers that the previous didn't.

Kid Ice
10-18-2008, 09:43 AM
I'm a crusty old man and even I can name a dozen or so worthwhile games from this gen without even thinking about it. I'd be far more tempted to call last gen (PS2, Xbox, GC) a bust....although not so much if you include Dreamcast.

However, in terms of the hardware itself, all three systems are frustratingly flawed.

slip81
10-18-2008, 10:04 AM
Yeah, I'll jump on the boat with everyone else and say that this gen is great. Better than last gen? I don't know, the PS2 had/has a lot of killer games as did the PS1 before it, but it is in no way worse.

When you think about it, there hasn't really been that much variety in game types in the past 20 years. Really every game falls into one of a small handful of genres, but what makes them continue to be interesting isn't the graphics or sound or what have you, but the stories they tell and little gameplay tweaks that improve upon the fomula and allow them to do things in said genre that weren't allowed before for whatever reason.

Also, to anyone who says that there really isn't a big leap between generations graphically probably doesn't have the equipment to fully appreciate the games. Go play Gran Turismo 4 or San Andreas on a standard def tv, then pop in GT Prologue or GTA IV on an HD display and tell me you don't instantly notice a huge step up.

swlovinist
10-18-2008, 10:05 AM
I'm a crusty old man and even I can name a dozen or so worthwhile games from this gen without even thinking about it. I'd be far more tempted to call last gen (PS2, Xbox, GC) a bust....although not so much if you include Dreamcast.

However, in terms of the hardware itself, all three systems are frustratingly flawed.

Now the hardware...that is something that I can agree with being flawed

Electric Blue
10-18-2008, 11:00 AM
Couldn't disagree more. The gen has tons of great games. There are continuations of existing series (MGS4, GTA4, CoD4...too many 4s) and great new franchises (Bioshock, Gears of War, Resistance, Dead Space).

1) Bioshock isn't "really" a new series.

2) Every single one of those "great new franchises" you listed is a FPS... as is like half of the games released for the damn systems. There are gems out there for sure, you just have to dig through the disapointingly high selling all-the-same-FPSes to get to them.

ubersaurus
10-18-2008, 11:11 AM
I think the idea that nothing good is out there before it's all been "dumbed down" is mad.

I've been playing Geometry Wars, Mega Man 9, Orbient, Star Soldier R, Crackdown, Mass Effect, Halo 3, Braid, Mario Galaxy, Castle Crashers, and a slew of other games this gen. There's a wide variety of awesome titles out there. Arguably I may enjoy this gen more than the previous one, just because there are more games out there that I like.

modest9797
10-18-2008, 11:37 AM
To name a few titles...
-Dead Rising
-Crackdown
- FEAR
-Rock Band
- Guitar Heroes
- Halo 3
- Viva Pinata
- Fable 2
- Gears of War 1 & 2
- Resident Evil 5
- Super Mario Galaxy
- Twighlight Princess
- Metroid Prime 3
- ALOT more

Sudo
10-18-2008, 01:29 PM
1) Bioshock isn't "really" a new series.

2) Every single one of those "great new franchises" you listed is a FPS... as is like half of the games released for the damn systems. There are gems out there for sure, you just have to dig through the disapointingly high selling all-the-same-FPSes to get to them.

Gears of War and Dead Space are not FPS, they're not even first-person at all.

Icarus Moonsight
10-18-2008, 02:20 PM
I'm supporting one console (Wii) and two handhelds (DS, PSP) that are all current. Last gen was two consoles (GC, PS2) and one handheld (GBA). Dreamcast had the fork in it already before I jumped on a PS2 and GC. Otherwise this go isn't much different from the last one. Maybe I'm buying a game a bit more often this gen. It comes in spurts. Then I don't find anything for a month or two then BOOM bunch of stuff. Last gen the games came in a more steady trickle. That is certainly different from my perspective. No bust though, more like, little change.

jdc
10-18-2008, 04:58 PM
My only small complaints are...the severe lack of durability in the Xbox 360, and the lack of RPGs on the PS3, but those two horses have been flogged to death. Other than that, it's all good. Software-wise, the best is yet to come.

Slate
10-18-2008, 05:56 PM
I never really thought of this. I know PS3 and Wii are going rather slow in must have exclusives but the 360 has been getting enough good games for me with more coming! Not all these are exclusives but here is a list of games I enjoy or I expect to be good once they are released:

Civilization Revolution
Condemned 2
Crackdown
Ghostbusters (Not out yet)
Left 4 Dead (Coming out in November)
The Orange Box
Overlord
Rock Band 2
Shadowrun

otoko
10-18-2008, 05:59 PM
Can't really tell. This generation has not fallen into my price range yet to make any large assumptions. Plus it's still in it's life cycle. Let's make judgments once we see all the games.

But, so far all the games I have purchased I have rather enjoyed.

As far as all three being flawed systems. I can't really say. Of course we know the 360 is flawed. No denying. The PS3 also had many failures.

Still, could someone enlighten me on the Wii's many failures? Me and several people I know have launch day Wii's and non of us so far had any problems with our consoles. That's also taking in consideration the several times my friend accidentally threw his wiimote into his fireplace.

snes_collector
10-18-2008, 06:19 PM
This generation, many of the highly rated games are FPS or TPS, I'm not very interested in those.

I agree, the consoles way to oversaturated by them IMO. So much so, I really don't keep up with everything that comes out anymore.

The only good thing about this is when I actually find something I do like, its pretty relieving.

Icarus Moonsight
10-18-2008, 09:48 PM
Well, I think many would refer you to the Wii's online components; friend codes, slow to go WiiWare, ect. Limiting VC releases (some just want the flood gates to open up on this one.) The shovelware snafu. Supply bottlenecks (some suppose it's intentional, while others may not agree). Random drive failures (infrequent, but not unheard of IIRC). Going 512MB internal flash rather than HDD in the tens of GB. Shortsighted on the waggle stick (M+ is Nintendo coping to it! Or so I've heard it said. I see it like the transition from the original Sony PS1 digital pad to the dual shock. But, that's just me I guess.) YMMV.

megasdkirby
10-18-2008, 09:53 PM
I personally don't care much for this generation of games. Not that it's bad, because it isn't. But for some reason, very little has interest me, and I find myself play the older consoles more and more than any of the new consoles.

j_factor
10-18-2008, 10:20 PM
Also, to anyone who says that there really isn't a big leap between generations graphically probably doesn't have the equipment to fully appreciate the games. Go play Gran Turismo 4 or San Andreas on a standard def tv, then pop in GT Prologue or GTA IV on an HD display and tell me you don't instantly notice a huge step up.

The "leap" you're describing is more due to HD than anything else, though. The vast majority of 360 games could be scaled down to 480p and put on Xbox (or probably even Dreamcast) and still have the same feel intact. This is a far cry from previous generation leaps, where you see games that just couldn't have been done on older hardware at all. It's hard to imagine an SMS version of Lightening Force, or a Sega CD version of Quake, or an N64 version of Wind Waker. It's not as hard to imagine a 360 game reduced to 480p. If Crazy Taxi had been made for Playstation or Saturn, with the corresponding quality of textures, framerate, and draw distance, it would have actually been a worse game. If GT Prologue had been on Xbox, it would've just been less pretty.

tomaitheous
10-19-2008, 05:16 PM
The "leap" you're describing is more due to HD than anything else, though. The vast majority of 360 games could be scaled down to 480p and put on Xbox (or probably even Dreamcast) and still have the same feel intact. This is a far cry from previous generation leaps, where you see games that just couldn't have been done on older hardware at all. It's hard to imagine an SMS version of Lightening Force, or a Sega CD version of Quake, or an N64 version of Wind Waker. It's not as hard to imagine a 360 game reduced to 480p. If Crazy Taxi had been made for Playstation or Saturn, with the corresponding quality of textures, framerate, and draw distance, it would have actually been a worse game. If GT Prologue had been on Xbox, it would've just been less pretty.


That might be true for some games, but playing PS2/XBOX side by side of PS3/360 iin general is a huge difference. I can't imagine playing some of these newer titles on the previous generation. The detail would be horrendously dumbed down to the point that I wouldn't bother playing them. Playing Dead Space currently, I fall to see this on the PS2. Matter of fact, I can't even play PS2/GC on my HD set anymore. I've moved the systems over to the 20" SDTV so the visuals aren't as hurt'n.

Rob2600
10-19-2008, 05:25 PM
I am the original poster and what I am trying to say is that this generation of consoles simply has nowhere near as many good games as the PS1/PS2 eras. That is the main reason why I am dissapointed.

Are you forgetting that the PlayStation 3 and the Wii haven't even been out for two full years yet?


Yes, I do agree that there are some awesome games like Bioshock, Mario Galaxy, Gears of War, Orange Box, and Smash Bros, and I love them to death. This era seems to mirror the N64 lifespan - some awesome games, but not enough of them and often paced 6 months apart.

Six months apart? I don't think so. If you look at the ratings (http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?t=114086) and do an average, the N64 had a new AAA game roughly every six or seven weeks throughout the course of its life.

If you look at the Wii ratings (http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?t=109135), there's a new AAA game roughly every month (including WiiWare, excluding Virtual Console).


Last generation it felt like there was more variety. This generation, many of the highly rated games are FPS or TPS, I'm not very interested in those.

I own a Wii and there's already a wide variety of highly-rated games (not just first-person shooters):

Art Style: Orbient (WiiWare)
Battalion Wars 2
Bomberman Blast (WiiWare)
de Blob
Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn
Geometry Wars: Galaxies
Guitar Hero: World Tour
LostWinds (WiiWare)
Mario Kart Wii
No More Heroes
Pinball Hall of Fame: The Williams Collection
Pro Evolution Soccer 2008
Trauma Center: Second Opinion
Super Mario Galaxy
Wario Land: Shake It!
Wii Fit
Wii Sports
World of Goo (WiiWare)
Zack & Wiki
etc.

See what I mean? Again, the Wii hasn't even been out for two full years.


Yeah, innovation has suffered due to the growing cost of game development, but I'm hoping some upstart indies will pull us out of the rut

Did everyone suddenly get amnesia? Again, there are plenty of innovative games this generation, like Art Style: Orbient, de Blob, LostWinds, Trauma Center, Wii Fit, Wii Sports, World of Goo, Zack & Wiki, etc...at least on the Wii.

Are that many of you ignorant of the Wii's library?

Princess-Isabela
10-19-2008, 05:38 PM
There is one thing that has been on my mind the last year or so. It is the fact that the current generation of systems, though selling well, are seriously lacking in must-have games. The PS1 and PS2 era were incredible with new franchises, types of gameplay and quality games coming out every month. As for the PS3, there are really only one or two exclusive games worth playing. I am not just talking about the PS3 though - the Xbox 360 and Wii seem to only get great games every 6 months as well, if even that. The only game I am really looking forward to is Resident Evil 5..........which comes out in...........5 months!!! My point is that many of our current releases are so dummied down for the 'lowest common denominator' in order to appeal to a more mainstream audience. Does anybody else think this way? Are hardcore gamers like us becoming an endangered species?? Let me know your opinions are...

you're officially on crack.
this generation is amazing and there are plenty of must have titles already available as well as coming shortly.
my most anticipated title lands in three weeks - Banjo Threeie, it's been 8 years since Tooie came out, need my platforming fix hehe.
but seriously you're crazy if you think this generation is lacking.

RCM
10-19-2008, 06:19 PM
Besides the troubling success of the Wii, this has been a solid and at times spectacular generation. Plus, 2D and classic titles are finally getting the respect they deserve again. This gen has been far better than I expected so far.

FrakAttack
10-19-2008, 07:21 PM
Art Style: Orbient (WiiWare)
Battalion Wars 2
Bomberman Blast (WiiWare)
de Blob
Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn
Geometry Wars: Galaxies
Guitar Hero: World Tour
LostWinds (WiiWare)
Mario Kart Wii
No More Heroes
Pinball Hall of Fame: The Williams Collection
Pro Evolution Soccer 2008
Trauma Center: Second Opinion
Super Mario Galaxy
Wario Land: Shake It!
Wii Fit
Wii Sports
World of Goo (WiiWare)
Zack & Wiki
etc.

See what I mean? Again, the Wii hasn't even been out for two full years.

Did everyone suddenly get amnesia? Again, there are plenty of innovative games this generation, like Art Style: Orbient, de Blob, LostWinds, Trauma Center, Wii Fit, Wii Sports, World of Goo, Zack & Wiki, etc...at least on the Wii.

Are that many of you ignorant of the Wii's library?

Are you ignorant of the meaning of the word "innovative?" Most of the games you listed are sequels and several are from loooong running franchises. :roll:

Kid Ice
10-19-2008, 07:41 PM
Are you ignorant of the meaning of the word "innovative?" Most of the games you listed are sequels and several are from loooong running franchises. :roll:

His list was of top shelf Wii games. Except the list at the bottom....which are all games new to this gen to my knowledge.

The thread, as I understand it, is about the "lack" of "must have" games from this generation, not so-called innovative games. Maybe I'm alone on this but IMO most of the "innovative" games I've played in the last 10 years...Pikmin, Katamari, Echochrome, those kinds of games...really didn't do much for me.

XYXZYZ
10-19-2008, 07:53 PM
My only regret for this generation is that I'm not getting into it yet. There's quite a few things that interest me for 360, but I don't have one mainly because I'm waiting for reliable hardware, also because there are other things demanding my time and money and investing in 360 (the price of the console is just the beginning) isn't high on my list right now. I doubt I'll get one until Street Fighter IV is out anyway.

In the mean time I have a Wii to play with, but very rarely do I give it any attention.

geneshifter
10-19-2008, 08:05 PM
In the mean time I have a Wii to play with, but very rarely do I give it any attention.

Really?! Man, I play that thing all the time nowadays. Lots of VC stuff plus the Wii games themselves. I admit there is a lot of shovelware for the system but there are some real gems in there.

FrakAttack
10-19-2008, 08:39 PM
His list was of top shelf Wii games. Except the list at the bottom....which are all games new to this gen to my knowledge.

The thread, as I understand it, is about the "lack" of "must have" games from this generation, not so-called innovative games. Maybe I'm alone on this but IMO most of the "innovative" games I've played in the last 10 years...Pikmin, Katamari, Echochrome, those kinds of games...really didn't do much for me.

Have yet to play a game from this generation that has knocked my socks off. In previous generations there were always those titles that I played for hours, days even, that I couldn't stop thinking about when I was away. Now it's like, "Yeah, that was alright, but I've got other shit to do." Maybe it's the Law of Diminishing Returns in action or maybe I'm just old and jaded now, but I haven't played a "must have" title yet.

Still looking for a game to light that "fire." :onfire:

j_factor
10-19-2008, 08:50 PM
That might be true for some games, but playing PS2/XBOX side by side of PS3/360 iin general is a huge difference. I can't imagine playing some of these newer titles on the previous generation. The detail would be horrendously dumbed down to the point that I wouldn't bother playing them.

So a game's only as good as its textures?

In most games, the only difference is a more textured coat of paint. There are a few exceptions, like GTA4's massive city, but they're the minority. Last gen, almost every single game benefitted from the new technology.

Sabz5150
10-19-2008, 09:38 PM
http://www.progarchives.com/forum/uploads/18240/lolwut.jpg

i disagree completely, and have little pity for you for not enjoying some of these awesome titles. i too agree that this generation is probably the best since the 16/32bit golden years (89 to like 97).
of course a lot (most) of todays games depend heavily on the graphical wow factor, so maybe that 24" crt is due for an upgrade. nevertheless they are all married to excellent gameplay.

http://ursulav.deviantart.com/art/The-Biting-Pear-of-Salamanca-29677500

NOTE FOR 4CHAN AND ALL THE REST:

Yes. I know. L0L WUT. Yes, yes. I'm aware.


That was my laugh for the day. Thanks :D

Aussie2B
10-19-2008, 10:05 PM
It really depends on your view of "must-have". Personally, I'm such a jaded, cheap collector at this point that almost nothing is a "must-have" to me, at least not in terms of forking out 60 bucks (or even 30 or 40 for a handheld game). Ironically, current games have to compete with older games for my money. I have a hard time justifying buying most new games when I can spend 5 bucks buying an older game that can offer just as much satisfaction to me, possibly more.

With that said, there are some interesting games to me this generation, but not so much considering I predominantly play Japanese-developed games, which aren't as big in the US anymore, and of those I prefer RPGs and platformers. Kinda slim pickings on all three home consoles. I am pretty impressed with the handhelds, though. The DS has loads of stuff I plan on picking up cheap later on, and even the PSP has some cool stuff reminiscent of the PS1 era.

I don't find the previous generation that exciting either, to be honest. I don't think anything is ever going to live up to the games of the 8, 16, and 32/64-bit generations for me. Those were more "pure" gaming experiences to me.

kupomogli
10-19-2008, 10:24 PM
I honestly think video gaming is dying. PSP and DS are the only systems that have a decent amount of good games.

-andrew- -kupomogli-

theChad
10-19-2008, 10:31 PM
It feels weird to me thinking about the next generation of consoles. I mean, this is the first time I've ever been in the middle of one generation thinking about what might come in two or three years.

When I was playing Super Nintendo, I never would've imagined something like the N64, and same for going from 64 to Gamecube, PS1 to PS2 - it's just like each system owned its generation and I never thought about what might be next because I was too absorbed into what was going on at the time.

I feel like this is the first time I've ever experienced a fizzling out in the middle of a system's lifespan. I don't know if it's because I've started to understand the pattern in launching consoles or what, but my point is this is the first generation that ever left me wanting more.

Retsudo
10-19-2008, 10:41 PM
Well this gen I only have a PS3. And this is the first time Im having a hard time picking games I want to buy. The last 3 Gens I never had that problem. As of now, I mostly play PSN games like Tekken 5 DR and Super Stardust. My BD drive rarely get any use.

Im sure if there were a Tekken game or an Ace Combat game on the PS3 early on, I would be a little happier. But it's all good though.

tomaitheous
10-19-2008, 11:14 PM
So a game's only as good as its textures?


To a point, yes. Would you still play these same games if they were degraded to PS1 specs or lower?

I seriously would not be playing a lot of these games if they were on PS2 hardware (blurry textures, low poly count, slowdown, lower frame rate, jaggies). They wouldn't appeal to me visually. And it's not *just* textures. Look at Dead Rising screen shots for the Wii version. They look terrible (read: distracting).

Of course not all games, but a lot - yes. FPS more than most, too.


I mean, this is the first time I've ever been in the middle of one generation thinking about what might come in two or three years.
It was like that for me last generation. This generation couldn't start soon enough.

kupomogli
10-19-2008, 11:32 PM
I agree with the topic more than disagree as aside from the DS and PSP, games this gen are more or less not even worth playing aside from a few.

The only games I've felt that were even worth playing and actually owning are GTA4, Stranglehold, Dead Rising, Gears of War, and Uncharted are games actually worth owning.

Now if you're an FPS gamer, then this current gen is for you. But even so, long running series end up sucking in comparison to the older games. Halo 3 is Halo 2 with a few additions(both good and poor,) but the game sucks compared to the previous title because most of the additions aren't as good, not to mention the stages suck. Unreal Tournament 3 is a great game, but then look at Unreal Tournament 2004 in which most UT fans will agree that the game is better.

What if you're an RPG gamer(Role Playing Game gamer is still fine.) You most likely have multiple games that just suck in comparison to older ones for NES, GEN, SNES, GB, GBA, SAT, PSX, and PS2. The reason reviewers seem to even rate these games highly is due to the fact that since all the latest RPGs on the system sucked, so obviously one being better would deserve a higher rating. If you were to judge any of these games with other games of similar ratings on past systems then you can guarantee that they'd suck total ass in comparison.

How about fighting games?

Soul Calibur 4 is similar to Soul Calibur 2 except for the fact that character damage is unbalanced. Siegfried takes far less damage than he(Nightmare) took on SC2 while quite a few characters take much more. Nightmare is now much weaker from his SC3 version(and is obviously not his SC2 version since Siegfried is) as well as being slower and has a worse reaction time than both his SC2 and SC3 versions.

Super Smash Bros Brawl then? Melee is a much better and balanced game. There was just the same crap, more characters balanced even worse, and then a ton of extra bs added like Final Smash attacks that unbalance the game even worse. Melee is much better aside from the wave dash.

Action games then?

Devil May Cry 4? You go from such an amazing game like DMC3 with an awesome story to one with such a bland and boring storyline plus boring boss battles and a pathetic level design throughout the game. The only good thing about DMC4 is the Bloody Palace which is much better than the choose a floor version that they've had on DMC2 and DMC3SE.

There are a ton of action games on both systems that also aren't worth touching. You have pathetic games like Dark Kingdom and those similar, but why even both playing those than taking out your PS2 and playing similar hack and slash games like Baldur's Gate or Champion's of Norrath Realms of Everquest.

Ninja Gaiden 2? I didn't even like the original on the XBOX and PS3. Don't think I'm talking about the original classic Ninja Gaiden as well as Ninja Gaiden 2 and 3(games that are far better than the crappy next gen titles.)

While the Wii, PS3, and XBOX360 do have SOME games worth playing, the majority of the games aren't worth playing. There's no way the games are even close to being as good as last gen or any generation before them.

So overall. This gen in no way compares to any generation before it. I'd go so far to say as this gen is what's pushing me away from gaming. Sure many games this gen may be better than others and some titles better than those on the specific genres for older generation games, but altogether this gen sucks and if the majority of this crap was released during last gen(obviously with the lower quality graphics,) it'd be getting 5/10 rather than the 7/10 or 8/10 we see with most every release.

However, quite a few DS and PSP games actually compare to games released on the PS2 and even previous gen games(not to mention the PS2 has had some releases better than most on the 360 and PS3 since those systems have been released.) Thankfully these two systems don't suck as they're the only reason I'm still into gaming as my PS3 has been gathering dust for the last few months.

-andrew- -kupomogli-

Iron Draggon
10-19-2008, 11:34 PM
I know what you mean... this gen seems to be more about the hardware than the software... in every previous gen, the focus was always on the games... but in this gen, it's more about the tech... the motion controls of the Wii and the high def of HD displays... the games are just sort of there to showcase it all... we were spoiled for decades with awe-inspiring games on hardware that we took for granted... the magic created by the consoles themselves always seemed secondary to the magic that the games made us experience, and now it's the other way around... we're more impressed with the tech itself than we are with what they've done with it... it used to be like "WOW, who knew the hardware could do THAT?" and now it's like "DUH, everybody knows the hardware can do THAT!" there's very few real surprises anymore... even the truly innovative games just don't seem to stand out like they used to... we've come to expect the cutting edge, and as a result, it's become such a common experience that we don't appreciate it as much as we used to... so I think it's a symptom of being a veteran of too many console wars... we've just been blown away so much that nothing really blows us away anymore...

kupomogli
10-19-2008, 11:41 PM
Messed up. Disregard this post.

garagesaleking!!
10-20-2008, 12:10 AM
i kind of agree with you op, i dont know i did not see this discussion till now.

N64 was the best evidence of games over hardware. All the games were amazing, and it was the most basic looking system ever. they did not even care that the controllers were weird, n64 does not have many bad games.

Thats just my opinion anyway.

Mimi Nakamura
10-20-2008, 12:16 AM
There is one thing that has been on my mind the last year or so. It is the fact that the current generation of systems, though selling well, are seriously lacking in must-have games. The PS1 and PS2 era were incredible with new franchises, types of gameplay and quality games coming out every month. As for the PS3, there are really only one or two exclusive games worth playing. I am not just talking about the PS3 though - the Xbox 360 and Wii seem to only get great games every 6 months as well, if even that. The only game I am really looking forward to is Resident Evil 5..........which comes out in...........5 months!!! My point is that many of our current releases are so dummied down for the 'lowest common denominator' in order to appeal to a more mainstream audience. Does anybody else think this way? Are hardcore gamers like us becoming an endangered species?? Let me know your opinions are...

I agree. There is a serious lack of innovation these days. Friends of mine who work in the industry (for Konami and Squaresoft Enix) share the same opinion. It's mostly down to the fact that games have become so expensive to produce that venturing too far away from a "winning" format or design is too risky.

You've got to worry when the people who actually work in the industry share the opinion that innovation in games is dying.

FrakAttack
10-20-2008, 12:40 AM
I agree. There is a serious lack of innovation these days. Friends of mine who work in the industry (for Konami and Squaresoft Enix) share the same opinion. It's mostly down to the fact that games have become so expensive to produce that venturing too far away from a "winning" format or design is too risky.

You've got to worry when the people who actually work in the industry share the opinion that innovation in games is dying.

That's what I meant by diminishing returns. Large teams working on big budget games tend to churn out product instead of passion. Individual creativity is lost in the assembly line process of "group think." Recent games, to me at least, are lacking in charm and soul, that "spark" that used to draw me in for good.

It's like dating expensive call girls instead of someone you care about. She's pretty and a good lay, and it's fun while it lasts, but it's just not the same as falling in love.

tomaitheous
10-20-2008, 12:49 AM
I agree. There is a serious lack of innovation these days. Friends of mine who work in the industry (for Konami and Squaresoft Enix) share the same opinion. It's mostly down to the fact that games have become so expensive to produce that venturing too far away from a "winning" format or design is too risky.

You've got to worry when the people who actually work in the industry share the opinion that innovation in games is dying.

That's pretty funny when mentioning Square/Enix and Konami. Japanese companies (and gamers), for years, have had a higher threshold in general of what they consider overdone or drawn out when it comes to game development. Innovation is more "subtle" in their case. J-RPGs are a prime example.



N64 was the best evidence of games over hardware. All the games were amazing

Was N64 your first system or something? N64 was a major let down in the game/software department. Off hand I can't think of more than 2 games that I wanted for it (it'd probably be pretty easy to guess what they are too ;) ).

ubersaurus
10-20-2008, 01:17 AM
So, Kupo...you say there's no fighting games of note?

So, let me get this straight. You're willing to write off upcoming games like SF4, HD Remix, BlazBlue, KOF 12, Tatsunoko, Tekken 6, and a slew of others?

Seriously, I look over your post, and it brain-kills me. It reeks of an obvious nostalgia bias. I mean, honestly? You look at the libraries for like, Genesis, SNES, PS1, PS2, NES, Atari, hell practically any system. You're GOING to find that the bulk of the games range from okay to shit. I honestly don't think the ratio has changed at all, you're just only noticing it because you're in the midst of this gen. I mean, I don't recall hearing many people singing the praises of old shovelware like Rival Turf for SNES.

There's a shit ton of sweet games I've personally played for Wii and 360. Some are sequels, some aren't. And guess what? Only Halo 3, Metroid Prime 3, and Portal were FPSs. And all three are fucking good games. If anything, this gen has brought a resurgence for classic genres, like 2d beatemups and platformers, shootemups, fighting games, really nifty puzzle games...it may well be one of the best years to be gaming in a good long while.

j_factor
10-20-2008, 01:20 AM
To a point, yes. Would you still play these same games if they were degraded to PS1 specs or lower?

PS1? Of course not. That's entirely counter to what I was saying in the first place.


I seriously would not be playing a lot of these games if they were on PS2 hardware (blurry textures, low poly count, slowdown, lower frame rate, jaggies). They wouldn't appeal to me visually.

Okay, but you're insisting on invoking PS2, which had the worst graphics of its generation. I was mainly talking about Xbox, not PS2. Xbox was not prone to blurry textures, slowdown, or jaggies.

And I don't know why you're even mentioning frame rate. One of my biggest complaints about this gen is that frame rates don't seem to have improved much. I was a big fan of Tokyo Xtreme Racer and its sequel on Dreamcast, so naturally, the game that came to be known as Import Tuner Challenge was one of my most anticipated 360 games. Then it came out, and I was stunned to find that it ran at 30 frames per second, when the series had run at 60 fps on Dreamcast, even though the first one was a launch game. Project Gotham Racing ran at 60 fps on Xbox, whereas PGR3 and 4 only run at 30.


And it's not *just* textures. Look at Dead Rising screen shots for the Wii version. They look terrible (read: distracting).

True, but part of that is because they're using the RE4 engine. Last-gen systems could do better that those screen shots indicate. Capcom has commented that they might be able to make the game have 100 zombies at once. None of the screens they've released show anything near that number; more like 20, max. But last-gen systems have done way better than that, with games like Spartan: Total Warrior, which often had well over a hundred enemies and allies on screen at once.

I will say that games with huge swarms of enemies are one of the good uses of current-gen hardware, with Dead Rising and N3 being examples. But not many games call for that sort of thing.


Of course not all games, but a lot - yes. FPS more than most, too.

Well, I'm not sure how many "a lot" is. I'm not saying the better hardware is useless, I'm just saying that far from all games really benefit from it, which is very different from the last gen, when even ports showed major improvement. Dreamcast ports of previous-gen games, like Tony Hawk and Rush 2049, tended to be much easier on the eyes on DC. I played the 360 version of GUN and could barely tell the difference.

Heavy Rain looks absolutely amazing, and is a great showcase of what next-gen power can do. But very few games impress me like that.

G-Boobie
10-20-2008, 02:14 AM
1) Bioshock isn't "really" a new series.

2) Every single one of those "great new franchises" you listed is a FPS... as is like half of the games released for the damn systems. There are gems out there for sure, you just have to dig through the disapointingly high selling all-the-same-FPSes to get to them.

Man, I am tired of people hating on FPS games on consoles. There are a million shady, crapped-out JRPG's for PS1, PS2 and every other system ever produced(and now with Infinite Undiscovery and Enchanted Arms, even the 360 isn't immune), but I seldom hear anyone whine about that. Try Burnout Paradise, Dead Space, Eye of Judgment, Dead Rising, or Uncharted if Halo 3 pisses you off so much.


I honestly think video gaming is dying. PSP and DS are the only systems that have a decent amount of good games.

-andrew- -kupomogli-

Huh.

Dead Rising, Stranglehold, Oblivion, Guitar Hero/Rock Band, Earth Defense Force 2017, Siren: Blood Curse, Everyday Shooter, Geometry Wars, Rez HD, Virtua Fighter 5, Call of Duty 4, Project Sylpheed, Dead Space, Metal Gear Solid 4, Viva Pinata, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, Crackdown, Lost Planet, Linger In Shadows, Valkyria Chronicles, Little Big Planet, Resistance: Fall of Man, Disgaea 3, Fight Night Round 3, Assault Heroes, World of Goo, Super Mario Galaxy, Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles, Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, Boom Blox, Wartech: Senko No Ronde, Orange Box, Eye of Judgment, Elefunk, The Last Guy, Pixeljunk Eden, Braid, Devil May Cry 4, Battle Fantasia, Otomedius, Castle Crashers, Shred Nebula, Wipeout HD, Hexen, Pure, Ninja Gaiden II, Fallout 3... And that's without the remakes and re-releases.

Do you have that kind of time?


That's what I meant by diminishing returns. Large teams working on big budget games tend to churn out product instead of passion. Individual creativity is lost in the assembly line process of "group think." Recent games, to me at least, are lacking in charm and soul, that "spark" that used to draw me in for good.

It's like dating expensive call girls instead of someone you care about. She's pretty and a good lay, and it's fun while it lasts, but it's just not the same as falling in love.

Innovation in game development is an iterative process, and now that we have multi-million dollar budgets, the iteration has slowed down a bit because quite simply, it's expensive to take risks. But make no mistake: games ARE still evolving. Dead Space(my current obsession) has absolutely no HUD and refines some of the mechanics from RE4, Gears, and Lost Planet into something truly new. Fallout 3 looks like it's trying some new mechanics, and Resistance 2 has a few interesting ideas. It wasn't a very good game, but Alone in the Dark was chock FULL of revolutionary concepts.

Will we ever see something as revolutionary as the move into 3D was with the introduction of the N64 and PS1? Other than little stuff like online play on consoles, digital distribution, and player created content, probably not all at once. But it will happen.

A few other games by big publishers that have pushed boundaries this generation include Burnout Paradise, Eye of Judgement, Portal, Bioshock, and Condemned 2(otherwise known as "'Breakdown' that works").

I invite anyone to look at the list of up-til-now published PS2 games and come up with a favorable ratio of innovative games to clones and sub-standard, by-the-numbers bargain bin fodder. I'll save you the time: you can't.

Besides, as it's already been noted, we're at the very start of this generation. We have YEARS yet to see where we'll end up. If Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, and all the huge third party publishers go belly up and we're stuck with mobile phone games and plug and play Atari ports til the end of time, I'll concede the point. Until then, yer nuts.

Every generation this question pops up. I heard the same shit at the N64 and Saturn nadirs, again at the PS2 launch, and again at the Xbox and Gamecube launches. All of those consoles have proud libraries of must-play games. If your opinion is that this generation is a bust, that's your choice and I accept that. I also contend that your tastes are so jaded and rarified that it comes from an extremist viewpoint and should probably be disregarded as such.

murdoc rose
10-20-2008, 07:27 AM
as with all systems a lot of the games are crap, yes maybe this gen is worse than last and yea the industry has changed some. As long as people play guitar hero and games of the sort the future of main stream gaming is doomed but gaming will not die completely. Some one will eventually take the time to put out a system that isn't a cheap, buggy upgrade from the last thing they put out and there will always be gamers like like to design good quality games so just wait and maybe be a bit picky on your newer game purchases so in the mean time I advise getting your atari out to kill some time till something cool comes out.

carlcarlson
10-20-2008, 09:30 AM
as with all systems a lot of the games are crap, yes maybe this gen is worse than last and yea the industry has changed some. As long as people play guitar hero and games of the sort the future of main stream gaming is doomed but gaming will not die completely. Some one will eventually take the time to put out a system that isn't a cheap, buggy upgrade from the last thing they put out and there will always be gamers like like to design good quality games so just wait and maybe be a bit picky on your newer game purchases so in the mean time I advise getting your atari out to kill some time till something cool comes out.

Aside from the first sentence this statement is laughably dumb. Guitar Hero is the doom bringer of the video game industry eh? Care to explain that hypothesis?

And the Atari? If you're strictly an old-school gamer than that's fine, but don't try to come in here and act like you know what the heck you're talking about. You're biased and your tastes are based on nostalgia. I love old games as well, but I've yet to find a 2600 game that I want to play every day after work.

To answer the OP, no, I don't think it's a bust. If you're only looking for innovation then I can give you some points, but that's just kind of the nature of the business. Try to come up with a band name that has never been used before: that's kind of how I view innovation in the gaming industry. It's a lot easier at first and then gets progressively tougher. I think the biggest innovation in this gen is the online component of the different systems. It has opened up multiplayer gaming like never before, and downloadable games are turning into a huge market.

Nature Boy
10-20-2008, 10:00 AM
There is a serious lack of innovation these days.

Seriously? Just these days?

Does that mean you thought all of the Pac-Man clones and SMB clones back in the 80s were innovative? Or do we all just collectively forget that regardless of the time period (or medium), 90% of everything is derivative and 10% pushes the envelope?

(Pushing the envelope was just as risky financially in the 80s as it was today).

What's worse is that some people seem to think being 'innovative' means inventing a whole new genre or something, rather than just approaching existing ones at a different angle (I rather like the Half Life series for introducing interesting physics and puzzle solving personally, and consider that innovative even though it's 'just' a FPS, or, in the case of Portal, a FPP).

Some people would consider something like Braid innovative, even though it's 'just' a platform game at it's root.

SegaAges
10-20-2008, 02:18 PM
There is one thing that has been on my mind the last year or so. It is the fact that the current generation of systems, though selling well, are seriously lacking in must-have games. The PS1 and PS2 era were incredible with new franchises, types of gameplay and quality games coming out every month. As for the PS3, there are really only one or two exclusive games worth playing. I am not just talking about the PS3 though - the Xbox 360 and Wii seem to only get great games every 6 months as well, if even that. The only game I am really looking forward to is Resident Evil 5..........which comes out in...........5 months!!! My point is that many of our current releases are so dummied down for the 'lowest common denominator' in order to appeal to a more mainstream audience. Does anybody else think this way? Are hardcore gamers like us becoming an endangered species?? Let me know your opinions are...

Hey man, maybe it is time to veer away from Sony and make your way to Nintendo or Microsoft. when you say ps1 and ps2 era and use just those systems specifically for an entire era of video games, it does inform me that, while you may not be a Sony fanboy, you certainly have the qualifications my friend.

Sorry bro, the ps3 is good, no doubt, but Sony is not dominating all other consoles like it has been. If that is what you are expecting so you only deal with Sony, then there still are some great games.

MGS4, DMC4, GTA4, and I bet there is another that is the 4th sequel that I can;t even think of right now.

As for hardcore gaming, try playing MegaMan 9. Brand spanking new game, but retro feel. The game is also tough.

If you are looking for cult classics: there is a Katamari game out for 360. Oh wait, it is not sony, sorry dude. I think they got it on the psp, so seriously, do that (i am not being a dick right now, you should buy that game).

The thing is that with the new hardware, there is alot more good games coming out than bad ones. There are so many good games coming out and coming out faster to the point where unless it is f'ing Halo or Spore or MGS4 or something, a great game will get brushed under the table like its shovelware that got lucky with commercials (DMC4 is a prime example of that). Seriously, DMC4 is an awesome game and had a buttload of hype around it, but then the Halos and the other ones got buzz and DMC4 went away (not for good). There are so many good games to where once one awesome game gets pushed out, they need to build the hype for the next big game. Because now for capcom, they did DMC4, then mm9, not sf4 (see, hahaha, another 4th sequel!).

Too many good games are coming out, and when that happens, one company will stop promoting a game near as much when it comes out, and then people will assume it sucks (well, people in Omaha, but I am sure there are other cities that have mainstream gamer-esque people there), but yet the companies are doing that in order to build up their next game.

I would say not a bust, but it is an era where we need to always keep an open eye. Well, for ps3, they are kinda busting, sorry bro.

Aussie2B
10-20-2008, 02:38 PM
That's pretty funny when mentioning Square/Enix and Konami. Japanese companies (and gamers), for years, have had a higher threshold in general of what they consider overdone or drawn out when it comes to game development. Innovation is more "subtle" in their case. J-RPGs are a prime example.

I don't buy that. Western RPGs look just as much the same to me as Japanese RPGs. They both have their overdone cliches. Gaming in general, in all genres, is derivative, and it's been that way for a LONG time, and it knows no borders.

But even with the cliches remaining, even the Japanese RPG has made HUGE strides in the last 10, 15 years. You can't tell me that Final Fantasy 1 plays anything like Final Fantasy 12. It's actually uncommon to find an RPG that plays like Dragon Quest these days. The genre has spun off more sub-genres than I can count, and even the most cliche aspect of all - the subject matter - has been drifting away from the kids in a medieval fantasy world to the point that we have RPGs with settings including horror, historical, modern, mythological, sci-fi, to, heck, even starring freakin' Frédéric Chopin.

If anything, I think we have Japan to thank for many of the more innovative ideas in recent years, like Katamari, rhythm games, cooking games, Wario Ware type stuff, and what have you. In fact, Japan still has several genres that we've NEVER seen in America, and they're always coming up with wacky stupid ideas, which no company thinks is worth releasing in the US because they know Americans WANT the derivative sports games and first-person shooters and what have you. Joe Meathead has a reputation to uphold. It's ironic that a lot of the innovative games that are coming out are from tiny publishers picking up the "scraps" and releasing them at budget prices. Keep in mind that Katamari Damacy was budget game that Namco took a risk on before it caught on.

jdc
10-20-2008, 04:31 PM
It's kinda funny.When they were current gen, I loved my N64 and Playstation to bits. I loved my Dreamcast with it's sweet graphics capabilities. My Xbox, PS2 and Cube were all equally awesome. I hated my 360's lack of reliability, the Wii's control scheme wore off really quick, and I merely LIKE my PS3 for it's ability to play awesome BluRay movies. All three of this gen's consoles have caused me to invest more money and playtime towards my Xbox and Cube. I'm sure that that's exactly the response that the big 3 were looking for when they launched this gen....LOL.

FrakAttack
10-20-2008, 06:06 PM
Maybe I am jaded and hooked on nostalgia. Don't own a Wii or PS3 so I can't comment on those. The Mother 3 translation has me more hyped than anything I've played so far on 360. LOL

Isn't that why most of us are into gaming, to recall our sense of childlike wonder and innocence? I guess that feeling gets harder to find the older you get.

Rob2600
10-20-2008, 09:45 PM
Yeah, innovation has suffered due to the growing cost of game development, but I'm hoping some upstart indies will pull us out of the rut

Did everyone suddenly get amnesia? Again, there are plenty of innovative games this generation, like Art Style: Orbient, de Blob, LostWinds, Trauma Center, Wii Fit, Wii Sports, World of Goo, Zack & Wiki, etc...at least on the Wii.

Are that many of you ignorant of the Wii's library?

Are you ignorant of the meaning of the word "innovative?" Most of the games you listed are sequels and several are from loooong running franchises. :roll:

I listed some innovative games from this generation, like Art Style: Orbient, de Blob, LostWinds, Trauma Center, Wii Fit, Wii Sports, World of Goo, and Zack & Wiki. Those are sequels from long running franchises?

Maybe you're from the future. :)





Last generation it felt like there was more variety. This generation, many of the highly rated games are FPS or TPS, I'm not very interested in those.

I own a Wii and there's already a wide variety of highly-rated games (not just first-person shooters):

Art Style: Orbient (WiiWare)
Battalion Wars 2
Bomberman Blast (WiiWare)
de Blob
Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn
Geometry Wars: Galaxies
Guitar Hero: World Tour
LostWinds (WiiWare)
Mario Kart Wii
No More Heroes
Pinball Hall of Fame: The Williams Collection
Pro Evolution Soccer 2008
Trauma Center: Second Opinion
Super Mario Galaxy
Wario Land: Shake It!
Wii Fit
Wii Sports
World of Goo (WiiWare)
Zack & Wiki
etc.

See what I mean? Again, the Wii hasn't even been out for two full years.

I posted the above list to illustrate to Erik and Chicnstu that there are actually plenty of highly-rated games from a wide variety of genres this generation, not just first-person shooters. I never used the word "innovative," though some of the games in that list are.





There is a serious lack of innovation these days.

Seriously? Just these days?

Does that mean you thought all of the Pac-Man clones and SMB clones back in the 80s were innovative? Or do we all just collectively forget that regardless of the time period (or medium), 90% of everything is derivative and 10% pushes the envelope? ...

What's worse is that some people seem to think being 'innovative' means inventing a whole new genre or something, rather than just approaching existing ones at a different angle

Exactly.

tomaitheous
10-20-2008, 10:08 PM
Western RPGs look just as much the same to me as Japanese RPGs.

Take someone who's not into FPS, "they're all the same". Or someone that's not into JRPGs, "they're all the same". But W-RPGs the same as JRPGs? Maybe if you don't care for RPGs in general (or play nothing but FPS... I dunno). The advances in WRPGs have really seemed to develop over the years in comparison to JRPGs, and I'm not a fan of WRPGs either.


You've not seen the drivel that Japanese developers have put out over the years (try collecting/playing every game for even just a single Japanese game system some time). Don't get my wrong, I love 'me some' JRPGs, but even I can still see the pattern. It's obvious. Are there exceptions to Japanese softs? Sure. But they're more like small increments of tweaked 'gameplay' than new innovations and rarely move away from cliche'd stories. We (outside of Japan) get a filtered view/experience of this. Always have, always will. Unless you live in Japan, you just don't have the unfiltered view to see all of this and the "changes" that are less progressive.

It's funny, people say the Wii has all this innovation in its soft library, but it all looks the same to me ;) The other day I bought a DS game (Dragon Quest IV) and it *didn't* use any touch screen feature. For the DS! Not a single instance. Now that's innovation :-D Nintendo could use some of that "innovation" for the Wii...

digitalpress
10-20-2008, 11:40 PM
Where is the "vote no" button?

Sorry, I disagree. I'm finding the recent gen of games have learned that we're not all willing to read a big manual just to learn how to play. Most of them barely even have a manual anymore. That plus the dawn of downloadable classic (and "might have been classic if released back in the day") games make this the best gen since the 16-bit revolution. My humble opinion, of course.

cyberfluxor
10-20-2008, 11:50 PM
I don't know what it's been but I've been completely lost in the current generation of gaming. Maybe I'm falling too deep into classic gaming because I'm unaware of what titles are must plays at the moment. When I get around to getting a Wii, PS3, and Xbox360 I'll be using the search function a whole lot for sure. Maybe it's because I'm struck on waiting for Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3. :-/

Is it a bust? I wouldn't say so. Walking through retail stores and used game stores there are some nice sized sections for the current generation. I'm actually beginning to see Xbox360 titles consume the once over-populated Xbox shelves at some places. PS3 games are moving but nowhere near the quantity the PS2 still has. Wii on the other hand very, very few trade-ins maybe because they sell fast? GC games are beginning to heap in some places and is quite tempting to snatch them up before they are gone. Yeah, I'm still stuck in last gen and earlier.

Aussie2B
10-21-2008, 01:04 AM
Take someone who's not into FPS, "they're all the same". Or someone that's not into JRPGs, "they're all the same". But W-RPGs the same as JRPGs? Maybe if you don't care for RPGs in general (or play nothing but FPS... I dunno). The advances in WRPGs have really seemed to develop over the years in comparison to JRPGs, and I'm not a fan of WRPGs either.

You've not seen the drivel that Japanese developers have put out over the years (try collecting/playing every game for even just a single Japanese game system some time). Don't get my wrong, I love 'me some' JRPGs, but even I can still see the pattern. It's obvious. Are there exceptions to Japanese softs? Sure. But they're more like small increments of tweaked 'gameplay' than new innovations and rarely move away from cliche'd stories. We (outside of Japan) get a filtered view/experience of this. Always have, always will. Unless you live in Japan, you just don't have the unfiltered view to see all of this and the "changes" that are less progressive.

You misread what I wrote. I meant that any given Western RPG is just as similar to Western RPGs in general as any given Japanese RPG is to Japanese RPGs in general. They're both equally loaded with cliche elements.

I wouldn't make assumptions about what I like and have experience in either. I think my previous post demonstrates a strong familiarity with Japanese RPGs and their cliches. I have extensive experience with Japanese RPGs, Japanese gaming in general, importing games that never got released in Japan, etc. I already gave you detailed examples of how even Japanese RPGs have advanced, and I think their advancements are just as significant (or insignificant, depending on how you look at it) as pretty much any other genre. Innovation isn't defined by all the "me too" crap out there but the rare few that dare to do something different. The aforementioned "drivel" that never left Japan isn't a factor in this argument because those games were just as poor sellers and forgotten as the derivative drivel we get in America.

alexander4488
10-21-2008, 01:25 AM
Let's analyze this from a technical viewpoint, since all our solo opinions are practically meaningless. However, many opinions combined is the closest thing we have to a quality fact. What's that? Video game reviews, and the two most popular websites for that are www.gamerankings.com and www.metacritic.com. 90%+ = best games.

At Game Rankings, Xbox 360 - arcade has 13. PS3 has 7. Wii has 6. DS has 3. PSP has 2. This generation total = 29

Playstation 2 has 47. Xbox has 22. Gamecube has 20. Dreamcast has 15. Gameboy Advance has 11. Last generation total = 105. 105 - 29 = 76.

However, this generation has yet to end, so no accurate conclusion can be justified at this time.

j_factor
10-21-2008, 01:39 AM
Let's analyze this from a technical viewpoint, since all our solo opinions are practically meaningless. However, many opinions combined is the closest thing we have to a quality fact. What's that? Video game reviews, and the two most popular websites for that are www.gamerankings.com and www.metacritic.com. 90%+ = best games.

At Game Rankings, Xbox 360 - arcade has 13. PS3 has 7. Wii has 6. DS has 3. PSP has 2. This generation total = 29

Playstation 2 has 47. Xbox has 22. Gamecube has 20. Dreamcast has 15. Gameboy Advance has 11. Last generation total = 105. 105 - 29 = 76.

However, this generation has yet to end, so no accurate conclusion can be justified at this time.

The conclusion I draw from those numbers is that review scores are a bunch of BS. I know PS2 was the dominant console and all, but no way did it have more "A" games than Gamecube and Xbox combined. And what's up with the hate on portable systems? I'm not even a fan of the PSP at all but I definitely think more than two of its games deserve a 90% average.

BydoEmpire
10-21-2008, 07:54 AM
I completely agree - worst generation ever (certainly worst since the ps1/saturn/ngc era). Here's my personal list of pros and cons:

-Probably the biggest factor is that I'm busy with other things in my life. I don't want to spend my precious free time playing games, unless it's something really cool. And for me over the last year I've been as apt to turn on my 5200 as my 360.

-There just haven't been many "must play" games for me. MP3 and Zelda: TP on the Wii, and Gears on the 360 have totally sucked me in. That's pretty much it for major titles in two years. A lot of that is due to the first point (not spending as much time gaming).

-I don't care for the themes of so many games these days, I want fantasy/sci-fi games, and there are less of them.

-I don't have a PS3, and have no desire to get one - the first time I've not really wanted all the major consoles.

-I enjoy the Wii, but it's still a system of largely untapped potential as 3rd parties have been putting out so much garbage. The 3rd party output seems to be getting better, but the diversity of quality titles is still pretty low.

-Nintendo's big-name 1st party releases have been hit and miss. Super Paper Mario and Smash Brothers were colossal disappointments (mostly the latter). On the other hand Mario Galaxy, MP3 and Zelda:TP were fantastic. They've improved overall since the gamecube era, but high profile duds drag down my enthusiasm.

-This is the first time I've been actively selling games. I've had my 360 for a year and a half and I only have two games left for it that I've bought. Everything else went on ebay after I was finished with it. No desire to collect whatsoever.

-I still haven't bought a full-priced retail game for my 360. Everything's been used, ebay'd, or discounted. If it wasn't for XBLA, my 360 would be a total bust.

-Live is fantastic, but I can rarely get games together w/ friends anyways, so it's been better in theory than in practice. I'll probably let me gold subscription expire later this year.

-I feel like I've seen everything so many times before that I don't have much desire to do it all again. Of course, that doesn't explain why I liked MP3 so much - it's a down-the-line sequel, or why Pac Man CE on XBLA is one of my favorite 360 titles. ;-)

So, what do I like about this generation?
+XBLA and downloadable demos are awesome. I have enjoyed being able to play Turbo titles on VC as well, though the lack of storage and demos cuts back the number of games I buy for VC & WiIWare.

+Seeing which friends are online, what they're playing, sending messages and Live is general is great.

+Some Wii titles have been really unique and cool. In a few rare cases, pointing/motion controls have taken games I'd never care about and made them incredibly fun - like Wii Sports or Godfather. Even Pinball Hall of Fame was better w/ the Wii control scheme.

Sorry for the length of the post, I've had this frustration for a while and it's nice to vent every so often. :) Let me be clear - I personally have found this generation pretty dull, but that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of quality titles out there. If you're enjoying this gen then more power to you.

SegaAges
10-21-2008, 10:24 AM
Please, allow me to retort:


I completely agree - worst generation ever (certainly worst since the ps1/saturn/ngc era). Here's my personal list of pros and cons:

-Probably the biggest factor is that I'm busy with other things in my life. I don't want to spend my precious free time playing games, unless it's something really cool. And for me over the last year I've been as apt to turn on my 5200 as my 360. If you are busy with things in your life, then it sounds like you are looking for a simple "pick up and play" style of game. XBL, PSN, and whatever the Wii 1 is called can help you there. There is also Fuzion Frenzy 2, RockStar Table Tennis, Virtua Fighter 5. If you want me to list good pick up and play games, I would be more than happy to make a huge list of good ones (it is my fav type of game as well).

-There just haven't been many "must play" games for me. MP3 and Zelda: TP on the Wii, and Gears on the 360 have totally sucked me in. That's pretty much it for major titles in two years. A lot of that is due to the first point (not spending as much time gaming). If you are into MP3 and GoW, you should try Halo 3. There is also Call of Duty 4, GRAW and GRAW 2. Also there is Unreal Tournament which leaks into the first one I retorted on because of it's pick up and play style.

-I don't care for the themes of so many games these days, I want fantasy/sci-fi games, and there are less of them. If you are looking for that, come "over to the dark side" and try some pc games. There are a ton of fantasy/sci-fi games that have been released very recently that are incredbly good. You have to think, with the rise of consoles, the pc rises as well. If you think it is too expensive to upgrade your computer, then talk to me and we can get you some good upgrades for cheap.

-I don't have a PS3, and have no desire to get one - the first time I've not really wanted all the major consoles. I don't want a Wii or a PS3. Just because you don't want one does not make it bad (or even a bad era).

-I enjoy the Wii, but it's still a system of largely untapped potential as 3rd parties have been putting out so much garbage. The 3rd party output seems to be getting better, but the diversity of quality titles is still pretty low. Yeah, uh, try being a PC Gamer and then you can use that as an argument. The Wii crapware is not near as bad as the pc stuff

-Nintendo's big-name 1st party releases have been hit and miss. Super Paper Mario and Smash Brothers were colossal disappointments (mostly the latter). On the other hand Mario Galaxy, MP3 and Zelda:TP were fantastic. They've improved overall since the gamecube era, but high profile duds drag down my enthusiasm.High Profile Dud = Don't bye into the hype of a new game until you play it

-This is the first time I've been actively selling games. I've had my 360 for a year and a half and I only have two games left for it that I've bought. Everything else went on ebay after I was finished with it. No desire to collect whatsoever. Well, what factors are making you sell these? Is it price you paid for them? Is it that you will never play it again?

-I still haven't bought a full-priced retail game for my 360. Everything's been used, ebay'd, or discounted. If it wasn't for XBLA, my 360 would be a total bust. If they didn't cost $60 a pop, I wouldn't blame you. It is super rare that I ever buy a game new, but that is for any console I own.

-Live is fantastic, but I can rarely get games together w/ friends anyways, so it's been better in theory than in practice. I'll probably let me gold subscription expire later this year. Are you inviting them to the game, or are you hosting a game and hoping they join your game? Inviting my friends works pretty good.

-I feel like I've seen everything so many times before that I don't have much desire to do it all again. Of course, that doesn't explain why I liked MP3 so much - it's a down-the-line sequel, or why Pac Man CE on XBLA is one of my favorite 360 titles. That would mean that you want to reject every single game to come out simply because it has been done before. Do you do that with movies as well? If you don't want to do it all over again, then why even own a current gen? That is the fun of gaming my friend. Whether a game has been done before or not, everybody wants to put their own spin on it. Sometimes they get it wrong, sometimes they get it right, and sometimes they do it better. The only way to find out is to play the games.

Rob2600
10-21-2008, 12:55 PM
I completely agree - worst generation ever. Here's my personal list of pros and cons:

-I don't want to spend my precious free time playing games, unless it's something really cool.

-There just haven't been many "must play" games for me.


MP3 and Zelda: TP on the Wii, and Gears on the 360 have totally sucked me in.

Mario Galaxy, MP3 and Zelda:TP were fantastic. They've improved overall since the gamecube era

Pac Man CE on XBLA is one of my favorite 360 titles. ;-)

I have enjoyed being able to play Turbo titles on VC

pointing/motion controls have taken games I'd never care about and made them incredibly fun - like Wii Sports or Godfather. Even Pinball Hall of Fame was better w/ the Wii control scheme.

You have precious free time, yet you've managed to play Metroid Prime 3, The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, Super Mario Galaxy, Wii Sports, The Godfather, Pinball Hall of Fame: The Williams Collection, Gears of War, Pac-Man CE, and various Virtual Console games.

You claim the games have improved overall since the GameCube era and that games you've never cared about are now incredibly fun because of motion controls.

And yet, you claim "worst generation ever." Interesting.

tomaitheous
10-21-2008, 09:04 PM
The aforementioned "drivel" that never left Japan isn't a factor in this argument because those games were just as poor sellers and forgotten as the derivative drivel we get in America.

I kinda think it is. They still count in the overall-ness of things and context. It helps widen or close the ratio. Or does that not matter? As for WPRGs VS JPRGs, it's possible that my more limited experience with WRPGs gives me a more skewed perception of its drivel :) I can't complain though, the less drivel I see the better off I am..



I wouldn't make assumptions about what I like and have experience in either.

Everyone has to make assumptions. No one knows everything about everyone. But fair enough, I'll give you that ;)

BydoEmpire: Just sounds like you're bit a burnt and need a break.

kupomogli
10-21-2008, 11:53 PM
Disgaea 3


Your post automatically fails.

No Disgaea title is good. I bought it when it was originally released on the PS2 and I did "sortof" enjoy it, only because the storyline was humorous. However, the main part of the game was the gameplay and it was completely awful. Trudging through the game was no fun at all other than the small storyline parts and at the very end of the game all the sidequests were nothing more than grindfests as the game requires no strategy but how high leveled you are.

One of the most overpraised strategy rpgs and it's one of the worst. It's not as bad as Eternal Eyes, but its definitely not a good game, just too overhyped so it ends up getting four reprintings and a port to two extra systems, and two sequels.

-andrew- -kupomogli-

Nirvana
10-22-2008, 12:23 AM
I personally think this era is awesome. Even though online gaming has been around for awhile, it is now at it's peak and it opens up so many gamers to playing with others around the nation.

However, I think games in the RPG department are lacking. The Playstation had the best RPGs, and games nowadays are just too short compared to those games that you'd spend countless hours on beating and mastering.

Hmm. I'm skimming over some posts before I post this, maybe I should have read the entire thread first.

G-Boobie
10-22-2008, 02:50 AM
Your post automatically fails.

No Disgaea title is good. I bought it when it was originally released on the PS2 and I did "sortof" enjoy it, only because the storyline was humorous. However, the main part of the game was the gameplay and it was completely awful. Trudging through the game was no fun at all other than the small storyline parts and at the very end of the game all the sidequests were nothing more than grindfests as the game requires no strategy but how high leveled you are.

One of the most overpraised strategy rpgs and it's one of the worst. It's not as bad as Eternal Eyes, but its definitely not a good game, just too overhyped so it ends up getting four reprintings and a port to two extra systems, and two sequels.

-andrew- -kupomogli-

Let me see if I understand you. Every refutation of your original post I made is automatically disqualified because you didn't like Disgaea 3. If that's your rebuttal, I don't even have to respond.

in fact, we could say, and I quote, your post automatically fails. Which is a meme I wouldn't mind seeing die out dodo style.

The fact remains that there are a ridiculous number of excellent, triple A games that are simply must play for the current generation of consoles. I submit that the problem isn't that game makers and platform holders have failed to live up to expectations, but that a small segment of hardcore gamers, specifically those weaned on japanese titles or early western systems, are upset that mainstream gaming tastes have changed. And therefore, so have the games.

Innovation is slower than it was in the early 3D era, true. But so what? It'll get there, and the games that ARE taking things in a new and interesting direction are still coming out. As an adult who works and goes to school, I don't have time to play more than a few of them anyway.

You might not like the direction that gaming has taken. That's your opinion and I am totally fine with that. But to make the blanket statement that gaming is dying just because you don't like the majority of games released this generation is the worst kind of hyperbole.

Mimi Nakamura
10-22-2008, 09:21 AM
Seriously? Just these days?

Does that mean you thought all of the Pac-Man clones and SMB clones back in the 80s were innovative? Or do we all just collectively forget that regardless of the time period (or medium), 90% of everything is derivative and 10% pushes the envelope?

(Pushing the envelope was just as risky financially in the 80s as it was today).

What's worse is that some people seem to think being 'innovative' means inventing a whole new genre or something, rather than just approaching existing ones at a different angle (I rather like the Half Life series for introducing interesting physics and puzzle solving personally, and consider that innovative even though it's 'just' a FPS, or, in the case of Portal, a FPP).

Some people would consider something like Braid innovative, even though it's 'just' a platform game at it's root.

"Pushing the envelope" was NOT as risky financially in the 80s as it is today. Not even close. Did you make your statement up, or did you quote it from somewhere? I'm guessing the former....

And are you seriously trying to argue that games are more innovative today than during the 8-bit/16-bit eras? SERIOUSLY? Maybe if you weren't playing games when the Famicom, PC Engine, Mega Drive, etc. were around you would have that perception.

With all the power available these days, games should theoretically be more innovative, there are pretty much no restrictions to what can be achieved. Games Designers were limited by the hardware during the 8-bit / 16-bit era, yet they still managed to be innovative. Of course people made clones or stole ideas from others, but on the whole there was a lot more innovation and imagination.

Frankie_Says_Relax
10-22-2008, 10:27 AM
I'm wondering if people can get a point across in this thread without being ultra-critical-to-the-point-of-insulting of any response somewhere earlier in the thread.

I'd really enjoy reading the responses if it wasn't such an - I know more about previous era(s) gaming history than you penis waving contest.

titanzguard
10-22-2008, 10:40 AM
Is this thread still going? Geez... Someone lock this thing already!

TheDomesticInstitution
10-22-2008, 10:44 AM
Is this thread still going? Geez... Someone lock this thing already!

*CLANK*

Locked!

ANONPLOX
10-22-2008, 11:47 AM
your lock has fialed lol but seriously I'm waiting for this to become a fanboy bitch fest

theChad
10-22-2008, 12:03 PM
In after lock:oops:

k8track
10-22-2008, 12:21 PM
I'd just like to throw in my own two cents regarding this hot-button topic.

I don't even have any of the current-generation systems, with absolutely no plans to get any of them. So I'm not really qualified to judge what is or what is not innovative about their games, and I won't try. My interests have always skewed toward the classic end of the spectrum--the older it is, the better I like it.

But here's my point: I want my video games to look like video games, to feel like video games. Paradoxically, for me, the more realistic and life-like they are, the less innovative I feel they are. As has been mentioned in this thread and elsewhere from time to time, the earlier designers had less to work with and were forced to use every spare bit and byte of data to be creative. You only had one or a few designers work on each game. Now, there are whole teams of designers for games and unlimited resources and potential--and it just doesn't feel right for me anymore.

That's my own personal perspective on things, and I'm not invalidating anyone else's opinions on modern video games and what they mean to them. And I'll still always keep an open mind--there's a lot of stuff out there that I'm not aware of, and I still like to be pleasantly surprised from time to time.

ubersaurus
10-22-2008, 12:23 PM
"Pushing the envelope" was NOT as risky financially in the 80s as it is today. Not even close. Did you make your statement up, or did you quote it from somewhere? I'm guessing the former....

And are you seriously trying to argue that games are more innovative today than during the 8-bit/16-bit eras? SERIOUSLY? Maybe if you weren't playing games when the Famicom, PC Engine, Mega Drive, etc. were around you would have that perception.

With all the power available these days, games should theoretically be more innovative, there are pretty much no restrictions to what can be achieved. Games Designers were limited by the hardware during the 8-bit / 16-bit era, yet they still managed to be innovative. Of course people made clones or stole ideas from others, but on the whole there was a lot more innovation and imagination.

Of course, here is the issue. What is innovation, really? New concepts on an old genre, like Bionic Commando's arm, or Braid's time travel? Is it coming up with new genres, like Dragon Warrior or SMB practically did? Is it just workin around a system's constraints?

No, I think innovation is sort of a constant. A few games will always do something new, and cool, and then get copied ad nauseum for years. But are the copies bad, if they add their own unique twists on the formula? I don't think so, as long as the game is still good.

I don't think system power has much bearing on innovation. It may have given us Mario 64, or Dead Rising, but really? More power can only do so much. A good game is a good game, is my thinking, and on that front we're doing pretty damn well. I'm absolutely loving the fact there are more games you can pick up and play this gen than there has been in years, since I have less time to be gaming anyway.

refan
10-22-2008, 12:45 PM
This has been a great gen for survival horror games. Silent Hill 5 and Siren were great. Games like RE5 (not really survival horror) and Sadness look amazing.

Rob2600
10-22-2008, 02:03 PM
I want my video games to look like video games, to feel like video games. Paradoxically, for me, the more realistic and life-like they are, the less innovative I feel they are.

In that case, I think you'd really enjoy games like:

Bomberman Blast
de Blob
Dr. Mario Online
LostWinds
Mercury Meltdown Revolution
Wario Land: Shake It!
Wii Sports
World of Goo
Zack & Wiki

Those games don't look hyper-realistic. Instead, they feature fantastic art direction, as well as a blend of old-school and modern (and sometimes innovative) game mechanics.

Nature Boy
10-22-2008, 03:47 PM
"Pushing the envelope" was NOT as risky financially in the 80s as it is today. Not even close. Did you make your statement up, or did you quote it from somewhere? I'm guessing the former....

And are you seriously trying to argue that games are more innovative today than during the 8-bit/16-bit eras? SERIOUSLY? Maybe if you weren't playing games when the Famicom, PC Engine, Mega Drive, etc. were around you would have that perception.

With all the power available these days, games should theoretically be more innovative, there are pretty much no restrictions to what can be achieved. Games Designers were limited by the hardware during the 8-bit / 16-bit era, yet they still managed to be innovative. Of course people made clones or stole ideas from others, but on the whole there was a lot more innovation and imagination.

I definitely never said today was more innovative, I was pointing out that innovation was *just* as lacking back then as it is now.

I think describing the state of innovation today as paling in comparison to the early 80s is just nostalgia rearing it's ugly head.

It was all so new back then that we remember only how innovative it all felt, even the copy-cats. Today I see companies doing basically the same things, but they get roasted by it because of the size of the press today and the fact that the industry is 30 years old now, not 3 years old.

BTW: 'more innovative' is hogwash, isn't it? It's either innovative or it's derivative. You might have meant more innovations, although there certainly still *are* restrictions on what hardware can do. It's just not as restrictive as it was 30 years ago.

And finally, yes I 'made up' my initial statement. Did you also make up your reply or were you quoting from someone? Not even close? I'd admit the dollars aren't even close, but would still contend that a failure back then was relatively as damaging to a company as a failure today, hence leading companies back then to the same conclusions: let's make sequels.

Electric Blue
10-22-2008, 04:08 PM
Here's my worry; the mammoth budgets required to release these graphically super intensive games stifles creativity and risk-taking. These days games have as many people working on them as Hollywood blockbusters.

ubersaurus
10-22-2008, 04:14 PM
Here's my worry; the mammoth budgets required to release these graphically super intensive games stifles creativity and risk-taking. These days games have as many people working on them as Hollywood blockbusters.

While it is true that for blockbuster games the costs have shot up, not every game is a blockbuster. Shred Nebula had a pretty small team, as did other games like Braid, Castle Crashers, Mega Man 9...at least, no larger a team than a lot of NES-SNES era games did. Hell, Space Giraffe was made by what, 4 people? SF2: HD Remix is the brainchild of a handful of people, as well.

Once you get into DLC type games, the costs aren't as bad, if you're adjusting for inflation and all.

SegaAges
10-22-2008, 04:25 PM
Once you get into DLC type games, the costs aren't as bad, if you're adjusting for inflation and all.

Sometimes I have to adjust myself for inflation.

ubersaurus
10-22-2008, 06:12 PM
Sometimes I have to adjust myself for inflation.

I've had dates like that

Mimi Nakamura
10-22-2008, 08:29 PM
I definitely never said today was more innovative, I was pointing out that innovation was *just* as lacking back then as it is now.

I think describing the state of innovation today as paling in comparison to the early 80s is just nostalgia rearing it's ugly head.

It was all so new back then that we remember only how innovative it all felt, even the copy-cats. Today I see companies doing basically the same things, but they get roasted by it because of the size of the press today and the fact that the industry is 30 years old now, not 3 years old.

BTW: 'more innovative' is hogwash, isn't it? It's either innovative or it's derivative. You might have meant more innovations, although there certainly still *are* restrictions on what hardware can do. It's just not as restrictive as it was 30 years ago.

And finally, yes I 'made up' my initial statement. Did you also make up your reply or were you quoting from someone? Not even close? I'd admit the dollars aren't even close, but would still contend that a failure back then was relatively as damaging to a company as a failure today, hence leading companies back then to the same conclusions: let's make sequels.

Of course I didn't quote my reply. You made a completely untrue statement about games development being as financially risky in the 80s as it is today. I was wondering what inspired you to lie, that was all.

Of course it isn't either innovative or derivative, nothing is as black & white as that. The word "innovative" is an adjective - I can use it however I like, even though English is not my first language, I know this much.

Please explain to me the restrictions that games developers have with today's hardware? It seems you want to argue every point I make to absurd levels. what was the point that you were trying to make here? You surely can't be drawing parallels between restrictions for games designers now and in the 80s?

I'm in my 20s, 8-bit was where I began, but 16-bit was my real era, and games then were much better then than they are know, in terms of design, imagination, and challenge.

If you think innovation has always been lacking throughout the history of video games, then I won't even bother saying anymore.

ubersaurus
10-22-2008, 08:47 PM
Of course I didn't quote my reply. You made a completely untrue statement about games development being as financially risky in the 80s as it is today. I was wondering what inspired you to lie, that was all.

Of course it isn't either innovative or derivative, nothing is as black & white as that. The word "innovative" is an adjective - I can use it however I like, even though English is not my first language, I know this much.

Please explain to me the restrictions that games developers have with today's hardware? It seems you want to argue every point I make to absurd levels. what was the point that you were trying to make here? You surely can't be drawing parallels between restrictions for games designers now and in the 80s?

I'm in my 20s, 8-bit was where I began, but 16-bit was my real era, and games then were much better then than they are know, in terms of design, imagination, and challenge.

If you think innovation has always been lacking throughout the history of video games, then I won't even bother saying anymore.

Heh, I suggest you take a look back at the old 8-bit and 16-bit libraries then. How many crappy mascot platformers came out? How many generic shootemups? Hell, how many generic fantasy realm RPGs?

It's true, there were innovations, and really good derivatives. But those are the only ones that are remembered these days. There's just too many games to think about anything else.

As for restrictions for modern systems, I think someone else mentioned it: price. Costs more money to produce a big budget game. Smaller dev houses are still doing their own thing. Besides, you put too much weight into innovations. Did being derivative make Mega Man 2 worse than 1? Mario World worse than Mario 3? Metal Slug worse than Contra? Halo worse than Marathon?

If you answer yes, then my god, we have like no common ground here.

Mimi Nakamura
10-22-2008, 09:06 PM
Heh, I suggest you take a look back at the old 8-bit and 16-bit libraries then. How many crappy mascot platformers came out? How many generic shootemups? Hell, how many generic fantasy realm RPGs?

It's true, there were innovations, and really good derivatives. But those are the only ones that are remembered these days. There's just too many games to think about anything else.

As for restrictions for modern systems, I think someone else mentioned it: price. Costs more money to produce a big budget game. Smaller dev houses are still doing their own thing. Besides, you put too much weight into innovations. Did being derivative make Mega Man 2 worse than 1? Mario World worse than Mario 3? Metal Slug worse than Contra? Halo worse than Marathon?

If you answer yes, then my god, we have like no common ground here.

I never said that all games during the 8-bit / 16-bit era were innovative, and I never said that there weren't some bad games during those eras either. Also, I never said that innovation was the be all and end all in games. I'm just saying that there is a serious lack of innovation today, especially in comparison to previous gaming eras.

As for price being a restriction, yes, but my question was Please explain to me the restrictions that games developers have with today's hardware?

refan
10-22-2008, 09:14 PM
I think games today are very innovative. I really like the original games like Zack and Wiki and Patapon. Not everything is a Grand Theft Auto or Resident Evil 4 knockoff. :2gunfire:

ubersaurus
10-22-2008, 11:02 PM
I never said that all games during the 8-bit / 16-bit era were innovative, and I never said that there weren't some bad games during those eras either. Also, I never said that innovation was the be all and end all in games. I'm just saying that there is a serious lack of innovation today, especially in comparison to previous gaming eras.

As for price being a restriction, yes, but my question was Please explain to me the restrictions that games developers have with today's hardware?

That's the restriction. Costs more to do stuff in HD.

Berserker
10-23-2008, 12:31 AM
Not sure how I managed to miss this five-page thread, but I have to give an emphatic No.

This generation is unique for several reasons, but the one that primarily concerns retro gamers is the rise of DLC. The cost to produce AAA titles has risen predictably, but for the first time smaller developers have been given a niche on home consoles to put out smaller titles, which should be of immense importance to those of us with a soft spot for classic-style games. No longer are handhelds our last remaining beacon of hope for that area.

j_factor
10-23-2008, 01:39 AM
Call me old-fashioned, but I just don't like downloading games. I loved Alien Hominid, and I wish Castle Crashers was also available on disc.

Nature Boy
10-23-2008, 09:59 AM
Please explain to me the restrictions that games developers have with today's hardware?

Here's my game idea. I like the idea of MMOs, but I recognize they've never succeeded on a console. I decide I want to make a MMO for consoles, where the computer controls every NPC character in a way that would make it indistinguishable from a real person.

Some might consider that an innovative idea, some might not. But the hardware today wouldn't let me control the number of AI characters that I would want to in order to realize that game. I consider that a hardware restriction.

A *real* game developer could probably come up with 100s of examples of ideas they'd have for a game that the hardware won't let them do just yet. Just like GTA was an idea back in the PS1 era that didn't get fully realized until the PS2 era allowed them to take it to 3D to the scale they wanted.


I'm in my 20s, 8-bit was where I began, but 16-bit was my real era, and games then were much better then than they are know, in terms of design, imagination, and challenge.

That's a fair opinion. Can I guess that you're a 2D gaming fan? Or are there 3D games that you enjoy as well?

There's nothing wrong with that. I'd actually guess you just don't like today's style of games which is why you complain about a lack of innovation. To me that's not the same thing.

I'll tell you that my favourite system isn't a console, it's my Atari 800 XL. I still love and appreciate all the games I played back then and still revisit today. But I love games today too. I love being the type of gamer who will play something like "Seven Cities of Gold" one minute on my Atari (a game that blew me away, as I had never seen it's like before), and then Portal the next on my 360 (I can't stop thinking about how much I enjoyed that game, which I just beat for the first time last week).


If you think innovation has always been lacking throughout the history of video games, then I won't even bother saying anymore.

But I'm *not* saying that. Maybe I do suck at articulating my opinion.

You're arguing there was more innovation 10-15 years ago than there is today. Significantly more I'd assume. I'm saying the levels of innovation are EQUAL. That yes there was innovation today, as there was then. And there were plenty of games that were NOT innovative, today as there was then.

You mentioned me making up lies in your previous reply. That's an extreme response, and untrue. These are my opinions, not facts I'm trying to portray. I admit I could be totally wrong about the relative risks associated with creating games today versus 20-30 years ago. But I still don't think I am. There weren't many companies that would push the envelope every time out 15 years ago, nor are there many today. But they both exist.

Sudo
10-23-2008, 12:10 PM
Call me old-fashioned, but I just don't like downloading games. I loved Alien Hominid, and I wish Castle Crashers was also available on disc.

I don't like to download them either, but there are a few I couldn't resist due to being such huge fans of the franchises. Mega Man 9, Bionic Commando: Rearmed and Ratchet and Clank Future: Quest for Booty are the main ones.

FrakAttack
10-24-2008, 01:07 AM
Don't think this or any other generation has been a "bust," I just think games have become formulaic and predictable, much like Hollywood movies. Where's the, for lack of a better word, "magic?"

Rob2600
10-24-2008, 01:43 AM
I just think games have become formulaic and predictable, much like Hollywood movies. Where's the, for lack of a better word, "magic?"

Again, give games like World of Goo, Zack & Wiki, de Blob, LostWinds, and Mercury Meltdown Revolution a chance. You might change your mind!

Nature Boy
10-24-2008, 04:12 PM
Call me old-fashioned, but I just don't like downloading games.

I hear ya. I do love having games that I don't have to swap discs in and out to play though. I just wish you could still buy them physically and install them, but I understand why they don't want that just yet.