when the modern games become obsolete will they...

[Richter Belmount]

Still be as likeable? will you be collecting them? I just dont see the 32-128 bit age having the same likeability as the 2-16 bit era did , more genres , characters and originallity from 2-16bit era. But i have the feeling that the modern systems were more to try to impress you visually rather than creating more something original or just plain fun.

[Zadoc]

Still be as likeable? will you be collecting them? I just dont see the 32-128 bit age having the same likeability as the 2-16 bit era did , more genres , characters and originallity from 2-16bit era. But i have the feeling that the modern systems were more to try to impress you visually rather than creating more something original or just plain fun.

The games from this generation which are good, well executed, and well told will still be likeable 10 years from now. However, the games that are just trying to impress, which is most of them, won't have any of the same likeability, and in my opinion, they're not likeable now.

Also, the 2-16 bit era games had their fair share of awful crap. :)

[Dahne]

I Imagine it'll work the same way as it does with movies or TV series. The great ones, the good ones, and the ones with cult appeal will survive, while the bad are mostly forgotten.

[AB Positive]

There are some gems in this generation. I certainly could see myself selling/buying/reselling/rebuying a PS2 just for Katamari Damacy... if I'm dumb enough to sell them both to begin with ;)

-AG

[G4MZ0v3R]

I think gaming is becoming too mainstream for the "polished crap" to lose its luster. You know we all have our favorite "retro" game thats crap but we like it. This generation likes thier FPS and sports games. Its like another genesis revolution with the sports anyway. I plan on seeing copies of madden 2000-2005 till I die when I go anywhere. :puke:

[klausien]

I don't think the current generation of games will continue to be as exciting to the average DP-er, but this is mostly because many of us were raised in the earlier days of gaming. It is the younger guys, who cut their gaming teeth with the PSX, who will venerate this generation. They are who will wax nostalgic. Life goes on. I'll take a 2D side-scroller over anything 3D anyday.

[pineapplehead2]

I am only 16, but was rasied on Commodore 64,NES and Atari 2600.
then i got a n64 and etc.

I love retro, im a collecotr of retro games, my fav systems are, NES,SNES,N64,Atari 2600,Commodore 64 and Master System, and currently seeking a Amiga and Atari ST, also a Dreamcast.

BUT
if i could only have one System and One computer it would be this

System:NES
Comupter: Commodore 64

[squidblatt]

I tend to look at the current generation and the previous one as synonymous. And from the looks of Xbox2, I'd call the next generation another extension. Looked at from that angle, this generation has a lot of character. I agree that there is a charm found in retro systems that is lacking in the current gen, but I won't go so far as to say that current gen (according to the definition I set forth) is bland. Graphics upgrades are good for marketing, but it's the transition to 3D that has really defined this generation as distinct from the previous ones. I 'm still hoping that 2D becomes a powerful niche genre, but I don't discount what this gen does well simply because that genre is neglected. However, if you reject my notion of combining the previous, current and next generation into one, then I'd have to agree that the consoles don't offer much on their own. There's the occasional gem, but not a great deal of creativity.

[Iron Draggon]

I don't think the current generation of games will continue to be as exciting to the average DP-er, but this is mostly because many of us were raised in the earlier days of gaming. It is the younger guys, who cut their gaming teeth with the PSX, who will venerate this generation. They are who will wax nostalgic. Life goes on. I'll take a 2D side-scroller over anything 3D anyday.

That is so true. Today's teens & twentysomethings will be tomorrow's thirtysomethings, and when they reach that age, they'll look back as fondly on this generation of gaming as we do on all the games of our youth.

I think they are being cheated though. All they're getting is mostly glitz and glamour in 3D, we got fine art in 2D. Of course we had our share of crap too, but even the crappiest 2D games still have alot of very likeable qualities.

[Vroomfunkel]

I think it is just a matter of time really, tbh. I mean, look at the Dreamcast - eminently collectable and pretty much on the same level as PS2 / XBox / GC.

Go one step further back, and you have the Saturn - also hugely collectable.

I think in 5 years time when the next gen is established then collecting this gen will become interesting. I mean, a lot of it is about the search, as well as the actual game, right?

Whilst this stuff is all over the place it's no big deal to find something good. Although I don't think that there will be nearly as many truly rare games for this gen of consoles, because it wasn't really possible to make a game for that small a print run. The production costs mean that everything has to aim for tens of thousands of units to break even.

Vroomfunkel

[mr_nihilism]

I Imagine it'll work the same way as it does with movies or TV series. The great ones, the good ones, and the ones with cult appeal will survive, while the bad are mostly forgotten.



My thoughts exactly. And those that are growing up with these new games will fondly remember them with rose colored glasses, just as we do with the older titles.

[Griking]

I'm sure this same issue was discussed years ago when the SNES came out and then again when the PS1 came out and here we are having it again.

The important thing to remember is that children are being brought up with today's consoles just as we were brought up w/ the Ataris and Nintendos. When these kinds grow older they'll end up being nostalgic for these consoles years down the road. So yeah, I think there will always be a demand for older console and games.

[Lady Jaye]

I agree with the rose-colored glasses comment. Every generation of games has its gems and classics that will still be enjoyable years from now. And every generation has its share of craptastic games that were highly hyped but turned out to be average or below average.

Only time can tell what will perdure.

[Xantan the Foul]

I'm going to try to bring my kids up on classics... assuming they get into gaming at all.

[YoshiM]

I think for the general populace of gamers (ie probably not including DPer's and other similar gamers) if next gen is a significant evolutionary leap, this gen will become just a memory.

I know many casual gamers who wouldn't dream of playing an N64 or a regular Playstation again after playing the current stuff. I can even think back in the day to people who sold off their Ataris or Colecovisions and such to get a NES (count me in on that group back then but I did it for games as I had a system) or people dropping off their NES and games for a Genesis or Super Nintendo. Sure there are fond memories but for many a person that's all that's needed. No replay necessary.

My brother in law, who I can pretty much lump into the group of "average gamer", is a perfect example. All around good dude, loves music, loves sports (and plays sports whenever possible) and grew up with video games. He talks about fond memories of past video games and how a lot of modern games don't seem to have that appeal. But when you sit him down in front of those old games he plays them enough to rekindle the memory then pretty much shelves the game forever. In his (and many other gamers') mind they've moved on.

[ktulu]

Well, games will be games...
I only think that we have to take one thing into consideration. The "older" generations, people who are now 20-30 and older, who grew up on pacman or C64 or NES or whatever old system, they lived in an age of developement and creativity. It's just that video games were starting to be popular and to "be there" at all. It's great how coders could get the most of C64 because there just wasn't anything better (at least not much better) at the time, they were pushing the limits. Nowdays, PCs are so messed up with components, versions of components, versions of versions of components and drivers for all that :). It's unbeliveable how everything is messed up. You just can't make something good anymore if you don't put some solid 2-3 years into developement. That's for the computer part of the story. As for the console part, well I don't know, haven't really been in contact with that many consoles, never owned any unfortunately but a lot of old NES and other systems' games were arcade ports so it's a similar story i guess.

[Griking]

One reason that I can think of for a console to die off and not be played as much anymore is because of sequels and remakes. Because of today's lack of originality developers keep making the same games over and over and over. Look at Resident Evil or instance; it originally came out on the PS1 and then the Dreamcast and then the PS2 and Gamecube. What reason is there really to play the PS1 version any more when the later versions were all updated and improved somewhat?

I suppose it depends on how many original games there were for a given system.

[Snapple]

I threw away all of my original SNES boxes because I thought there's no way in Hell they'll ever be worth anything or be considered collector's items. I remember having this thought process. I've changed my mind about that.

I don't collect Atari stuff because I never played much Atari, and it has no personal value to me. The next generation is going to think the same about everything pre-PS1.

People who are growing up with PS1 and PS2 games are going to remember them as their earlier game consoles years from now. They are going to hold a PS1 with more nostalgic value than an NES. For most of us, that won't happen, but for the younger generation, I think it will. So absolutely there will be a market and a value for every generation of games at some point.

[bargora]

One reason that I can think of for a console to die off and not be played as much anymore is because of sequels and remakes. Because of today's lack of originality developers keep making the same games over and over and over. Look at Resident Evil or instance; it originally came out on the PS1 and then the Dreamcast and then the PS2 and Gamecube. What reason is there really to play the PS1 version any more when the later versions were all updated and improved somewhat?

I suppose it depends on how many original games there were for a given system.
Your point is valid. But I am chuckling anyway, because I was just looking at my Resident Evil: Director's Cut PS1 disc this weekend, thinking that I should give it a spin. For the record, though, I don't have a Gamecube.

[-hellvin-]

I don't see why I wouldn't enjoy these current generation games as much as I do now when the systems have met their end. Hopefully there will be some sweet clearances in the future ;D.

[Aussie2B]

While I don't have a whole lot of interest in GameCube and PS2 right now, I have to also admit that when it was alive, I didn't care for PlayStation much either. Even my much loved N64 sort of lost my interest for a few years within its life. I find I just have a hard time appreciating consoles while they're still current. All the hype and media and crap just bothers me. Once everything quiets down about a console and its games, THEN I'm interested. And things get much more exciting when games are priced low and I can form a nice varied, decent sized library for myself. I imagine I'll do the same once the PS2 and GameCube are dead (and I guess I'll probably get an XBox eventually too, when they're really cheap).

[Kid Ice]

Only time will tell. I can think of a few games that were amazing at their time of release (SNES StarFox, 3DO Need For Speed, PSX Tekken) that just haven't aged particularly well. I don't know if it's just that they're not fun anymore, they're ugly, or if those types of games have been done better since. The aging process for games is sometimes mysterious.

But I will say yes, some of the games from this generation will be enduring classics. It's just hard to tell which ones right now. The direction gaming will take in the future will determine that...somewhat.

[goatdan]

I definitely think that today's games will be future collectors items. I think that any game can be.

Personally, I think that I enjoy my Dreamcast collection (US complete, now thinking about working on PAL...) more than anything else, even my older games.

I found out a few years ago when I was thinking about collecting for the NES that beyond a few games that I really, truly love, that system had its share of true stinkers. There are games that I had heard lots about that when I plugged in to try I couldn't believe they were as bad as they were! These games weren't mainstream games... but the best-sellers are usually not bad games.

In 20 years, will people look back at Halo and say, "Damn... all glitz, no substance." I don't think so. The game sold so well because it had a great game experience underneath its exterior. I thnk SMB3 is one of the best games ever, and it was also a visual masterpiece for the NES.

Sure, there will be games that collectors will pick up and say, "Why in the world did anyone buy this?!?" but there are for every generation. In my Jaguar collection, I can't imagine anyone wanting Checkered Flag... but there it is. Not fondly remembered, but still there.

[whoisKeel]

I agree with the statements that in 10 years the kids who grew up on this gen will collect it, but at the same time it is very different. The 2-16 bit era, for the most part, consists of games that you can pick up and play for 20 mins or even an hour and get your fix. I think it is a fair assumption to say that new games require alot more of your time, and that will lose alot of appeal to gamers 25-35 years old. There are of course exceptions to this, but even then the majority of those exceptions are throwbacks to a previous era.