Am I the only one that thinks the current era is the best?
To summarize, games released today aren't better or necessarily worse, just different.
Technically- Yes. Games now look and control better than previous gen.
But in term of new ideas, this era is certainly lacking. Too many companies are just milking their franchises and very few new ideas are seen except in indie games.
This is a bit of a difficult question for me to answer as I've only had personal experience of the world of video games from the PS1/N64 gen onwards and having started gaming when I was just a kid as time has gone on through the different generations my access to video games, knowledge of video games and access to information about video games has increased. I also find it very hard to compare much more recent memories of video games with the kind of nostalgic memories of my past. I think to truly say whether this has been the greatest era of video games I will definitely have to wait until this era ends.
"15 year old's shouldn't start threads. "
Why would you want to limit yourself like that?
"I've enjoyed and liked just about all eras/generations in gaming in my life. "
Don't get me wrong. I've enjoyed all the eras too. I just think that gaming has clearly gotten better over time.
" This is era is big, brash, well marketed and boldly lit by neon lighting. There's the sound of many cash registers ringing away into the night and the moans of grumbling fans being stuck in ever lengthening lines. There's even more coverage of games now as news items than there ever have been with the Jack Thompson fiascos, the hot coffee dramaz and the news that us poor Aussies are being held at the mercy of a South Australian turd burgler masquerading as a right wing zealot but in no way is this the best era of gamingFuck me- i played that game for hours upon hours upon hours on my old amiga 600 and completely forgot its existance til you posted that - i didnt even know its name
That, dear fiends and co conspirators was the 80s when the Commodore 64 was king birthing the first ever MMO made by LucasFilm games "Habitat", the ZX Spectrum was crap but Rare, then called ULTIMATE saved it time and again with one great 8 bit monochrome hit after another while we both giggled incessantly at the Amstrad CPC and it's fucking weird 3" disks which went the way of dodo.
In those days there were so many original ideas that the market literally grew exponentially with each week.
And still in this post modern age where the fighting game, along with every genre, has reinvented itself over and over, adding more buttons and moves with each generation cycle single, not one single fighting game has ever matched the simplicity and complex mastery that Archer Maclean's International Karate + achieves with eight directions and one single, solitary, some might even say lonely button.
"
Thank you
"@ShoulderHolster said:With all due respect, this post represents a reading comprehension failure of the highest magnitude and you've unwittingly given credence to MY point with your Shakespeare example.Sorry but that is untrue. There's thousands of years of literature which utterly negates that view. William Shakespeare's works are only one of literally millions of obvious examples which disprove both of your points of views. Newer is rarely better. It's just newer." @Geno said:
I agree with the bolded statement. Books and movies seem to age better than games because they don't center around technology the way games do. ""Anything based on technology always gets better over time. Most people who prefer the past are usually way too nostalgic, misinformed about the current gen, or simply delusional. "
I didn't say new is always better. I said that new is usualll better when the medium depends on technology to exist. Literature in no way shape or form depends on technology, so it ages much better than video videogames. That means that Shakespeare withstands the test of time without falling victim to aging whereas videogames do because the technology becomes dated. I said that books age better than videogames so why in the world did you think that Shakespeare example would do anything in the way of poking holes in my argument?
Also, "new is rarely better" is kind of silly because new is often better. As time goes on, we find better ways to do alot of things. Old things often win out as well, but "new is rarely better" is a fallicious statement.
I happen to think that in the video game world we have found better ways to do alot of things and the growing technology has aided that.
What's especially great about this generation (and future generations as well probably) is that not only do we get amazing blockbuster titles with million dollar budgets, but with PSN, steam and XBLA there's also room for smaller quirkier games like vvvvvvvvv and Braid...
I really hope that developers and publishers use this opportunity to release more independent games and titles like the 16-bit mega man games and the likes!
"What's especially great about this generation (and future generations as well probably) is that not only do we get amazing blockbuster titles with million dollar budgets, but with PSN, steam and XBLA there's also room for smaller quirkier games like vvvvvvvvv and Braid... I really hope that developers and publishers use this opportunity to release more independent games and titles like the 16-bit mega man games and the likes! "
That's an excellent point.
" @Mordukai said:By that logic Sonic Unleashed is an amazing game since it sold 2.45 million units. After all, 2.45 million people can't be wrong, right? It must be good, right?" @Lind_L_Taylor said:But that's exactly what a sales figure tells you: games are more attractive in quality, so people are buying more of it. If it all sucked, then they wouldn't be buying it. "Sales doesn't necessarily mean it's better. It just means that there are more people gaming then the previous one." Hell, the sales figures alone show the current era to be the best one yet. "
On topic. I don't think this is the best era of gaming. I see this era as being an era of polish where this gen has realized what the previous gen (Xbox, PS2, and GC) attempted, but didn't achieve due to the limitations imposed by the technology at the time. At the expense of achieving this I don't see the originality or innovation that was present in previous generations present with this one (Nintendo aside). I think the biggest factor for this is because gaming has become not just big business, but HUGE business and there are about half a dozen or so mega corporations that have formed and gobbled up their competition allowing them near total control over their section of the market. Activison Blizzard has an iron grip on FPS and MMORPGs while EA has sports games and Ubisoft has mastered platformers. At least that is how I see it.
I guess if I was to pick a golden era for gaming it would be the early 1980's with the arcades and Atari 2600.
It would be if only nintendo would stop being casual gaming douchebags.
" @Lind_L_Taylor said:Yes it would be good for the AGE GROUP the game was made for, dumb ass! So you have merely proven my statement that Sales figures don't lie." @Mordukai said:By that logic Sonic Unleashed is an amazing game since it sold 2.45 million units. After all, 2.45 million people can't be wrong, right? It must be good, right? "" @Lind_L_Taylor said:But that's exactly what a sales figure tells you: games are more attractive in quality, so people are buying more of it. If it all sucked, then they wouldn't be buying it. "Sales doesn't necessarily mean it's better. It just means that there are more people gaming then the previous one." Hell, the sales figures alone show the current era to be the best one yet. "
It depends on what you mean by best. To me the graphics of course have never been better, the stories have massively improved as a whole, and gameplay and mechanics have never been better. But there have been few innovations during this generation and very few gameplay ideas that haven't been done before. The reason is because of how much it costs to develop and market games developers are rightfully scared to take a big chance.
the 90s was way better, To me the economy has scared developers from trying new things. Most are going with what sells and very rarely do we see something amazingly new and was so present in the 90s. Everyone is scared to fail now cause they don't have the money. And were basically seeing the same games over and over. A few tweeks but the same games for the most part. I remember when small developers used to make amazingly fun games that came out of no where. But now all we see is wanna-bes just to get says. This generations is full of wannabes, I hate it.
" Anything based on technology always gets better over time. Most people who prefer the past are usually way too nostalgic, misinformed about the current gen, or simply delusional. "
Says the graphics whore.
I wouldn't call this "the best era in gaming ever!", but I am exited about the direction that game development is going. Not long ago, I was getting extremely pessimistic about the value of games, and the nature of graphics in game development. It really seemed like graphics were the first and foremost consideration. What's interesting about today is that we can see our limitations on the horizon. Visual reality is a well defined point, and as we reach that point, each leap forward seems to be exponentially less valuable than the last. The result, I think, has been an explosion in quality in the past few years. We see games like Dragon Age, whose RPG quality I have not seen since the 90s. Batman: Arkham Asylum has the best brawler mechanics I have ever seen in a game, period. And lets not forget that Mount&Blade, which is one of the best games of all time, was (officially) released just a little over a year ago.
If I had to find one criticism of this era, it would be an over-emphasis on cinematics. Video games are not movies. Their strength lies in iteration and in interactivity. A great game can have great cinematic elements, but cinematic elements are not necessary in making a great game. I feel like the variety of the library is being limited by big publishers pushing big cinematic experiences.
Just because something sells better then anything else doesn't mean it is the best. I think you would have to look back on this gen console ages from now and then vote. This gen is still in it's early stages. Not only that but the past gen have had games that are still made today and played on this gen console today.
" @Mordukai said:i have to disagree on that one. people always buy stuff that sucks. mainstream usually means the purchasing of low quality goods. id like to think that in general the gaming community is a bit smarter about what is good and what isnt than say collectively the music community, though obviously we arent on such a large and diverse scale. 2009 was a very good year though for games." @Lind_L_Taylor said:But that's exactly what a sales figure tells you: games are more attractive in quality, so people are buying more of it. If it all sucked, then they wouldn't be buying it. "Sales doesn't necessarily mean it's better. It just means that there are more people gaming then the previous one." Hell, the sales figures alone show the current era to be the best one yet. "
I had more fun playing games in the late 90's than I do now. The rise of 3D gaming was a much cooler time to be a part of than the rise of HD. Resolution is just not that big a deal.
There is no way you can compare game quality to music quality & sales. Record sales in general appeal to such a wide audience, across various cultures that in general most of popular shit sucks. However, video games, such as Western games, tend to have sales focused on a particular demographic. If the game sucks, then it doesn't sell very well. I've yet to see a reverse indicator where some piece of shit game actually sold well (while keeping in mind the age demograhic). While I don't think some new Mario Bros game is gonna win me over, millions will prove me wrong, & perhaps they are just much younger than I, or it's fun & I've chosen to ignore it. I've played games on an SNES long ago & enjoyed it & remember why it was fun. I certainly wouldn't compare that to bland bullshit from Lady Gaga or Britney Spears though which appears to some teeny bopper/barbie doll female community. :P" @Lind_L_Taylor said:
" @Mordukai said:i have to disagree on that one. people always buy stuff that sucks. mainstream usually means the purchasing of low quality goods. id like to think that in general the gaming community is a bit smarter about what is good and what isnt than say collectively the music community, though obviously we arent on such a large and diverse scale. 2009 was a very good year though for games. "" @Lind_L_Taylor said:But that's exactly what a sales figure tells you: games are more attractive in quality, so people are buying more of it. If it all sucked, then they wouldn't be buying it. "Sales doesn't necessarily mean it's better. It just means that there are more people gaming then the previous one." Hell, the sales figures alone show the current era to be the best one yet. "
You can play modern warfare 2 how many times until it gets old? 3 maybe 4 not including multiplayer....
Now ask yourself, how many times have you went back and played Super Mario world or Zelda? How long did it take you to get through all 32 levels of DOOM? How many hours have you sunk into Tomb Raider before you figured out how to get past that damn falling roof? Gaming was better back in the day.
Faint and Mordukai are right dude give it up. Gaming is just as mainstream as music or movies today, which makes Faint's point valid. Music and movies have just as many general and focused demographics as games. I can put shit on a stick get a marketing team behind me and go around to my target demographic hyping the hell out of it and telling them it's the most delicious and wonderful thing and they will buy it and rave about it and tell me how great it is and I can make a fortune. Yet that doesn't change the fact that I am selling shit on a stick. The masses are dumb and easily manipulated. They will think what people tell them to think. History has shown that time and time again. Quantity of something sold does not indicate that it is of better quality. It just means you sold more of it." @Faint said:
There is no way you can compare game quality to music quality & sales. Record sales in general appeal to such a wide audience, across various cultures that in general most of popular shit sucks. However, video games, such as Western games, tend to have sales focused on a particular demographic. If the game sucks, then it doesn't sell very well. I've yet to see a reverse indicator where some piece of shit game actually sold well (while keeping in mind the age demograhic). While I don't think some new Mario Bros game is gonna win me over, millions will prove me wrong, & perhaps they are just much younger than I, or it's fun & I've chosen to ignore it. I've played games on an SNES long ago & enjoyed it & remember why it was fun. I certainly wouldn't compare that to bland bullshit from Lady Gaga or Britney Spears though which appears to some teeny bopper/barbie doll female community. :P "" @Lind_L_Taylor said:
" @Mordukai said:i have to disagree on that one. people always buy stuff that sucks. mainstream usually means the purchasing of low quality goods. id like to think that in general the gaming community is a bit smarter about what is good and what isnt than say collectively the music community, though obviously we arent on such a large and diverse scale. 2009 was a very good year though for games. "" @Lind_L_Taylor said:But that's exactly what a sales figure tells you: games are more attractive in quality, so people are buying more of it. If it all sucked, then they wouldn't be buying it. "Sales doesn't necessarily mean it's better. It just means that there are more people gaming then the previous one." Hell, the sales figures alone show the current era to be the best one yet. "
" Anything based on technology always gets better over time. Most people who prefer the past are usually way too nostalgic, misinformed about the current gen, or simply delusional. "Avatar>Citizen Kane.
Great insight kid.
No, but that's just stupid. Games aren't "tech based" to start with. If anything they're less complicated mechanically than they were 20 years ago. They just look better. What's more, there's the style factor. Sprites aren't inferior to 3d anymore than traditional animation is inferior to CGI. If all games have to offer you is how technically intricate they look, then yes, they only get better. But for people who find ANYTHING ELSE of value in a game, your statement is patently false. Yes there are slow iterations, minor improvements and refinements to mechanics, just like plenty of movies refine what Citizen Kane first started from a cinematography and story arc perspective. That doesn't make them better. People can nail it the first time, that's why we still use the same mouse trap that was invented 100 years ago. You can make a prettier mousetrap, that doesn't make it more effective. Don't be so shallow.
And before you respond talking about shooters, consider this. Diablo II, Starcraft, King of Fighters '98, the Last Blade, FF6, the original Mario Kart. Fair warning, you'll be calling multiple members of the staff "delusional" if you dismiss these games that still kinda sorta dominate their respective genre in one way or another. Square still haven't managed to create a game with pacing as good as 6, and they created in that game a genius way to expand a story without adding filler and so few games after it even bothered to notice. When someone gets something right, how its iterated on doesn't necessarily make it better and a lot of devs later on miss what the draw was to begin with. Prettymuch the only thing that's consistently improving is technical detail, which apparently is a huge deal to " real hardcore gamers" but normal people tend to enjoy the total package. And plenty of old games offer a total package that can go toe to toe with its modern counterpart and win. We've only been playing videogames for 3 decades or so but we, as people, have been playing games for as long as we've been writing stories and making art. And its not complicated, what we like. You can get it right the first time.
Tetris. I could have said Tetris and called it a night.
Well, at least your post isn't a troll post as usual this time, congrats. Anyway, I don't really have the time to provide a proper response to your post this time (I apologize), but just look back at our previous conversations and extrapolate. You either misread something or your logic is fallacious. Suffice it to say that if you think Citizen Kane is the penultimate pinnacle of cinematography and storytelling you are delusional." @Geno said:
Avatar>Citizen Kane. Great insight kid. No, but that's just stupid. Games aren't "tech based" to start with. If anything they're less complicated mechanically than they were 20 years ago. They just look better. What's more, there's the style factor. Sprites aren't inferior to 3d anymore than traditional animation is inferior to CGI. If all games have to offer you is how technically intricate they look, then yes, they only get better. But for people who find ANYTHING ELSE of value in a game, your statement is patently false. Yes there are slow iterations, minor improvements and refinements to mechanics, just like plenty of movies refine what Citizen Kane first started from a cinematography and story arc perspective. That doesn't make them better. People can nail it the first time, that's why we still use the same mouse trap that was invented 100 years ago. You can make a prettier mousetrap, that doesn't make it more effective. Don't be so shallow. "" Anything based on technology always gets better over time. Most people who prefer the past are usually way too nostalgic, misinformed about the current gen, or simply delusional. "
I would say if this era is not the best it's at least the 2nd best
" @Lind_L_Taylor said:You can swing shit on a stick if you want to, but none of you have provided any evidence to prove your point. So far it's groundless. Every large game that has sold millions has done so justifiably, not because it's crap. Check your stick. I think the shit just fell off.Faint and Mordukai are right dude give it up. Gaming is just as mainstream as music or movies today, which makes Faint's point valid. Music and movies have just as many general and focused demographics as games. I can put shit on a stick get a marketing team behind me and go around to my target demographic hyping the hell out of it and telling them it's the most delicious and wonderful thing and they will buy it and rave about it and tell me how great it is and I can make a fortune. Yet that doesn't change the fact that I am selling shit on a stick. The masses are dumb and easily manipulated. They will think what people tell them to think. History has shown that time and time again. Quantity of something sold does not indicate that it is of better quality. It just means you sold more of it. "" @Faint said:
There is no way you can compare game quality to music quality & sales. Record sales in general appeal to such a wide audience, across various cultures that in general most of popular shit sucks. However, video games, such as Western games, tend to have sales focused on a particular demographic. If the game sucks, then it doesn't sell very well. I've yet to see a reverse indicator where some piece of shit game actually sold well (while keeping in mind the age demograhic). While I don't think some new Mario Bros game is gonna win me over, millions will prove me wrong, & perhaps they are just much younger than I, or it's fun & I've chosen to ignore it. I've played games on an SNES long ago & enjoyed it & remember why it was fun. I certainly wouldn't compare that to bland bullshit from Lady Gaga or Britney Spears though which appears to some teeny bopper/barbie doll female community. :P "" @Lind_L_Taylor said:
" @Mordukai said:i have to disagree on that one. people always buy stuff that sucks. mainstream usually means the purchasing of low quality goods. id like to think that in general the gaming community is a bit smarter about what is good and what isnt than say collectively the music community, though obviously we arent on such a large and diverse scale. 2009 was a very good year though for games. "" @Lind_L_Taylor said:But that's exactly what a sales figure tells you: games are more attractive in quality, so people are buying more of it. If it all sucked, then they wouldn't be buying it. "Sales doesn't necessarily mean it's better. It just means that there are more people gaming then the previous one." Hell, the sales figures alone show the current era to be the best one yet. "
" @ShoulderHolster: Wow... Y'know some of us played games before Xbox and Halo. Without SNES and older systems you wouldn't have anything like what we have today. Older games are the best. You can play modern warfare 2 how many times until it gets old? 3 maybe 4 not including multiplayer.... Now ask yourself, how many times have you went back and played Super Mario world or Zelda? How long did it take you to get through all 32 levels of DOOM? How many hours have you sunk into Tomb Raider before you figured out how to get past that damn falling roof? Gaming was better back in the day. "
So, Modern Warfare represents this entire era? *rolls eyes*
Also, I've played Grand Theft Auto 4 and other games from this gen just as much as I've played games from the past.
Why do you think rhetorical questions about whether or not I'm as nostalgic as you makes for a convincing argument? Who cares how many times you've played whatever game? Who cares how many times I've played whatever game? If I think this gen is the best, why the hell do you think you're going to convince me by assuming that other gamers play as much Zelda and Super Mario World as you do. (Also, since I believe Super Mario Galaxy to the best Mario game, any nostalgic argument involving Mario is rather hollow to me).
Also, your whole "some of us played games before Xbox and Halo" line is weaksauce. It's just a rhetorical attempt to invalidate my opinion by implying that I never played old games.
I've owned most of the systems since the SNES and I think this era is the best because it is the era of polish and concepts are the most fully-realized in this era. The attempts of you nostalgic gamers to try and invalidate one's argument with this "you've just started gaming" line is fucking weak and just shows that you guys having nothing more than nostalgia. There are definitely compelling arguments in the favor of the older gens, but posts like yours scrape the bottom of the barrel.
Also, I realize that SNES paved the way for new systems and I respect it. But that doesn't automatically make the SNES era better. That argument doesn't even compute.
No, as much as I loved some of the games of the 90's the current generation is really pushing the media of videogames. It's great to be part of it and to play games like Uncharted 2.
For me games have long passed movies by as the best form of entertainment.... though I still love a good book.
I'd also agree, playing more games then ever. Yeah, there is tons of trash out there, but tons of top-notch stuff as well. I'd argue more than ever before. And stop talking about 1998 everyone, what was so great about that year anyway? Ocarina? Yes. Half-Life? Yes. Starcraft? Sure, if you're into that, but that is all.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment