Does anyone else think this generation is poor?

[jayseven]

Ah, not many that you're interested in. Well, can't help you there. Don't know how individual your taste is. New ip;

 

Prototype, mass effect, crackdown, viva pinata, left 4 dead, portal, dead rising, dead space, kane and lynch, pure. gears, assassin's creed, deadly premonition, The darkness, rockband, blah blah blah. You can't complain about a lack of new IPs (of which there are many) then complain there are too many sequels (which is really the only way of telling that there's a new successful IP. Many of the ones I listed haven't had a sequel yet but clearly intend to).

 

I'm pretty sure this generation has had just as many, if not more new IPs as any other has (quoting every title on the PS would be taking the piss, however).

 

Having an issue with sequels is silly. Nearly every nintendo game is effectively a sequel. Even nintendo are doing sequels on the same platform again. None of this one-game-a-generation nonsense anymore (see: Mario 64). I don't get it. You buy a game, you like it, it has a sequel, you know you'll probably like it.

[Daft]

Forgot L4D!! Awesome game, second one not quite so much, but I have high hopes for a/the third.

 

I wasn't saying there wasn't new IPs, but there's not as many new and exciting new IPs that I'm interested in. Even new IPs this gen have multiple sequels already like ones already mentioned, Gears of War, Uncharted and Assassin's Creed.

 

To be fair, at this point in other generations we'd probably be gearing up for a new console (Xbox was out 4 years before the 360, the 360 has just hit its 5th year). There is no sign of that this time so developers finally have the luxury of just expanding their franchises.

Edited December 24, 2010 by Daft
I wrote Xbox 260. Maths FAIL.

[Cube]

Prototype, mass effect, crackdown, viva pinata, left 4 dead, portal, dead rising, dead space, kane and lynch, pure. gears, assassin's creed, deadly premonition, The darkness, rockband, blah blah blah. You can't complain about a lack of new IPs (of which there are many) then complain there are too many sequels (which is really the only way of telling that there's a new successful IP. Many of the ones I listed haven't had a sequel yet but clearly intend to).

 

 

Only Pure, Deadly Premonition and The Darkness don't have sequels/announced sequels. And I believe that The Darkness 2 is in development hell.

 

The length of this generation is great for franchises like Mass Effect. A trilogy of games, borrowing save files/decisions from the earlier ones. It just feels right having them all on one console.

[Aimless]

Videogame sequels are generally better than the original. This isn't always the case — and rarely does it cover every single aspect — but whereas with movies a sequel tends to deride from, "That was successful, let's make another one" with game's it's more a case of, "That was successful, now you get a chance to make all those improvements you didn't have the time or budget for." Sequels fit with gaming as the media is largely mechanical, easy to improve and expand upon.

 

I don't really see how anyone can be disappointed with this generation as a whole, unless they're simply ignorant to what's out there. The existence of the download spaces alone has broadened gaming so much, the base quality of bigger budget games is higher than ever, online console gaming is more formalised and expansive, et cetera, et cetera.

[jammy2211]

I think the biggest disappointment of this generation is, as being disucssed, the iterative nature of games now. All the 'big' games are now sequels, and all orignal / new IP's normally don't stray from taking a successful formula and adding a small twist to it - like Assassin's Creed was just GTA with platforming. It's all very derivative, and despite these games often being brilliant, I think it'll feel less memorable then the first time I played Mario 64,Final fantasy VII or GTAIII etc.

 

The Downloadable space is a God send and done alot to rectify that, but it will always still feel that games like flower and Limbo just can't be that memorable like previous generations best games, simply cause they're too small. Still fun though.

 

Nintendo have done some really good stuff with casual / fitness type software but in all honesty, while I'm sure it's pretty significient for gaming future and will define where gaming heads, it hasn't really interested me outside of SMG1&2.

 

Personally I think I've grown to appreciated games more in this generation as I'm older now and have more money, but I don't think there have been as many games that really stand to define this generation. We're at a stage where it's all about doing what's already been done but really really well, which leads to awesome games but an overall sense of repetition after too long.

 

Hopefully we'll see that change in the future, afterall this generation doesn't seem to be drawing to a close anytime soon.

[Pit-Jr]

The only thing bad about this generation is having to choose between so many good games when it comes time to buy one. This was a rarely a problem in the past.

 

Not to mention the wireless controllers and games stored on the HDD make this not only the best generation for console gaming but also the laziest

[Ellmeister]

I've come into this thread very late to see some interesting discussions. I personally think there are lots of good games available and the only real problem is a lack of time and money to play all the games I should be playing.

 

I tend to buy sequels because if I like the previous instalment I have faith in the sequel to exceed its predecessor. It takes more to persuade me to purchase new games since I don't have the money to test all these new games whereas I know vaguely what the sequels will entail.

[Aimless]

It's all very derivative, and despite these games often being brilliant, I think it'll feel less memorable then the first time I played Mario 64,Final fantasy VII or GTAIII etc.

Generally they won't be as memorable. Mario 64 was the first well done 3D platformer. GTAIII was the first proper stab at a 3D sandbox. I'm going to take a wild guess and say FFVII was the first JRPG you ever played.

 

Firsts are always memorable, it doesn't stop them being bettered. Gears of War is derivative of Kill Switch but you don't have to be much of a fan of the former to see which is the superior game.

[dwarf]

The problem is that games use the same interactions, button layouts and objectives as each other, and it's tremendously hard to to totally draw a different skin.

 

We're still predominantly using the left stick to move and the right stick to change the camera, which only leaves certain possibilities. The only difference with this generation is that whilst your combining these, now when you tap circle, you won't do an attack but will instead stick really tight against a nearby surface.

[jammy2211]

Generally they won't be as memorable. Mario 64 was the first well done 3D platformer. GTAIII was the first proper stab at a 3D sandbox. I'm going to take a wild guess and say FFVII was the first JRPG you ever played.

 

Firsts are always memorable, it doesn't stop them being bettered. Gears of War is derivative of Kill Switch but you don't have to be much of a fan of the former to see which is the superior game.

 

FFVII wasn't the first JRPG I played (not even on the PS1) but it was the first game of which the scale and depth of which just blew me away. Just that feeling where about 10 hours in you leave Midgar, and you realise the environment you spent the whole start of the game in was a spec on the whole game world was just mind blowing.

 

You throw in the whole Aeris thing and amazing storyline and it's a game people will never forget and people still talk about today.

 

My point is games this gen just haven't had that memorable factor to them, you can think that even just first Guitar Hero was released only 5 years ago, and that carved a whole new genre to itself and gave us a game like nothing we've ever played, an experience we've never had before.

 

Since then it feels that nothing coming out nowadays has that potential to completely blow me away in the same way. Games like LittleBigPlanet, Borderlands, Mirrors Edge came close but they were still just a bit too familiar to really feel like nothing but really brilliant games.

 

I'm sure my age / experience in playing games is hurting me here and that the more you've gamed the less will surprise you, but I'm sure it's not asking too much that in the 5 years these consoles have been out something could be the same breath of fresh air as many of the gaming greats that came out on previous console. I still at the moment sit with the air of hope that it's simply a matter of time .

Edited December 27, 2010 by jammy2211

[Ramar]

I think jammy is explaining how I feel a lot better than I could the other day.

[Aimless]

I simply don't see the importance in reinventing the wheel all the time or this exultation of 'new'.

 

Comparing LittleBigPlanet to a 16-bit platformer or Assassin's Creed to GTA is not only reductionist, it's completely missing the wood for the trees. On a very basic level they may have similarities but they play completely differently, are tonally divergent, have different priorities, et cetera. I'd expect such broad strokes from someone who doesn't know anything about games, but anyone with actual experience with the things should be able to appreciate the differences between CoD, Halo, Portal, Mirror's Edge and Amnesia despite them all being in first-person and sharing a base level of control familiarity.

 

In other words, as your knowledge of games grows so should your ability to appreciate their many divergent and innovative intricacies. We shouldn't be hearing people draw a straight line between Vanquish and Gears of War, the differences should be obvious to anyone with a finger on the pulse of third-person shooters; if you went to a wine tasting evening you'd expect a slightly higher level of insight than, "This one tastes red!"

 

So much has changed in this generation. Allow yourself to notice it rather than waiting to be beaten over the head.

[jammy2211]

I simply don't see the importance in reinventing the wheel all the time or this exultation of 'new'.

 

Comparing LittleBigPlanet to a 16-bit platformer or Assassin's Creed to GTA is not only reductionist, it's completely missing the wood for the trees. On a very basic level they may have similarities but they play completely differently, are tonally divergent, have different priorities, et cetera. I'd expect such broad strokes from someone who doesn't know anything about games, but anyone with actual experience with the things should be able to appreciate the differences between CoD, Halo, Portal, Mirror's Edge and Amnesia despite them all being in first-person and sharing a base level of control familiarity.

 

In other words, as your knowledge of games grows so should your ability to appreciate their many divergent and innovative intricacies. We shouldn't be hearing people draw a straight line between Vanquish and Gears of War, the differences should be obvious to anyone with a finger on the pulse of third-person shooters; if you went to a wine tasting evening you'd expect a slightly higher level of insight than, "This one tastes red!"

 

So much has changed in this generation. Allow yourself to notice it rather than waiting to be beaten over the head.

 

I am probably enjoying this generation probably more then any other, and obviously am focusing my discussion on the negative for the purpose of this thread. I think for the most part that refining of working game formulas to make them as good as possible is fine, I sure as hell won't miss Uncharted 3 or Batman: AC or sequel-x

 

Don't get me wrong, I think it's important that many of these game worlds are expanded upon, the stories fleshed out and I have alot of time to appreciate this sequel type stuff too.

 

But they've been doing this for 5 years nearly now, and I guess at some point I want to play something that really ignites my imagination.

 

When I look back to this generation I'll think of really good games, but nothing yet stands out at blowing me away. I'm well aware I could just be getting older, I could have just played too many games to feel something new, but this is the only reservation I have about this generation and whether or not it's reductionist or naive it'll still be there.

[Aimless]

I suppose I just think being "blown away" by anything says more about the consumer than the product. If my mum plays Kinect she might come out the other side thinking of it as magic, but I'm going to be harder to impress as I've seen behind the curtain and can recognise the fairly rudimentary game design underneath. It seems you feel much the same way, but where we differ is I don't see it as a bad thing.

 

Knowledge of the field makes it less likely I'll be bowled over by something singular, but on the other hand it puts me in a position to appreciate the micro as well as the macro. The first time I saw Portal was a bit of a wow moment because it was so wildly different, but other games consistently impress me with smaller innovations: the chain-kill system in AC: Brotherhood completely changes the way combat encounters play out, despite ostensibly being a minor change. It all comes down to being in a position to appreciate smart design.

 

There's great ideas and quiet innovations everywhere, seeking those out is one of the things that keeps me so interested in games. And you still have titles like Braid around to subvert traditional thinking, they're just generally more prevalent in the lower risk download space before their ideas slowly trickle in to the biggest releases.

 

This is the generation of the hybrid, not the sequel. Mass Effect, the aforementioned Assassins's Creed, Borderlands and even CoD's multiplayer: this is the generation where genres aren't so important, where conventions converge to throw up new species not easily placed. It is a medium maturing, an audience growing and something that is neither better nor worse, merely different.

[Ramar]

CoD's multiplayer? All they did was bring the PC FPS multiplayer stuff to the console mass market.

[Aimless]

CoD's multiplayer? All they did was bring the PC FPS multiplayer stuff to the console mass market.

Classes. Perks. Unlocks. Challenges. XP. Almost every multiplayer game since Modern Warfare integrates what were the traditional vestiges of MMORPGs, a hybridisation that's only been around for just over 3 years.

 

I'm sure there are other games that integrated such ideas first, but that isn't the same as setting a precedent.

Edited December 27, 2010 by Aimless

[jayseven]

I've skimmed the last page of argument because it's another stupid one. Jammy, your argument of 'memorable moments' is a purely subjective one. you may have less memorable moments simply because you have aged, seen more TV, more films, read more books, learned more about all sorts of subjects. To me the N64 was the ultimate memory manufacturer - but that was due to the time and place that I was in. There's no way that I can say that this generation is poorer than previous generations. I've spent more on games, played more games, invested more hours and therefore enjoyed myself for more hours this time round. Nostalgia holds you back, bro.

[gaggle64]

Coming into this very, very late I'd like to add that this generation is one of the greatest and most significant not just because of the games but because of the means that they are delivered to us. Platforms like Steam are quite bluntly the future, albeit a future which is happening right now. For the first time small developers with intriguing ideas have a multitude of appropriate platforms offering a range of content and services that we can purchase from anywhere at any time. Our choices are now practically infinite, with platforms like PSN, XBLA, Nintendo Download, iPhone apps, the independent Penny-Arcade-founded Greenhouse and coming soon, OnLive a service which will stream state of the art games to your wheezing laptop, to name a few. This shit is, if you will, completely off the hook.

[jammy2211]

I've skimmed the last page of argument because it's another stupid one. Jammy, your argument of 'memorable moments' is a purely subjective one. you may have less memorable moments simply because you have aged, seen more TV, more films, read more books, learned more about all sorts of subjects. To me the N64 was the ultimate memory manufacturer - but that was due to the time and place that I was in. There's no way that I can say that this generation is poorer than previous generations. I've spent more on games, played more games, invested more hours and therefore enjoyed myself for more hours this time round. Nostalgia holds you back, bro.

 

I was never putting forward an argument, just expressing my feelings (Hence why I started the whole post with 'I think').

 

I'm well aware of the many reasons that could be, but it's still how I currently feel about gaming and how i feel about this generation. Whether or not there is a bias in me or I've just played too many games - it's still a part of my feelings towards this generation.

 

I viewed this thread more as a discussion then a debate, no ones claiming to be right, I'm just interested what other peoples take on this type of stuff is.

[jayseven]

in that case, sorry if I offended you I very much prescribe to the school of thought that was mentioned in the post above yours; we've been blessed with a console runtime that seems to be twice as long as previous generations. My favourite console before the 360 was the N64 - it produced so many gems that, while the PS was big-mouthing its thousand-game catalogue, managed to provide a higher standard of consistency.

 

However, this generation really pushed gaming into the nation's living rooms while at the same time encouraging a higher standard for sequels and really utilising the tool that is online gaming. Smallware games have been given a larger platform to launch from with PSN, wiiware and xbla, and generally I think it's an exciting time to be a gamer.

 

One question we've not considered; having three big console manufacturers, admittedly for the third time, has really driven each one to consider their role and play to it. AND STUFF> WORDS ASOFHOSIFH

[jammy2211]

I suppose I just think being "blown away" by anything says more about the consumer than the product. If my mum plays Kinect she might come out the other side thinking of it as magic, but I'm going to be harder to impress as I've seen behind the curtain and can recognise the fairly rudimentary game design underneath. It seems you feel much the same way, but where we differ is I don't see it as a bad thing.

 

Knowledge of the field makes it less likely I'll be bowled over by something singular, but on the other hand it puts me in a position to appreciate the micro as well as the macro. The first time I saw Portal was a bit of a wow moment because it was so wildly different, but other games consistently impress me with smaller innovations: the chain-kill system in AC: Brotherhood completely changes the way combat encounters play out, despite ostensibly being a minor change. It all comes down to being in a position to appreciate smart design.

 

There's great ideas and quiet innovations everywhere, seeking those out is one of the things that keeps me so interested in games. And you still have titles like Braid around to subvert traditional thinking, they're just generally more prevalent in the lower risk download space before their ideas slowly trickle in to the biggest releases.

 

This is the generation of the hybrid, not the sequel. Mass Effect, the aforementioned Assassins's Creed, Borderlands and even CoD's multiplayer: this is the generation where genres aren't so important, where conventions converge to throw up new species not easily placed. It is a medium maturing, an audience growing and something that is neither better nor worse, merely different.

 

Don't get me wrong, I have a huge place in my heart for the little innovations, the small ideas, the easter eggs that can make a game something special. This generation has been better then any other for refinement and polishing, and the games as a whole nowadays are far more accomplished then even those releasing 7 or 8 years ago.

 

However in all my appreciation for this somewhere I long for something new or different, whereas you don't. I like this hybrid school of game design, but it's ultimately still just leading to the overall feel of things going stale.

 

I'm struggling to really put my feelings on this into words, maybe this is just what its like to start getting older .

 

in that case, sorry if I offended you I very much prescribe to the school of thought that was mentioned in the post above yours; we've been blessed with a console runtime that seems to be twice as long as previous generations. My favourite console before the 360 was the N64 - it produced so many gems that, while the PS was big-mouthing its thousand-game catalogue, managed to provide a higher standard of consistency.

 

However, this generation really pushed gaming into the nation's living rooms while at the same time encouraging a higher standard for sequels and really utilising the tool that is online gaming. Smallware games have been given a larger platform to launch from with PSN, wiiware and xbla, and generally I think it's an exciting time to be a gamer.

 

One question we've not considered; having three big console manufacturers, admittedly for the third time, has really driven each one to consider their role and play to it. AND STUFF> WORDS ASOFHOSIFH

This generation has been incredible and is still probably still my favourite of all - even with nostalgia tinted glasses. I could easily talk for hours about all the brilliant stuff that has come with it.

 

Just with all the brilliant stuff that is coming from it, I have that one little niggle in the back of my mind, and the OP seemed to feel roughly the same. It's an interesting discussion to see how others feel about it, hopefully i can get some clarity on my thoughts from it .

 

in that case, sorry if I offended you I very much prescribe to the school of thought that was mentioned in the post above yours; we've been blessed with a console runtime that seems to be twice as long as previous generations. My favourite console before the 360 was the N64 - it produced so many gems that, while the PS was big-mouthing its thousand-game catalogue, managed to provide a higher standard of consistency.

 

However, this generation really pushed gaming into the nation's living rooms while at the same time encouraging a higher standard for sequels and really utilising the tool that is online gaming. Smallware games have been given a larger platform to launch from with PSN, wiiware and xbla, and generally I think it's an exciting time to be a gamer.

 

One question we've not considered; having three big console manufacturers, admittedly for the third time, has really driven each one to consider their role and play to it. AND STUFF> WORDS ASOFHOSIFH

This generation has been incredible and is still probably still my favourite of all - even with nostalgia tinted glasses. I could easily talk for hours about all the brilliant stuff that has come with it.

 

Just with all the brilliant stuff that is coming from it, I have that one little niggle in the back of my mind, and the OP seemed to feel roughly the same. It's an interesting discussion to see how others feel about it, hopefully i can get some clarity on my thoughts from it .