Which Generation of Gaming is better?

[Creative 187]

Ok so nowadays the gaming generation is rapidly aging and is getting more advanced each year.

Gaming in todays day is more about graphics, while back then it was all about gameplay ( i.e. Dreamcast, Nintendo 64, Playstation 1 etc.)

I personally think mid to late 90s gaming was the golden age for video games.

Reason being is because games were just starting to release in 3d and the 8bit generation was ending

so it started to become a nice blend of graphics and gameplay in most cases.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tell me what generation you think is better and why in the post below.

 

[Discordian 6,015]

I can't agree with the sentiment that gaming is only about graphics these days. It's just as much about gameplay but graphics is the only thing that can make any major advancements with the technology we have. Gameplay and story aren't influenced as much by the advancement of gaming technology though great graphics can make both that much better.

 

Gameplay is getting a little better with games like Shadows of Mordor with it's Nemesis System and being able to remember little details like that. However, graphics and processing power can still make leaps and bounds.

 

What's more is I don't believe any generation before the 360 generation could get gameplay right. There's so many little restrictions that make the games worse than they could be and the limitation of what could be done graphically killed a lot of the story elements that could have been great.

 

I believe the greatest generation is the current one. And I don't necessarily mean the PS4/Xbone/Wii-U/Vita/3DS generation, I mean whatever the current generation is from here on out. There will always be improvements and what was good will stick around to add to the overall experience.

 

Video games get better and better every year. The only people who think games are shallow or dying are those unwilling to try games they've never heard of or branch out beyond the one or two consoles they happen to own. Gaming is bigger and better than ever and is heavily influenced by trends which is why we get more of one game in the popularity circle and less of another but with lesser-known games still trucking onward.

 

Especially with the advent of indie gaming. Today's indie developers are tomorrow's blockbusters. Indies tend to be some of the more creative games out there, if only because of the limitations they have placed on them so they are forced to make games that are interesting in unorthodox ways.

[Moonlight 7,286]

I prefer the newer generation of gaming, there's so many less limitations on the consoles/PC as a whole which allows for more complex graphic styles and gameplay. I have favorite games from every year but I've always found older games (90s and older) to actually be pretty boring and simple. From these past few years alone most of my favorite games have came out, all diverse, fun and interesting in their own ways. Even games that haven't been executed well this year have some damn fine ideas. 

 

In all honesty, things can only go up from here, especially with some recent game announcements that are set to come out in 2015 and beyond. 

[Otter 1,942]

No generation of gaming is better than any other. I would hazard a guess that the reason you enjoy mid to late '90s gaming so much is because that was what you grew up with. I grew up with the 6th and 7th generation of consoles (GameCube/PS2/Xbox and Wii/360/PS3), so in my opinion, that is the "best" generation of gaming. Objectively, though, it isn't. Every generation of gaming has its pros and cons. 

 

Also, gaming has never been "just about the gameplay". Ever since the 8- and 16-bit era when the NES/SNES and Genesis were sluggin' it out, there was always graphics and power comparisons. "Genesis does what Nintendon't." "Blast Processing." Have a look at this ad: "http://speckycdn.sdm.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/12-super-nintendo-double-magazine-spread.jpg" The 16-bit graphics capabilities are one of the first things touted in the advertisement. 

[Silver Letter 1,832]

I agree with the first post. Gaming was at its creative zenith during its golden age. The prominent consoles were the Nintendo 64 and PlayStation. Nothing can hope to compete with the experiences of that time. I even pity modern gamers. They are stuck with "Angry Birds", "Call of Duty (fill in the blank)", DRM, and micro-transactions (because why play when you can just pay?). While I had "Ocarina of Time", "Mario Kart 64" and many other famous titles. Games were about fun and challenge back then, not about an incomplete experience and hand holding nonsense. Gaming has becoming uncreative and restrictive. It's not the inspirational form of art it could have been.

[Andaasonsan 3,205]

Pretty much whatever the current gen is. The graphics get better and better and the selection is huge so if you can't find a good game then you're just not looking hard enough.

 

"Classic" games really do not age nearly as well as people seem to think.

 

Oh yeah, and we'd better crack these out for this thread:

 

Edited December 9, 2014 by Andaasonsan

[Discordian 6,015]

I agree with the first post. Gaming was at its creative zenith during its golden age. The prominent consoles were the Nintendo 64 and PlayStation. Nothing can hope to compete with the experiences of that time. I even pity modern gamers. They are stuck with "Angry Birds", "Call of Duty (fill in the blank)", DRM, and micro-transactions (because why play when you can just pay?). While I had "Ocarina of Time", "Mario Kart 64" and many other famous titles. Games were about fun and challenge back then, not about an incomplete experience and hand holding nonsense. Gaming has becoming uncreative and restrictive. It's not the inspirational form of art it could have been.

I see your list of modern games and I raise you:

 

Tales of Graces

The Saboteur

Anarchy Reigns

The Darkness

Metal Gear Rising

Dead Island

BlazBlue

Kameo: Elements of Power

Resident Evil 6

 

You really should expand your gaming library if the best you can come up with for why the current generation sucks is all the easiest targets that don't even represent gaming as a whole.

 

Incomplete experiences? I can think of three games ever that were legitimately released unfinished. Uncreative? If you're gonna say this try to at least not mention games that are more generic than the dozens of platformers the NES had on it.

[Otter 1,942]

I agree with the first post. Gaming was at its creative zenith during its golden age. The prominent consoles were the Nintendo 64 and PlayStation. Nothing can hope to compete with the experiences of that time. I even pity modern gamers. They are stuck with "Angry Birds", "Call of Duty (fill in the blank)", DRM, and micro-transactions (because why play when you can just pay?). While I had "Ocarina of Time", "Mario Kart 64" and many other famous titles. Games were about fun and challenge back then, not about an incomplete experience and hand holding nonsense. Gaming has becoming uncreative and restrictive. It's not the inspirational form of art it could have been.

I could just as easily cherry pick and make the exact opposite point you did. 

 

Gaming is at its creative zenith during its golden age. The prominent consoles are the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360. Nothing can hope to compete with the experiences of this time. I even pity old-school gamers. They are stuck with "Hydlide", "E.T. for Atari", endless derivative LJN movie-licensed games, and the bit wars (because it's obviously the bits that matter, nobody cares about gameplay, right?) While I have "Journey", "BioShock Infinite", and many other famous titles. Games are about fun and a challenge that was difficult yet fair, not about an insane difficulty curve that excluded almost everyone except for the super hardcore players. Gaming was uncreative and restrictive. It wasn't the inspirational form of art it has now become.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that you're looking for all the bad stuff in modern gaming and ignoring the good. Sure, DRM is annoying. Sites like GOG exist which sell DRM-free games. Some games have micro-transactions, but a lot of the best ones don't. Games have become more accessible to the common person. Different difficulty levels accommodate ALL sorts of players playing at ALL skill levels, not just the very dedicated gamers who used to have to dedicate a lot of time into learning to play and beat a game. Try playing Dark Souls or Super Meat Boy at the highest difficulty level, or try playing some of the later levels in Cloudberry Kingdom. Sure, a lot of modern games are easier than older games were, but there are still plenty of tough-as-nails games being made to this day. 

[Silver Letter 1,832]

 

 

Incomplete experiences? I can think of three games ever that were legitimately released unfinished.

I am referring to the concept of DLC and that games are not being given to gamers anymore as full experiences but people have to pay extra for it even if it's already on the disk or should have been like with day one DLC. With micro-transactions, this is becoming worse. DLC should not interfere with the game like it does with Dead Space or Assassin's Creed: Unity.

 

Another thing is that visuals and the spectacle of cinematics isn't simply getting upgraded but it eclipses gameplay in modern games. These people in charge, these movie director wannabees, want to create interactive movies such as in Call of Duty where the "gameplay" sometimes amounts to looking at a grey dot on the screen while explosions and horrific violence is all around. They won't want the player to interfere with what they created. That was not the case in the past. Gameplay was what games were created for.

 

Sure, some games stand out even today but there is fewer incentive to be creative in modern times. Every major game has the same ragged "white guy" as protagonist. Everything's the same. Whey not when all of this is being rewarded and games cost a billion dollars to make. Even then, don't forget that the best games ran well and played great. Today, even the most expensive games are riddled with glitches and bugs that sometimes break the game like AC: Unity. These companies are just too cheap, lazy, or unethical to do the work themselves to assure a complete and smooth product. Unlike games, real movies don't have actors fall through the floor or lose their heads or whatever. QA is now the player's job and quality has sunken to new lows ever since. At least the past companies had excuses like gaming was still a niche thing or they just didn't have the money or technology to ensure quality or perfection. They do now.

[Discordian 6,015]

I am referring to the concept of DLC and that games are not being given to gamers anymore as full experiences but people have to pay extra for it even if it's already on the disk or should have been like with day one DLC. With micro-transactions, this is becoming worse. DLC should not interfere with the game like it does with Dead Space or Assassin's Creed: Unity.

 

Another thing is that visuals and the spectacle of cinematics isn't simply getting upgraded but it eclipses gameplay in modern games. These people in charge, these movie director wannabees, want to create interactive movies such as in Call of Duty where the "gameplay" sometimes amounts to looking at a grey dot on the screen while explosions and horrific violence is all around. They won't want the player to interfere with what they created. That was not the case in the past. Gameplay was what games were created for.

 

Sure, some games stand out even today but there is fewer incentive to be creative in modern times. Every major game has the same ragged "white guy" as protagonist. Everything's the same. Whey not when all of this is being rewarded and games cost a billion dollars to make. Even then, don't forget that the best games ran well and played great. Today, even the most expensive games are riddled with glitches and bugs that sometimes break the game like AC: Unity. These companies are just too cheap, lazy, or unethical to do the work themselves to assure a complete and smooth product. Unlike games, real movies don't have actors fall through the floor or lose their heads or whatever. QA is now the player's job and quality has sunken to new lows ever since. At least the past companies had excuses like gaming was still a niche thing or they just didn't have the money or technology to ensure quality or perfection. They do now.

DLC as an idea is not a way for companies to release unfinished games. Almost always it's a way to expand a game's horizons. Even if the stuff is on the disc it's not necessarily complete and was scrapped late enough into development that they didn't bother removing it since they likely planned to finish it and release it later.

 

But DLC does not complete the game. It merely adds to a completed product. You can play every game without DLC and still get a full experience.

 

I don't know where you get the idea that graphics somehow get in the way of gameplay though. In nearly every game I've played the gameplay always comes first and if the gameplay is shallow it's because of a developer's lack of vision, not because they spent more time on the graphics.

 

Graphics have always, always been the forefront of gaming. Even back when all they had was 8-bit sprites they were putting everything they could into the graphics. The difference is that now they have the freedom to do what they want instead of being stuck in a limited space for everything from character sprites to moving platforms.

 

On the note of QA, you can't honestly expect the development process to advance without the chance to screw up to be larger. It's not that companies aren't doing the QA, it's that they do it differently than they did before. It's often been noted that a lot of developers make their games on PCs which runs their games perfectly but when it's released on other platforms unexpected bugs arise so they release patches to fix them.

 

And please don't tell me your entire scope is major games because even while your statement about them all being the same is questionable you're not considering every aspect of gaming.

 

I'll bet you that for every game you can name that has a "rugged white guy" as a main character, I can name one that doesn't. The idea that companies cut corners and just do everything like all the other companies is ill-conceived and extremely limited in scope.

 

You're regurgitating all of the same arguments I see on message boards every single day and every single one of them only really apply to a handful of games and developers. It's hardly evidence to why modern gaming is deteriorating.

[Andaasonsan 3,205]

Games are about fun and a challenge that was difficult yet fair, not about an insane difficulty curve that excluded almost everyone except for the super hardcore players.

lol, the good old days when games had to be insanely hard to give the illusion of content.

[GenderIsAnIllusion 2,177]

Today gaming is more of a social thing. Mpre value is being placed on graphics, online multiplayer than on story or gameplay,

 

Destiny is a prime example, with its rather shakey controls, and absolutely pitiful campaigne mode, it's just something I would steer clear of.

 

Another thing that bothers me is simply the cost of modern gaming. Today you have to have the console, games, controllers, and some sort of subscription service (not on nintendo), and on top of that, to get the complete story mode you may have to buy it in a DLC. It's all about sucking as many dollars possible out of gamers, instead of the art of game making.

 

Gaming for me peaked with the ps2, which is my second favorite system (behind the n64).

[Lisa 5,553]

I don't see any generation to be better. They seem pretty equal. The only thing I hate about todays generation of gaming is the constant bullshit bickering, drama and commotion in the community. People can't just shut up and play a game anymore. Everybody wants their opinion voiced out of how much they hate a game, and unfortunately the internet can allow this. It pisses me off to no end how these days when a game is released, everybody cries about how it's not up-to-standard when it's a perfectly fine game. Like Watch_Dogs. While it didn't look as good as it did at E3, it was still a fantastic game.

 

In older generations, I liked that people just enjoyed their games, and if they didn't like them, well they just would trade them in at the game store for another game. Simple as that.

Edited December 9, 2014 by Colour

[Envy 6,144]

I've always mainly been into Nintendo, so excuse me if I refer to the generations by Nintendo, and I've never even touched a Microsoft console so I can't speak of them.

 

I think that the N64 and GCN/PS2 generations were the best. However, I think that the newest generation - or at least as far as the Wii U/3DS goes - is shaping up to be much better than the last. The problem has now become me. It's clear that a game like Animal Crossing New Leaf is not only much better than any AC released last generation (although that isn't saying much, trust me), but also the best in the series altogether. But I still grew just as bored with it just as fast as I did with the Wii version, which was awful.

 

I guess I'm just growing out of video games... But I hope that this generation keeps the standards up for those who aren't.

[Malinter 3,064]

Resident Evil 6

 

That shouldn't even exist. Wesker suddenly as a son after they killed him in 5? how convienent for Capcom XD.

 

On the subject. I think the 90's were the best, simply because the limitations of technology forced both gamers and game makers to have abit more creativity and imagination. Of course this alone wouldn't stop some games from being awful or literally unplayable but the good games of this era are legends in their own right simply because they are so replayable, even if they seem incredibly simplistic to modern games. Look at Sonic The Hedgehog - its a classic platformer and yet all it consists of really are levels where you go left as fast as possible in 10 minutes or less. Simple but fun.

 

Some game companies tried to recreate this feeling (Even Sega themselves who seem to have forgotten how sonic's momentum worked in the mega-drive games XD), however because the push for "better graphics" as eaten to the gameplay aspect of gaming these days, these "retro" games end up looking the part but they don't act the part and just come off as a cheap game with cheap graphics.

 

Now as to more modern games, don't get me wrong, they look beautiful, the sounds, speed, colours. All good. But these things cost a shit ton of money, money they could have spent making more levels for you to play, a bigger story, more characters and choices and such. A modern game today can be completed more or less with in a week, a day even. Some older games took afar longer than that and had far more replayability.

 

We shouldn't have to go back to the 90's but companies need to stop pushing graphics on gamers and focus more on gameplay and the life span of the game instead of pushing for short games that last no time at all and exist purely to make equally short sequels. 

Edited December 9, 2014 by Shire Pony Malinter

[Banul 3,831]

I agree with the first post. Gaming was at its creative zenith during its golden age. The prominent consoles were the Nintendo 64 and PlayStation. Nothing can hope to compete with the experiences of that time. I even pity modern gamers. They are stuck with "Angry Birds", "Call of Duty (fill in the blank)", DRM, and micro-transactions (because why play when you can just pay?). While I had "Ocarina of Time", "Mario Kart 64" and many other famous titles. Games were about fun and challenge back then, not about an incomplete experience and hand holding nonsense. Gaming has becoming uncreative and restrictive. It's not the inspirational form of art it could have been.

 

If you think the only modern games are Call of Duty and Angry Birds, you're really missing out.

[Megas 27,569]

Can't say which one is better but I can definitely say that the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube and the PS1/N64 are my favorites.There have been a lot of things for me to worry about in the current gen and the last gen that I would otherwise be unpresent back then, and on top of that, most of my favorite games came out in those two generations.

 

That's not to say that those didn't have their ups and downs but imo they weren't as bad as it is now. There is a lot to like about the 360/PS3/Wii era, and the current gen has some cool ideas, but honestly aside from the Wii U/3DS, there hasn't been much that have impressed me(Xbone has come close though), and there have been a lot more things that have bugged me

[Discordian 6,015]

That shouldn't even exist. Wesker suddenly as a son after they killed him in 5? how convienent for Capcom XD.

Jake is only one part of the game and not even close to a reason the game shouldn't exist. The game is an absolute improvement on everything the franchise has stood on in the past from the old games to the new ones both in gameplay and story.

[GammaDove 428]

It's not a question that can be answered because there are ups and downs in each generation.

[Gernia 691]

I feel the best is during the late 90's and early 2000's with the innovations in gameplay and genres, plus they weren't as fixated on underhanded corporate tactics and a deluge of FPS games.

 

Also, gaming back in the day was about graphics, too, probably not as much, but people were pushing that facet.

[Ashen Pathfinder 16,161]

I'm sorry, but the notion that one generation of gaming is worse than another is completely unfounded. While I can understand the general view of gameplay over graphics, do not pretend that graphics weren't part of the equation during the old days. If you want perspective, my first gaming console was the NES and the Genesis & PS1 were my favorite overall.

 

Bad games, buggy games, and incomplete games exist in all generations and we'd be foolish to ignore that. Also, what's wrong with game that are relatively simple? Do games seriously have to be as difficult as Ninja Gaiden or, in my case, Solar Jetman? I love a good challenge in games, but not all games have to be freakin' Dark Souls.

 

All games are meant to be played for fun and/or challenge. I loved the old Sonic games, Captain Skyhawk, Castle/World of Illusion, Ecco the Dolphin alongside games like Spyro, Uncharted, Skyrim, Dragon Age, and Red Dead.

I feel the best is during the late 90's and early 2000's with the innovations in gameplay and genres, plus they weren't as fixated on underhanded corporate tactics and a deluge of FPS games.

 

Also, gaming back in the day was about graphics, too, probably not as much, but people were pushing that facet.

 

To be fair, back in the day, instead of FPS games, there was a deluge of 3D platformers.

 

And truth on the graphics bit; especially in the 16bit days. Blast Processing anyone? 64-bit Atari Jaguar?

[Moved to Elsewhere 11,331]

Well the first question should be where is the split between the classic era of gaming and modern era. In my opinion, the split is at the 7th generation of gaming since that's when consoles started to get hd and all the consoles stated getting a bunch of features. Sure, you could argue it starting in the 6th gen, where I think the ps4 started getting a DVD player but not all consoles at the time did. I personally think that gaming went downhill after the 6th gen though. Whenever I'm at school, save for a few exceptions the only game that a lot of people care about are mobile games and call of duty. Not all of the 7th and 8th gen was bad. Nintendo has actually kept a pretty consistent quality with their games. I always hear about how bad and terrible of companies Ubisoft and EA are. Don't have any comment on that.

Now that I think about it, there is no superior gaming generation.

[Megas 27,569]

To be fair, back in the day, instead of FPS games, there was a deluge of 3D platformers.

Honestly back developers back then were a lot more limited to the hardware they were using. Nowadays there's really no excuse

[Gernia 691]

I'm sorry, but the notion that one generation of gaming is worse than another is completely unfounded. While I can understand the general view of gameplay over graphics, do not pretend that graphics weren't part of the equation during the old days. If you want perspective, my first gaming console was the NES and the Genesis & PS1 were my favorite overall.

 

Bad games, buggy games, and incomplete games exist in all generations and we'd be foolish to ignore that. Also, what's wrong with game that are relatively simple? Do games seriously have to be as difficult as Ninja Gaiden or, in my case, Solar Jetman? I love a good challenge in games, but not all games have to be freakin' Dark Souls.

 

All games are meant to be played for fun and/or challenge. I loved the old Sonic games, Captain Skyhawk, Castle/World of Illusion, Ecco the Dolphin alongside games like Spyro, Uncharted, Skyrim, Dragon Age, and Red Dead.

 

To be fair, back in the day, instead of FPS games, there was a deluge of 3D platformers.

 

And truth on the graphics bit; especially in the 16bit days. Blast Processing anyone? 64-bit Atari Jaguar?

 

I recall there was a frequency with fighting games and RPGs as well, it just didn't seem quite as crazy as it is right now.

[Ashen Pathfinder 16,161]

Honestly back developers back then were a lot more limited to the hardware they were using. Nowadays there's really no excuse

 

That's not a good reason.

 

The technology at that time was complex in it's own right. Genesis games far out did those what the Intellivision could do, and the Intellivision was far more complex than the Magnavox Odyssey.

 

As such, games are MUCH more complex than they ever were and it doesn't matter what sort of hardware you're using. You have to expect there to be some issues; it's not something you can escape. For all the accolades that games like Skyrim get; it's not perfect in it's presentation.

I recall there was a frequency with fighting games and RPGs as well, it just didn't seem quite as crazy as it is right now.

 

You are correct. JRPGs were a MUCH bigger thing back then than they are now, and the fighting game craze was big too. Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter, Tekken, Virtua Fighter, Soul Blade, Dead or Alive, and so on,