Which Generation of Gaming is better?

[Gernia 691]

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,

 

I know SNK alone has made five different fighting game series itself, mostly in the 90's. Admittedly this contradicts my original point, but I would much rather have zillions of games from a genre that like fighting games since they require far more skill imo.

[Ashen Pathfinder 16,161]

I know SNK alone has made five different fighting game series itself, mostly in the 90's. Admittedly this contradicts my original point, but I would much rather have zillions of games from a genre that like fighting games since they require far more skill imo.

 

Well, I wouldn't go that far.

 

A deluge of JRPGs, FPS', fighters, and platformers all share a few common traits:

 

1. There will be great games.

 

2. There will be sub-par games

 

3. There will be mediocre games.

 

4. They all take skill; that depends on the person playing them.

 

Honestly, I could say that the platformers take less skill, but I have to argue that saying something like that is a bit unfair. You see, I'm not THAT great at the FPS genre. Sure, I can beat Bioshock Infinite on normal difficulty and not have too many problems with most of the games, but to really play the FPS and to actually use the various weapons and secondary bits you have in an effective manner; that takes skill, IMO.

 

Honestly; I'd rather not have a deluge of any one genre. The deluge of collect-a-thon platformers kinda ruined my taste for the genre, and I'm thankful the gameplay was revamped with games like Ratchet & Clank.

[Discordian 6,015]

I actually should reword what I said about gameplay not getting any major advancements. It's not actually true that it hasn't made any. It's not necessarily due to technology (though that's part of it) but developers have really got a hold on what the big no-nos of gameplay are. They've nearly perfected hit-boxes, button delay and camera options so that playing a game doesn't feel like a chore just because pressing a button doesn't do exactly what you want it to. This started in the PS2 era but it wasn't until the PS3 era that it really became widespread.

 

There are also games with unique gameplay out there though they are a little few and far between. The World Ends With You is a prime example of developers trying something completely new with gameplay and if it weren't for the fact that it's so reliant on real-time multitasking I would consider it one of the best gameplay systems of all time. TWEWY's gameplay, as it is, wouldn't be possible without the DS' dual screens and touch pad.

 

Twenty years ago gameplay was extremely restricted one way or the other. Games like Resident Evil had to be put into a clunky-ass tank control scheme just so the character had a free range of movement but since people apparently liked that they didn't fix it even when they had the opportunity in newer games. It wasn't until Resident Evil 4 when they put the camera behind the character that the tank controls started to actually make sense. Then in Resident Evil 5 there was no reason to keep things that way but they did anyway and having the ability to dodge assigned to a QTE button wasn't helping things. It made the game harder than necessary. Come RE6 and you have the ability to dodge, no tank controls and quick shots...even the ReREmake that's coming out will have the option to turn off tank controls finally. Just in that series alone there were great improvements and the best of it coming from the most recent generation when the gameplay restrictions they had were no longer a thing.

 

I can name a bunch of franchises that were held back due to hardware restrictions and lack of insight by the developers but improved greatly over the years, particularly when they got to new generations.

[Sazama Ichida 2,367]

Debatable. After game companies took advantage of CD/DVD Technology games started having far superior graphics and gameplay to older games. Most older games DO have better stories and boss fights than newer games do though.

Edited December 9, 2014 by Asbel Lhant

[Cyberhoof 8]

I like the current age of gaming for different reasons then I liked the retro games. The magic isn't there anymore. I think that mostly has to do with each getting older and it's not as simple anymore were these world's were fantasy and I had my imagination and hope of the future causing me to be filled up with wonder at all the possibilities that could be achieved. Nowadays they are still fun but much like a stripper they no longer leave anything to the imagination aND have become more of a story telling device for a quick 3 to 4 hour escape rather than a true adventue. If I would have to choose I would prefer to relive those days as a kid were I would sit down in front of my TV with Wide eyes of amazement as I got to be the ninja turtles or Mario. But I know those days are over and I still play games for enjoyment as best I can.

[TenorSounds 832]

With games like Journey, the Dark Souls series, The Stanley Parable, Super Smash Bros, No Man's Sky...I'd say that the best generation is the current one. People who say "today's games are all about graphics and hand-holding" simply aren't playing the right games, in my opinion.
 

Games are getting more advanced and interesting with time. Take one of my above examples, No Man's Sky, for instance. I can't think of any game that has attempted what it is trying to do to the scale the it is doing it. I'll always love Sonic (well, the old Sonic) and Mario and whatnot, but they don't really come close to some of my favorite gaming moments in recent memory.

Edited December 9, 2014 by TenorSounds

[TheJLeeTeam 914]

I have to admit I don't think one generation of gaming is better than the other but I am less interested in video games. Personally this generation isn't impressing me as much as last gen but were still not done with it yet.

 

Also I really don't care about graphics so I'm okay if graphics on Nintendo systems aren't as good as the other systems. The 3DS and Wii U aren't as powerful compared to their competitors but at least they're a definite improvement over DS and Wii.

 

And if a certain game series becomes popular there's bound to be a lot of clones like there were a lot of FPS games after Halo and Call of Duty's success and a lot of party games after Wii Sports's success.

 

Considering that there are popular mobile games on tablets I really wish more of them were ported to Xbox's, Playstation's, and Nintendo's online services. It would be cool to have ports of mobile games on the eshop like Temple Run, Scoops, and Fruit Ninja on 3DS along with Mario, Zelda, etc.

 

Also a lot of older games from past generations are available on online services for example Nintendo has virtual console. They put old games up for download so you can play a classic game without having to find the old system. And companies make remakes of older games by making the graphics better and adding new features. I do go back to retro gaming from time to time because they remind me of my childhood and being in an old school arcade.

 

My favorite system this gen is the 3DS and last gen it was the DS because I like the library of those systems better than other ones.

Edited December 9, 2014 by TheJLeeTeam

[Cloud Strife 928]

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.

 

What do you mean not as fixated on underhanded corporate tactics? Nintendo screwed Sony over, and SEGA executives had tons of issues among their workers (it's why Sonic X-treme wasn't released, after all). Ryan Drummond was fired without being informed of it in the early 2000's. They've always been shady companies, it's just how forward they've been about their shadiness. Microsoft is definitely the most ballsy in that department (seriously, calling their consumers "sheep" was not a good idea at all), but that doesn't mean that the other companies are completely squeaky clean.

 

Also, as far as FPSes go, my issue isn't that we have so many FPSes but rather that all the FPSes are basically the same. If you've played one Call of Duty, you've played them all. That doesn't mean they're awful games, but rather that they're near copy-pastes of each other. When it comes to that deluge of platformers mentioned earlier, the difference there is the platformers each had something new to bring to the table. Sonic was a platformer, but you could never say he played exactly like Mario, nor Spyro.

 

 

 Most older games DO have better stories and boss fights than newer games do though.

 

I don't know, I wouldn't say Zelda's original story of just grabbing the Master Sword and defeating Ganon is more complex and thrilling than Skyward Sword's about a goddess who changed herself into a mortal to subtly guide Link to defeat Ganon's ancestor with the help of an actual living sword.

[Gernia 691]

What do you mean not as fixated on underhanded corporate tactics? Nintendo screwed Sony over, and SEGA executives had tons of issues among their workers (it's why Sonic X-treme wasn't released, after all). Ryan Drummond was fired without being informed of it in the early 2000's. They've always been shady companies, it's just how forward they've been about their shadiness. Microsoft is definitely the most ballsy in that department (seriously, calling their consumers "sheep" was not a good idea at all), but that doesn't mean that the other companies are completely squeaky clean.

 

A lot of bad DLC policies come to mind. On-disc DLC, having to buy the game's ending, over-priced DLC. Non-DLC things can involve games released unfinished and having Day 1 patches released to be installed, instead of a game simply being delayed so it can get finished.

[PoniesPlease 365]

I'm firmly of the opinion that, as the industry has boomed, so too has the need for financially lucrative games.

 

As hardware increases, so too are the limitations lessened on what we as designers can create. The only problem is that, as I mentioned earlier regarding money in games, developers are relying more on tried and true designs for their games, in turn, stifling their creativity.

 

My point being that newer generations have the benefit of better hardware, and thus more possibilities, but previous generations were truly creative in terms of the style of games being made. 

[Cloud Strife 928]

I'm firmly of the opinion that, as the industry has boomed, so too has the need for financially lucrative games.

 

As hardware increases, so too are the limitations lessened on what we as designers can create. The only problem is that, as I mentioned earlier regarding money in games, developers are relying more on tried and true designs for their games, in turn, stifling their creativity.

 

My point being that newer generations have the benefit of better hardware, and thus more possibilities, but previous generations were truly creative in terms of the style of games being made. 

 

I like to think the consumers are partly at fault for that (as, ultimately, video games are a business). Companies default to the tried and true because the tried and true (such as the countless Mario Kart sequels) make them more money. To some extent, the consumers are just as guilty as the companies themselves of stifling the creativity because creative, different games often earn them less.

[Draxon 214]

    First, let me start by saying that these were the first two games I ever played:

 

 

 

 

 

 

    These games were awesome at the time.  Would I still enjoy playing them?  Maybe for a minute or so.  But this is what was available on our computer which ran at 33MHz (or 45MHz if you pushed the "Turbo" button).

 

    Gaming has definitely come a long way since then, and developers have had a long time to discover what works and what doesn't work in the gaming industry.  So, it shouldn't be surprising that many modern games feel like great innovations and others feel like repetitions of countless other games.  Those games exist because the gaming industry has learned over the course of its history that they are generally successful, and are therefore likely to be profitable.  But the trend of releasing the same kind of game over and over has always been a part of the gaming industry.  As stated previously in this thread, there were an incredible amount of derivative platformers available in the early generations, as well as terrible video games based on movies (which is still a thing for some reason).

 

    However, games which fall under the derivative category can still be great because they are types of games which have proven to be successful in the past.  They do tend to get left in the dust once the latest iteration is released, though.  Great games which stand the test of time are made when a developer puts their heart into making the game something memorable.  These games can exist regardless of technological limitations.  Truly groundbreaking games are created when a developer decides to break convention and try something bold (and if they are successful).  These three varieties of games can be found in any of the generations, so I don't think there's a clear winner in that aspect of game design.

 

    Also, pricing for games back then was about as expensive as it is today (look up pricing adjusted for inflation), but I do have to admit that there seems to be more money traps now than there used to be.  There's a bit of controversy over the promotion of microtransactions in "freemium" games.  And no one should feel compelled to purchase DLCs to complete a story, or feel buyer's remorse when they purchase truly optional and disappointing content (damn you Horse Armor Pack!).  But then again, expansion packs did exist for many games like Diablo II, Starcraft, and the Command & Conquer series.

 

    So, I think that whichever is the "best" gaming generation is simply a matter of personal opinion, because roughly the same positive and negative trends have been present throughout gaming's history.  Personally, there are a lot of games from both the current generation and previous generations which I want to play, but I can't decide which generation is better.  So, with that, I'm going to play some of the MLP freemium game and follow it up with some Doom.

 

TL;DR: ALL THE GENERATIONS!

Edited December 10, 2014 by Draxon43

[NotoriousSMALL 1,984]

No generation of gaming is better than any other.

That's a lie. My dad was just telling me about this. He said a lot of the games on the atari SUCKED, some where fun, like warlords. But there were others that were super lame like E.T., or one where you were a stock market guy and it had little boards, but it didn't teach you that much about stocks.

[Ziggy + Angel + Rain 11,302]

Idunno 'bout better, since every gen has something to offer.  But the 8-bit and 16-bit generations (NES and SNES) are still my faves.  "Ohhh, 'tis purely because nostalgia goggles."  Nope.  Hard to long for something that I never lost. xD  I never stopped playing my favorite old school games, and I've even tried my hand at and enjoyed old school titles I missed as a kid.  Platforming, run n' gun, SHMUP...  I love these genres.  And those genres are seemingly represented in greater abundance when you head back in time.  I don't care for the majority of modern FPS games, and I'm not really an MMO guy.  I like mah enemies 2D and pixelated (and lobbing similarly pixelated fireballs), and I like my RPGs turn-based with squatty, superdeformed character graphics. xD  Not joking.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Ziggy Belongs to RD

[Twilight Dirac 721]

With the possible exception of the really early atari/intellivision generation, I think all generations of gaming have produced their share of both absolute crap and timeless classics.  The NES in particular had a parade of unplayable crap, but it also had the original Zelda, Mario 3, which I still consider the best Mario game of all time (and Mario 2 was awesome in its own right), and an excellent port of Ultima 4 to name a few games.  The best thing is most of these games are still playable and still hold up, and thanks to gog.com in particular many of them can be run on modern computers with a minimum of effort.  Among the games that have never been topped in my opinion are:

 

Mario 3

Ultimas 4-7

Master of Magic (which I have been playing recently)

Master of Orion 2

Alpha Centauri

Star Control 2

Baldur's Gate 2

Deus Ex (although Human Revolution comes darn close to topping it)

Final Fantasy 6

 

Most of these games are 1 to 2 decades old and are just as deep and complex as anything released today.  Which isn't to say that the current generation is bad.  If anything, there almost seems to be too many games out now, you can spend entire evenings just browsing the Steam catalogs.  Current generation games that I think will stand as timeless classics include Civilization V and X-Com: Enemy Unknown/Enemy Within, and maybe Planetside 2.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Twilight Dirac

[Kapitan zur See Hans (Daz) 883]

As much nostalgia as I have for consoles and games from the 90's(especially the N64), I much rather prefer gaming of today. Graphics are a major focus for games today and I think that is perfectly fine as long as other aspects of gaming are not sacrificed in order to progress such technology. In fact I would say that graphics is actually very important for games today as they can really add the immersion effect(immersion is one of the top things I look for in a game). Though even though graphics are such a huge aspect of gaming today I would not say that we have strayed away from other aspects of games, it is just there are so many now days it is hard to find the game that meets exactly what you want. I still find little gems hidden in steam as well as other places. I can't really say any generation is better, but as technology advances as well as what can be done in games I will always say that the newest is the best for that very reason.

[PoniesPlease 365]

I like to think the consumers are partly at fault for that (as, ultimately, video games are a business). Companies default to the tried and true because the tried and true (such as the countless Mario Kart sequels) make them more money. To some extent, the consumers are just as guilty as the companies themselves of stifling the creativity because creative, different games often earn them less.

 

I have to agree with you here. I don't want to go all 'Master Race', but the reason I play PC is so I can trawl through Steam and find neat (and more importantly, cheap) games that break the stereotypes perpetuated by the triple A part of the industry today.

[Snow Frostflame 3,568]

I liked the Gamecube the most growing up as a kid I even had an Xbox and PS2 at the time but I thought the Gamecube was better and it still has some of my favorite games to this day

[Tao 7,540]

Im a PS2 love in my gaming...

[~Sugar Sprinkles~ 638]

I think the generations with the Nintendo 64/ Playstation to the Gamecube/Playstation 2/ Xbox would be my favorite.

 

 

I do like the newer games and the newer generations, but I grew up with those above and I think the games they released were a lot funner and adventurous at the time. They made a lot of great games then. I really miss when the Gamecube was still getting new games being made, same as the ps2. Don't get me wrong, i love the new games, considering I have a 3DS and might be getting a Wii-U.

[Shanks 10,816]

Hard to say, every generation has its positives and negatives and alot of it boils down to personal taste and nostalgia but generally here is what I think.

 

Atari generation: It pretty much started it all, the games were very simple and graphics and sound were quite primitive especially by todays standards but simple dosen't necessarily mean bad. A lot of these games are actually quite addictive even if they may not have the complexity of many of todays games. On the negative end of things there was a flood of crappy games that caused the gaming crash of 83.

 

8 bit generation: Got us out of the gaming crash and introduced us to countless gaming staples such as Mario, Donkey Kong, Zelda ect with Nintendo clearly dominating. Sega had its master system around that same time but Sega would not be able to catch up to Nintendo until the Sega Genesis. Games could be saved for the first time with either password systems or in the case of Zelda an internal memory in the cartridge which allowed you to save your progress. It is something that is not a big deal today but was huge back then. One major problem with gaming during the time is that dust would get in the cartridges which would often cause people to blow into them to get them to work again which crossed over in the 16 bit era as well. Gaming was still relatively simple but markedly more complex than gaming during the previous generation.

 

16 bit generation: One of the most significant periods of innovation in gaming history, with Nintendo and Sega head to head to outdo each other it was one of the best times to be a gamer. Games became much more varied and graphics and sound became much more advanced with story taking a much larger role in many games. With games like Mortal Kombat on the rise "mature" games were for the first time getting mainstream market share. There were also innovations late in this period with 3D technology with the Super FX chip for the SNES pushing the boundaries of what it could do with the original Star Fox being the most notable example of this. 

 

32/64 bit generation: This was when Sega started to screw up but Nintendo was not entirely innocent of mistakes either. The Nintendo 64 was a great system but Nintendo's decision to stick to outdated cartridge technology limited what games could be ported to the Nintendo 64 and caused them to lose market share to Sony with their Playstation. Nintendo still released great games though like Super Mario 64 and Zelda Ocarina of time but for the first time Nintendo was starting to lose ground. Graphics became more important as the Playstations superior power was one of the reasons why it outsold the Nintendo 64 but despite this the Nintendo 64 games I mentioned as well as a few others are still to this day regarded as classics.

 

Playstation 2/Xbox and Gamecube generation: Sony kept up its success and Nintendo though it still made good games fell behind once again due to lack of 3rd party support. The polygons from the previous generation smoothed out 3D graphics became more clear and defined. Microsoft also threw its hat into the ring but with the exception of a few exclusives had mostly the same games as the Playstation 2 did. With this generation exclusives became less and less common and cross platform titles started to become the norm.

 

Playstation 3/Wii and Xbox 360 Generation: With a wide variety of downloadable titles both mainstream and indie, the Wii tapping into the casual gaming market and crossover titles once again being common it was another time to be a great gamer. Of course there were some negatives that are continuing into the current generation as well like unfinished/buggy games being released way before they should have been (Skyrim and Assassins Creed Unity I am looking at you guys), over reliance on micro transactions and downloadable content (a few bucks here and there can really add up) and DRM bullshit being a few.

 

That was my wall o text for the day I think I am going to get some dinner now.

[Sunny Shimmer 259]

I love all those old games and still play them to this day but playing a game at 60 frames per second instead of 30 frames per second is awesome. You can control your character better at 60fps. Feels like it responses better. Whichever generation is 60fps or above is the one I like the most.

[rainbowdashbrony1 130]

The better choice would have to be the GAMECUBE yeah sure the super nintendo has good graphics but nothing compared to the game cube.  Why because they remastered most of the childhood games I use to play on  the Super nintendo and made all the Megaman games better updated? But yes still plays that rainbooming retro style look and awesome bringing the classic sega game Sonic the hedge hog  fun stuff !

[ThatOneComrade 1,091]

None because we're all lazy and only use videogames to get away from our pitiful lives. As long as a game can do that, that's all that matters. 

[remove p l e a s e ? 800]

Personally, I think the PS2, XBOXC, and Gamecube.

For one thing, there was A LOT OF innovation that helped make standards. The PS2 had DVD compatibility, making it a good two-in-one system, DVD player and game system.

Even though the Dreamcast done it earlier, the XBOXC done internet gameplay better.

The Gamecube had an awesome processor. Seriously, it had great anti-aliasing.

Even video games themselves were getting impressive, like how Counter-Strike: Source introduced an engine that still stands up perfectly ten years later!

Also, there were a lot of ports of old games back then. So you can just play the old games on the newer one!

Edited December 13, 2014 by (MLG)xX_KILOBYTE_Xx