gaming Why are all consoles after PS2 trash in general : I

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 42,202]

I currently own more games for Xbox One than I have had for any other system in my life on top of all the features that the system has. So, bleh. Despite the RROD the 360 was great as was the PS3 and the current console gen is pretty friggin' rad in my opinion.

 

Yeah, rad. I said that with passion. 

[TubeSock2018 325]

I like the Wii.

And so far I'm liking my Wii U

[A Black Circle 1,586]

HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHA

 

Sorry. The Jerktonium levels here are OFF. THE. PROVERBIAL. CHARTS!

 

There are *loads* of great games for the x360 released over its abnormally long lifespan. Try it out.

[Ziggy + Angel + Rain 11,306]

I never owned a PS2.  *Braces for the inevitable shock wave generated by the simultaneous gasps of everyone who did.*

 

Did the OP take handheld or portable consoles into consideration?  I've owned everything from a clunky ole Game Boy to the ill-fated Virtual Boy (I swear it was marketed as portable) to a Game Boy Advance to a DS to a 3DS to a...  You get the picture.  Handheld / portable gaming has been a part of my life for nearly as long as home console gaming has.  The DS and 3DS lines, specifically, came about after the PS2 system, did they not?  I've enjoyed both, and it's my understanding that Nintendo's portables have well outperformed their Wii U home console (in terms of unit and, presumably, software sales).  Yeah, I don't need a system to be "successful" in order to like it, but I hardly think that the DS / 3DS are widely considered "trash."

 

Admittedly, I'm generally fondest of older titles (you should see my Virtual Console library), but there's been something for me to enjoy on several consoles postdating the PS2.  I've enjoyed the Wii and Wii U, PS3 / PS4 to some extent (kinda fonder of the PS3, overall), and even the Xbox One (the first Microsoft console I've ever owned).  Sure, sometimes I want to turn my nose up at some of the crap that's passed off as entertainment in the video game industry nowadays, but there's usually something I can seek out and enjoy playing regardless of generation.

[Scrubbed user 3,417]

I think only 7th and 8th gen consoles were taken into account, not handhelds.

[Guest]

The length of some of them is the biggest problem. Old games had to use every trick in the programming book to squeeze them into there cartridge and/or disk. New Consoles should be able to blast old games out of the water in all regards and yet they don't because the people making the games waste all the fancy new technology (and disk/HD space) on making games look pretty over playable.

 

That is not true at all. Does it not occur to people that not every old game was good? Seriously go play Lester the Unlikely on the SNES, I assure you that even Star Wars Battlefront (2015) blows that out of the water.

 

There's probably only like 10% of old school games that actually stand up in terms of fun factor and play-ability today that new games have. We think about all the classics but we forget how many thousands of other games are trash and aged poorly. Like Chrono Trigger definitely stands up today as a great title, but there is no way that Ballz 3D can even compare to Fallout 4. Fallout 4 blows that shitty game out of the water.

 

I think when a game is so fun you want to play it again was the only way TO get replay value back in the day because we didn't have much space to work with. Now though developers can easily give us over 100 hours of gameplay and that's not necessarily a bad thing when done correctly. I have been clocking insane hours into Dying Light because there is so much to do in the game and the fun factor is there. I mean I've played Chrono Trigger 12 times and I can honestly say that even 100%ing the game does not give me as much time as I have clocked into Fallout 3. I think it's good that developers are trying to make the $60 we spend on a game be worth it.

 

 

 

I've owned everything from a clunky ole Game Boy to the ill-fated Virtual Boy (I swear it was marketed as portable) to a Game Boy Advance to a DS to a 3DS to a...  You get the picture.

 

Did you own any of the non-Nintendo handhelds by chance? I had all the Nintendo ones and some of the non-Nintendo ones. The Game Gear was super advanced for its time, but it ate batteries like a robot from the future. The PSP was actually an EXCELLENT handheld. With the balance of power under the hood, the ability to play PS1 and a good handful of titles (not as many as the DS) I'd say it was probably Sony's best handheld, and may end up being their only successful one.

 

 

 

The DS and 3DS lines, specifically, came about after the PS2 system, did they not?

 

The original DS came out like 6 months or so before the PS3 announcement.

 

 

 

Yeah, I don't need a system to be "successful" in order to like it, but I hardly think that the DS / 3DS are widely considered "trash."

 

Agreed! Every developer wanting to make a handheld game still looks to the 3DS or SMARTPHONES even over the Vita. I mean the 3DS's success actually doesn't even make sense and yet it is selling! I consider it impressive that a handheld with less power and features than a common smartphone can still compete in a smartphone market. Nintendo's brand still has value, and it still has a name that people recognize with quality and THAT is important in this market. That brand was build back in the days of old and it holds the same power today. The Wii U was a miss hit, but Nintendo's brand is still powerful and I think that alone is evidence that new consoles are not "trash".

 

 

 

Sure, sometimes I want to turn my nose up at some of the crap that's passed off as entertainment in the video game industry nowadays,

 

 

Agreed! There is a lot of crap that developers are trying to pass off to make a quick buck, but it gets shot down a lot fortunately. Gone are the days of buying a game for $60 and having the whole game without the need to spend anymore money.

[Shanks 10,817]

Agreed! Every developer wanting to make a handheld game still looks to the 3DS or SMARTPHONES even over the Vita. I mean the 3DS's success actually doesn't even make sense and yet it is selling! I consider it impressive that a handheld with less power and features than a common smartphone can still compete in a smartphone market.

How popular smarphone games are dosen't make a lot of sense to me actually, no matter how good a phone is phones tend to make crappy game controllers making cell phones only good for casual games and the various so called "free" games that scam people into giving them all their money through micro transactions. South Park explained it best.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4duJdeKTwHY

 

To be fair there are plenty of console games that are doing that too, but there are at least still some console games left that don't have that garbage while 90% of cell phone games are the textbook definition of that. I suppose the bottom line is a system is as good as its games which is something that has played out before, the Sega Gamegear portable was considerably more powerful than the original Gameboy yet that won out because the Gamegear had barely any games on it at all.

[Guest]

How popular smarphone games are dosen't make a lot of sense to me actually, no matter how good a phone is phones tend to make crappy game controllers making cell phones only good for casual games and the various so called "free" games that scam people into giving them all their money through micro transactions. South Park explained it best.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4duJdeKTwHY

 

To be fair there are plenty of console games that are doing that too, but there are at least still some console games left that don't have that garbage while 90% of cell phone games are the textbook definition of that. I suppose the bottom line is a system is as good as its games which is something that has played out before, the Sega Gamegear portable was considerably more powerful than the original Gameboy yet that won out because the Gamegear had barely any games on it at all.

 

While the smartphone market is still young and has a lot of major flaws, remember it's still a young market and it's a growing one. Candy Crush generated more money than all of Nintendo in a year. The market is here to stay whether people like it or not. Smartphones are more readily available to the point where Sony and Nintendo are already investing in them. It's more of a matter of "when" not a matter of "if". As  time goes on people will better understand the technology and start listening to the consumer base.

 

All it will "really" take for Smartphones to take off is someone to make a good controller than becomes the "universal" controller that everyone swears by and makes it comfortable and easy to use. After that it'll just take the right developers with the right mentality. I can promise you that if say Pokemon whatever version comes out on smartphones, people will buy it.

[Megas 28,095]

The PSP was actually an EXCELLENT handheld. With the balance of power under the hood, the ability to play PS1 and a good handful of titles (not as many as the DS) I'd say it was probably Sony's best handheld, and may end up being their only successful one.

 

 

PSP is easily one of my most favorite Handhelds ever(bumping heads with the 3DS). I'm still really sad neither it nor the Vita did much well outside of Japan, so many overlooked gems on those things

 

 

 

That is not true at all. Does it not occur to people that not every old game was good? Seriously go play Lester the Unlikely on the SNES, I assure you that even Star Wars Battlefront (2015) blows that out of the water.   There's probably only like 10% of old school games that actually stand up in terms of fun factor and play-ability today that new games have. We think about all the classics but we forget how many thousands of other games are trash and aged poorly. Like Chrono Trigger definitely stands up today as a great title, but there is no way that Ballz 3D can even compare to Fallout 4. Fallout 4 blows that shitty game out of the water.   I think when a game is so fun you want to play it again was the only way TO get replay value back in the day because we didn't have much space to work with. Now though developers can easily give us over 100 hours of gameplay and that's not necessarily a bad thing when done correctly. I have been clocking insane hours into Dying Light because there is so much to do in the game and the fun factor is there. I mean I've played Chrono Trigger 12 times and I can honestly say that even 100%ing the game does not give me as much time as I have clocked into Fallout 3. I think it's good that developers are trying to make the $60 we spend on a game be worth it.

 

When you think about it, the thing about a lot of older games, and a big reason why I don't think a lot of them don't hold up as well now, is because a lot of them relied on being insanely hard(or more accurately, being cheap) to increase the longevity and consumers would keep playing. When I play a lot of NES games now, apart from a few titles like Punch Out!, the Mario series and the Megaman series, I find my self getting annoyed and frustrated rather than actually having fun due to the games being unreasonably brutal. I like difficulty and challenge. But I don't like games repeatedly smashing my balls with a sledgehammer. By the time I made it to the 4th Gen consoles(SNES/Genesis) I found a lot of the games infinitely more fun and enjoyable. 

 

It may have acceptable back then, but with how gaming has advanced, the NES era is an era that I don't feel holds up well much, if at all. Games may be a lot easier now, but I'd argue that they are a ton more fun than a lot of games at the earlier times

Edited January 31, 2016 by Megas