This is the worst console gen of all time.

[WhatsHisFace]

Ninja Gaiden was an amazing FPS.

 

[XtromaniaK]

I especially liked the rocket launcher in its MP.

 

[cookiva]

Ninja Gaiden was an amazing FPS.

And Morrowind was the greatest Madden of all time.

 

[GFreeman]

dude da 1st XBOX only had 2 good games n they where both HALO.

You've just caused a total 180 in my political beliefs. The war on drugs must continue!

 

[XtromaniaK]

It's not drugs that have done this young man's mind in. It's that damn rap music.

 

[cookiva]

It's not drugs that have done this young man's mind in. It's that damn rap music.

And sex. And rap and sex together with drugs.

Or how spiderbale would put it,

o ya it s raap and droogs.

Not as funny as i thought it would be.

 

[GFreeman]

We're going to have to find out where Tupac's been hiding ever since he faked his death, and then kill him. We can't let this type of **** go unanswered.

 

[XtromaniaK]

And Biggie, too. We must summon him via mirror by saying "Biggie Smalls" three times and then kill him to prove a point.

 

[cookiva]

And Biggie, too. We must summon him via mirror by saying "Biggie Smalls" three times and then kill him to prove a point.

And get the xmas critters to rape his body.

 

[XtromaniaK]

Brilliant!

 

[GL1]

Wow. I hate all of you. Heh.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

I think this a pretty great generation. Last generation more lackluster to me, besides GTA what games came out that really reinvented anything? Most games offered pretty much the same thing with prettier graphics and better production values. Microsoft was working on online multiplayer and had it working really well, I think this gen is perfecting though and taking it to the next level with games like Call of Duty and Rainbow Six. Nintendo's doing something different and while the more "hardcore" gamers may not like it, it's definitely taking the stigma that video games are only for kids and nerds living in their parents basement away, while showing us how games will be controlled in the next gen (motion sensor will be standard next gen no doubt). 2 years and change into this gen and I think there are a lot more great games out than there were last gen or even the generation before that. Also we're just now getting to the point where developers really start to understand how to work with the systems and the time when the best games come out makes me pretty excited.

 

[WhatsHisFace]

Bump because the other discussion threads were closed for no good reason.

 

[XtromaniaK]

I have a feeling this therad will get closed too.

 

[GFreeman]

Haha, alright, NOBODY make Morg cry, thats apparently a no-no.

Anyways, I've read all the arguments, and some of you have 1 or 2 points, but I still stand by it, this console gen is terrible. The PS3 and 360 are devoting most of their muscle to making sure everything can be rendered in very high resolutions - despite the fact that most people can't even see those resolutions. So this gen doesn't have the graphical leap of last gen. The two big "types" of games, story-driven narrative experiences and fun-drive multi player experiences are both getting run into the ground by mushrooming development costs. Where before we could get 40 hour epics, we now get a 15 hour run, at most. Where before we were seeing some small innovations online, we're now just seeing the same clones of previously successful multiplayer models, over and over again. How many times can CTF really be played? The overall reliability of hardware has gone done dramatically since last gen IMO. Prices have gone up, while value has gone down thanks to shorter and shorter games as I mentioned. And the most innovative thing to speak of this gen, for most people, is something that isn't even innovative to begin with. We can now twitch left to move instead of moving the stick left to move. All the exact same franchises and genres we've been playing for 20+ years, controlled in a superficially different way are all this gen has to offer for innovation. I hope next gen is better, or the games industry's growth as a medium is going to stall big time.

 

[WhatsHisFace]

Haha, alright, NOBODY make Morg cry, thats apparently a no-no.

Anyways, I've read all the arguments, and some of you have 1 or 2 points, but I still stand by it, this console gen is terrible. The PS3 and 360 are devoting most of their muscle to making sure everything can be rendered in very high resolutions - despite the fact that most people can't even see those resolutions. So this gen doesn't have the graphical leap of last gen.

There is at least an improvement in draw-distance, on-screen characters and level size that can't be argued, in terms of graphical fidelity.

The two big "types" of games, story-driven narrative experiences and fun-drive multi player experiences are both getting run into the ground by mushrooming development costs. Where before we could get 40 hour epics, we now get a 15 hour run, at most.

When is the last time you played a 40-hour epic? Halo was an eight hour game. Perfect Dark was probably around seven hours. Obviously, Banjo and Mario games are longer, but that's only because you need to collect EVERYTHING in order to advance.

Where before we were seeing some small innovations online, we're now just seeing the same clones of previously successful multiplayer models, over and over again. How many times can CTF really be played? The overall reliability of hardware has gone done dramatically since last gen IMO.

PS2s broke due to bad lasers, PS1s broke too, where a solution was playing it UPSIDE DOWN.

Prices have gone up, while value has gone down thanks to shorter and shorter games as I mentioned. And the most innovative thing to speak of this gen, for most people, is something that isn't even innovative to begin with. We can now twitch left to move instead of moving the stick left to move. All the exact same franchises and genres we've been playing for 20+ years, controlled in a superficially different way are all this gen has to offer for innovation. I hope next gen is better, or the games industry's growth as a medium is going to stall big time.

Value has increased in multiplayer terms, but I agree... some SP games just underdeliver. I felt pretty ripped off by some N64 and Xbox 1 games though. The problem has always existed.

 

[XtromaniaK]

I agree that 6-7 hour games are the bane of the industry.

I don't pay $60 so I can play a game for a few hours and find myself at its abrupt end with a half-realized story.

 

[GFreeman]

There is at least an improvement in draw-distance, on-screen characters and level size that can't be argued, in terms of graphical fidelity.

Is there? I think GTAIV is supposed to have fewer loads when you go indoors. Thats the only example I can think of off the top of my head for all that next-gen muscle being used for anything other than resolutions that most of us can't see. Most games, when you play them on your TV and not when you're looking at bullshots on the internet, barely look better than Riddick or Ninja Gaiden, and this is on hardware thats supposed to be 5-10 times more powerful than it's predecessor. Big open Halo-style environments couldn't have been done on an N64. Shenmue wouldn't have been the same "wow" experience on the Saturn. I don't see that kind of advance now.

When is the last time you played a 40-hour epic? Halo was an eight hour game. Perfect Dark was probably around seven hours. Obviously, Banjo and Mario games are longer, but that's only because you need to collect EVERYTHING in order to advance.

It's been a while, and thats my point. I played Morrowind all summer and barely scratched the surface. I hadn't even been to Vivec 3 months after I first put the disc in. I saw everything there was to see in Oblivion in less than a month. KoTOR 1 and 2 both took me about 35 hours. Halo was about 10. As a matter of fact, almost everything was about 10 the first time through. Now, you're seeing games coming out that are barely 4 hours long like Gears or COD4, and whats worse, it's quickly becoming the norm.

PS2s broke due to bad lasers, PS1s broke too, where a solution was playing it UPSIDE DOWN.

It's not a question of whether or not they used to break, I know they did. It's a question of how often, and they are breaking WAY more often now than they did.

Value has increased in multiplayer terms, but I agree... some SP games just underdeliver. I felt pretty ripped off by some N64 and Xbox 1 games though. The problem has always existed.

The problem has existed in the sense that there were always some bad apples out there that you didn't want to spend money on. But now, it's different, it's not just a couple of bad games that are wastes of money, it's an industry standard of "we don't have the time and money anymore, so lets just half ass it".

 

[Devil May Cry]

This generation is indeed the worst. I play my PS2 the most out of any console and I haven't even scratched the surface of the system. The 360 and PS3 seem more like expansion packs of their predecessors. The Wii...the idea of it...just seems so very stupid. I enjoy playing it when friends are around but that's about it.

 

[WhatsHisFace]

Is there? I think GTAIV is supposed to have fewer loads when you go indoors. Thats the only example I can think of off the top of my head for all that next-gen muscle being used for anything other than resolutions that most of us can't see. Most games, when you play them on your TV and not when you're looking at bullshots on the internet, barely look better than Riddick or Ninja Gaiden, and this is on hardware thats supposed to be 5-10 times more powerful than it's predecessor. Big open Halo-style environments couldn't have been done on an N64. Shenmue wouldn't have been the same "wow" experience on the Saturn. I don't see that kind of advance now.

Kameo's battlefields (showing thousands of troops onscreen versus Kindom Under Fire's mere hundred), Oblivion's world-rendering (you can go to the northmost end of the map, and on a clear day, see the southern shore, versus Morrowinds ten-foot visibility into fog) Crackdown's building detail allowing for intricate building climbing/navigation, and Assassin's Creed's crowd rendering and mechanics all add to the games in a way that couldn't have succeeded on last-gen consoles.

It's been a while, and thats my point. I played Morrowind all summer and barely scratched the surface. I hadn't even been to Vivec 3 months after I first put the disc in. I saw everything there was to see in Oblivion in less than a month. KoTOR 1 and 2 both took me about 35 hours. Halo was about 10. As a matter of fact, almost everything was about 10 the first time through. Now, you're seeing games coming out that are barely 4 hours long like Gears or COD4, and whats worse, it's quickly becoming the norm.

Mass Effect and Bioshock are both 20+ hour games. The Darkness was at least ten. Assassin's Creed varies dramatically on how much you do, but outside of the cities, there is a HUGE Kingdom to explore... Overlord already seems longer than Fable and I don't even have all the mechanics unlocked yet, etc...

I think your problem is that you can't even play these games and you're basing this generation entirely on your dislike of Gears of War.

It's not a question of whether or not they used to break, I know they did. It's a question of how often, and they are breaking WAY more often now than they did.

The 360 had a design flaw that has now been resolved. Warranties are still in place, naturally.

The problem has existed in the sense that there were always some bad apples out there that you didn't want to spend money on. But now, it's different, it's not just a couple of bad games that are wastes of money, it's an industry standard of "we don't have the time and money anymore, so lets just half ass it".

Again, there are plenty of games that aren't half-assed, and there are a lot of upcoming games that look to be outstanding efforts. I really doubt Ninja Gaiden 2 is going to be a four hour game, and that Silicon Knights would go through all this trouble just to provide ten hours of Too Human. Alan Wake is going to be huge, Banjo Kazooie is a platformer and therefore HAS to be long. Halo Wars could potentially be a short RTS but it's Ensemble so I doubt it, and Fable 2 isn't going to be short with an entirely realized world. It's looking good.

 

[LexCorp]

Anyone else find this one really, really boring? Every other hyped game that manages to get released ends up sucking, the consoles all have too many issues, there's no big events or buyouts, and the biggest advances are a graphical enhancement that you can only notice on an HDTV and some tacked on gimmick controls. What the heck happened?

It is what you make it but yes I do feel that some games I want have yet to been released and it feels slower than any previous generation.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

Haha, alright, NOBODY make Morg cry, thats apparently a no-no.

Anyways, I've read all the arguments, and some of you have 1 or 2 points, but I still stand by it, this console gen is terrible. The PS3 and 360 are devoting most of their muscle to making sure everything can be rendered in very high resolutions - despite the fact that most people can't even see those resolutions. So this gen doesn't have the graphical leap of last gen.

HD TV's are becoming the standard though, 360 and PS3 are just getting a jump on things because they feel their audiences are probably the early adaptors of this new technology, which I think is a pretty sound assumption. Every console generation is devoted to making their games look better HD is the next step in that process, I can't understand how this is a negative for the console generation. Would you rather low resolution/PS2/X-Box graphics?

The two big "types" of games, story-driven narrative experiences and fun-drive multi player experiences are both getting run into the ground by mushrooming development costs. Where before we could get 40 hour epics, we now get a 15 hour run, at most.

Story driven epics are still incredibly long. Bioshock is 20 hours, all said and done, I'll probably have spent 20 hours playing Assassin's Creed, Obilivion is supposed to have 200 hours worth of gameplay Metroid and Zelda are both very long games. As for FPS' the SP modes have always been relatively short with a few exceptions.

Where before we were seeing some small innovations online, we're now just seeing the same clones of previously successful multiplayer models, over and over again. How many times can CTF really be played?

Well, with downloadable content adding levels, weapons, achievements, challenges, they're doing the best they can. With CoD4, one of the main reasons I got so addicted was because of the challenges, and leveling up, plus it's fun because you're playing against people with different styles and methods of playing, not AI that basically does the same thing every time.

The overall reliability of hardware has gone done dramatically since last gen IMO. Prices have gone up, while value has gone down thanks to shorter and shorter games as I mentioned.

Won't deny the hardware quality, but Microsoft did the best they could and are really serving the consumer well. Sure my X-Box might get the red lights, but I know I'll have a new one in 2 weeks. As for shorter games, that's relative, there's always short games, do a little research and you can avoid them and with the net that research is more readily available than ever.

And the most innovative thing to speak of this gen, for most people, is something that isn't even innovative to begin with. We can now twitch left to move instead of moving the stick left to move. All the exact same franchises and genres we've been playing for 20+ years, controlled in a superficially different way are all this gen has to offer for innovation. I hope next gen is better, or the games industry's growth as a medium is going to stall big time.

Was rumble really innovative when it came out? I didn't think so, but look at the backlash Sony got when they decided not to include in PS3 controllers. Motion sensor is here to stay, it will be the standard, Wii is showing the growing pains, some games the motion sensor feels tacked on, some it feels great like Metroid, there's a game that definitely benefitted from it, also Rayman Raving Rabbids, only console it was worth playing on was the Wii. Resident Evil 4 is another great example, a great game made even better with Wii control scheme.

 

[GFreeman]

Time for a book.

Kameo's battlefields (showing thousands of troops onscreen versus Kindom Under Fire's mere hundred), Oblivion's world-rendering (you can go to the northmost end of the map, and on a clear day, see the southern shore, versus Morrowinds ten-foot visibility into fog) Crackdown's building detail allowing for intricate building climbing/navigation, and Assassin's Creed's crowd rendering and mechanics all add to the games in a way that couldn't have succeeded on last-gen consoles.

Have you played Kameo? Until you get right up on them, those "thousands of troops" are moving in perfect sync, in groups of 25. It's not that impressive. And Oblivion's draw distance, in technical terms, and in gameplay terms, is no better than Morrowinds. What you're actually seeing when you see that "southern shore" is just a special skybox, the only way you're actually seeing improved draw distance is if you have the PC version and you download the necessary mods. Oblivion is still only rendering a few cells around you at a time. Crackdown didn't do anything that GTA wasn't doing years before, the only difference is that you can hulk jump now, so that didn't add anything. And Assassins' Creed's crowd stuff couldn't have been done...why? It's not terribly advanced. They mostly just wander around, bumping into each other. It couldn't have been done at the same resolutions, thats about it.

Mass Effect and Bioshock are both 20+ hour games. The Darkness was at least ten. Assassin's Creed varies dramatically on how much you do, but outside of the cities, there is a HUGE Kingdom to explore... Overlord already seems longer than Fable and I don't even have all the mechanics unlocked yet, etc...


I think your problem is that you can't even play these games and you're basing this generation entirely on your dislike of Gears of War.

I've played Mass Effect start to finish, it's about 15. Bioshock is just under 10, how you managed to squeeze 20+ out of that is beyond me, unless you just got really mesmerized by the water or something. Most games are short, plain and simple. Coming up with stuff like "well, if you spend several hours aimlessly wandering around doing pointless bull**** like seeing if you can reach the other end of town without touching the streets, then it's a 100 hour game!" doesn't cut it. And no, I can play these games, I'm not basing anything entirely on Gears of War, even though it's a prime example of why this gen is terrible.

The 360 had a design flaw that has now been resolved. Warranties are still in place, naturally.

I wish people would stop saying thats it's been resolved, because it hasn't. The new models are still getting RROD'd. And "warranties are still in place" has **** all to do with "these systems are still breaking, even when barely used".

Again, there are plenty of games that aren't half-assed, and there are a lot of upcoming games that look to be outstanding efforts. I really doubt Ninja Gaiden 2 is going to be a four hour game, and that Silicon Knights would go through all this trouble just to provide ten hours of Too Human. Alan Wake is going to be huge, Banjo Kazooie is a platformer and therefore HAS to be long. Halo Wars could potentially be a short RTS but it's Ensemble so I doubt it, and Fable 2 isn't going to be short with an entirely realized world. It's looking good.

Ninja Gaiden 2 is going to be short. Too Human will probably fall on it's face. Alan Wake, we don't know anything about that yet, saying that it won't be yet another 5 hour disappointment just because is kinda lame. Platformers have to be long...since when? Fable 2 is the same story as Fable 1, it'll be another mostly-linear action-RPG that takes about 10-12 hours at the most. It's not looking good. And even assuming that literally every game you mentioned manages to not be a short piece of ****, you've got what, 4, 5 games now? It doesn't change anything for the generation in general.

HD TV's are becoming the standard though, 360 and PS3 are just getting a jump on things because they feel their audiences are probably the early adaptors of this new technology, which I think is a pretty sound assumption. Every console generation is devoted to making their games look better HD is the next step in that process, I can't understand how this is a negative for the console generation. Would you rather low resolution/PS2/X-Box graphics?

Yes, because low resolution PS2/Xbox graphics are the only alternative. Really.

No, I would prefer that instead of system resources being wasted on something that mostly everyone can not benefit from, that they be used for something that they CAN benefit from. Forcing developers to waste resources on rendering in High-def because "it's teh future, zomg!1!" is insane. It's the future? Great. Force them into high-def sometime "in the future", not now, when most people aren't using it.

Story driven epics are still incredibly long. Bioshock is 20 hours, all said and done, I'll probably have spent 20 hours playing Assassin's Creed, Obilivion is supposed to have 200 hours worth of gameplay Metroid and Zelda are both very long games. As for FPS' the SP modes have always been relatively short with a few exceptions.

I wish people would stop pulling game lengths out of their ass. Bioshock is not 20 hours, at all, under any circumstances. You would have to spend a cumulative total of 10 hours just sitting around, doing literally nothing for that game to be 20 hours long. Same with Assassin's Creed. You spent 20 hours playing it? Great. It's a 10 hour game. If you spent a bunch of extra time replaying it, wandering around, doing nothing, screwing around, that doesn't really add to the games time. Same with Oblivion. It's a 200 hour game...if you walk everywhere, and spend enormous amounts of time doing absolutely nothing, throwing plates at people or something. Because if you just spend time playing through the content, even with the DLC, it's about 40-50 hours, compared to Morrowind which really was a 200 hour game on content alone.

Won't deny the hardware quality, but Microsoft did the best they could....

You can't be serious. No, they absolutely did not

Was rumble really innovative when it came out? I didn't think so, but look at the backlash Sony got when they decided not to include in PS3 controllers. Motion sensor is here to stay, it will be the standard, Wii is showing the growing pains, some games the motion sensor feels tacked on, some it feels great like Metroid, there's a game that definitely benefitted from it, also Rayman Raving Rabbids, only console it was worth playing on was the Wii. Resident Evil 4 is another great example, a great game made even better with Wii control scheme.

Annnnnnnd you just totally missed the point. No, rumble wasn't innovative. Neither is the Wiimote. It's like a guy driving with two hands on the steering wheel, and one day, he suddenly decides to reposition his hands 1 inch below their previous position. Did it fundamentally change anything? No, it's just a superficial alteration. The Wii is so innovative that it's featuring the same tired franchises and genres from 20 years ago, it's biggest launch game was a game that worked perfectly well on the Gamecube, and it's most looked forward too title is a roster change of another game that worked perfectly well on the Gamecube. It's just as "innovative" as rumble.

 

[XtromaniaK]

Fable 2 is the same story as Fable 1, it'll be another mostly-linear action-RPG that takes about 10-12 hours at the most. It's not looking good.

What the hell are you basing this off of? Assuming that you've actually ever even read the developer notes, or watched the video diaries, you'd know that they've even stated that they're trying to make it less linear/one-dimensional.

I know you have an irrational hatred of the first one, but please keep the bull**** to yourself when it's obvious you have no ****ing clue what you're talking about. The story hasn't even been revealed yet, but you claim it's going to be the exact same as Fable 1. I agree with some of the points you've made, but it becomes ridiculous when you criticize a game that you probably haven't even made the effort to follow.

 

[GFreeman]

What the hell are you basing this off of? Assuming that you've actually ever even read the developer notes, or watched the video diaries, you'd know that they've even stated that they're trying to make it less linear/one-dimensional.

I know you have an irrational hatred of the first one, but please keep the bull**** to yourself when it's obvious you have no ****ing clue what you're talking about. The story hasn't even been revealed yet, but you claim it's going to be the exact same as Fable 1. I agree with some of the points you've made, but it becomes ridiculous when you criticize a game that you probably haven't even made the effort to follow.

Yes, I have. I even posted the first one way back when in that Fable 2 hype thread I made. I defended Fable 2 to a bunch of people, I've followed it, the whole 9-yards. It's the same story as Fable 1, and by that I don't mean the narrative, I mean it's the same situation. They're selling Fable 2 the same way they did with Fable 1. I'd love to be proven wrong, I don't want another mediocre game, but there's no indication that they're going to change things up. This is a sequel to a well reviewed, multi-million seller, I really doubt they're going to make tons of sweeping changes.