Quantcast
Opinion: 8th generation is the worst generation in video game history

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Opinion: 8th generation is the worst generation in video game history

outlawauron said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:

I think you'd be suprised how many people feel that way:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=185574&page=1

Geez. That's odd. SNES was a great console, but 4th gen was trash. One competitive console, crappy handhelds, and such small quantity of games releasing.

I can see a lot of good arguments for 6th generation, but 5th generation had a great amount of software but lacked so many great things coming from later generations.

Uh ... obviously you weren't gaming in the early 90s ... the SNES-Genesis console war was arguably the most fierce one the industry has seen, only one competetive console ... lol. The Genesis had many great games too and if anything Sony gets far too much credit, Sega really is the one that laid most of the ground work for the industry being aimed more at an older audience and changing how games were marketed. 



Around the Network

I believe this generation will be fine. Each generation surpasses the previous one in some form or way. Let's give this gen a little more time. Besides, games like Second Son, Bayonetta 2, Ori, and BloodBorne all have this gen. pointing.



" It has never been about acknowledgement when you achieve something. When you are acknowledged, then and only then can you achieve something. Always have your friends first to achieve your goals later." - OnlyForDisplay

A bit early to be saying that after only 1.5 and 2.5 years of 8th gen hardware and software. For me; the 7th gen is the worst generation by far.



End of 2016 hardware sales:

Wii U: 15 million. PS4: 54 million. One: 30 million. 3DS: 64.8 million. PSVita: 15.2 million.

Mummelmann said:
A bit early to be saying that after only 1.5 and 2.5 years of 8th gen hardware and software. For me; the 7th gen is the worst generation by far.

Truth.



Soundwave said:
outlawauron said:

Geez. That's odd. SNES was a great console, but 4th gen was trash. One competitive console, crappy handhelds, and such small quantity of games releasing.

I can see a lot of good arguments for 6th generation, but 5th generation had a great amount of software but lacked so many great things coming from later generations.

Uh ... obviously you weren't gaming in the early 90s ... the SNES-Genesis console war was arguably the most fierce one the industry has seen, only one competetive console ... lol. The Genesis had many great games too and if anything Sony gets far too much credit, Sega really is the one that laid most of the ground work for the industry being aimed more at an older audience and changing how games were marketed. 

And? Genesis is only relevant because it was Sega's last console that survived a console cycle. I think the reason why people feel this way is nostalgia. Nostalgia plays a bigger role  during this period because that's your first (and likely fondest) memories of video games. I started gaming at the end of the 4th, start of the 5th for reference.



Around the Network
DexInDaJungle said:
Jon-Erich said:
My only problem with remasters are the games that are getting remastered. I would have no issues if it were a game that was more than 5 years old, preferably a game that's 10 years old or older, but a game that came out a year or two ago? That's insane.


That seems to be the issue for most people. An HD remaster of a game that is already in HD doesn't make much sense to me.

Makes me wonder, if fans weren't so picky about resolution and FPS at the start of this generation, would we be seeing as many remasters.

Well it seems to me that people think a remaster of a game that is already in HD is an HD remaster, but it isn't, its simply a remaster with better resolution sometimes a higher body count, FPS, more foliage, better supported sound and just your general performance issues getting a fix up. While its true that some games might not 'need' that treatment (GoW3) there is definitely nothing wrong with releasing a better performing version of an amazing game. In the end if people want it they buy it.



PwerlvlAmy said:
This generation is last generation so far :O


With the exception of Type 0 I'm inclined to agree.



Lube Me Up

Darwinianevolution said:

Well, technically we could call generation 4.5 the worst, the "oddball generation" (Sega CD, 32X, Philips CD-i, Virtualboy...). No company was saved from financial disaster (Sega) or everlasting shame (Nintendo, Philips...).

But seriously, in my opinion the thing that has damaged this gen the most is the lack of backwards compatibility. And that's weird, because the 7th gen had that problems with that too (360 had no bc, only a couple of models of PS3 had bc, and the same for the DS...). The lack of backwards compatibility allowed companies to remake games with little cost, very fast developement periods and they could keep the price of the PS360 edition as new because it is new again. It just makes too much sense. Is it good for the companies? Yes. Is it bad for gamers? If those remasters are made to games barely two or three years old, yes. People say that it's just another option, and you don't have to buy them, and they're right. But allowing to play last-gen games on your current gen system would be giving even more options.

If you add that to the mindset and business practises of most publishers, the rise of mobile and its effect on handhelds and home consoles, the higher costs of game developement, the condition of most japanese publishers (Capcom is still in finantial problems, Konami is losing its most important developer, Sega is borderline bankrupt, Nintendo can't sell as many consoles as it wants, Sony has to take care of every other sector of its business...), the quick evolution of PC gaming that keeps leaving consoles behind on the specs aspect... It's no wonder most companies are just playing it safe and not releasing incredibly risky things.

I still defend that the PS3 and 360 could have lasted until 2017-2018. They may not be able to reach PC power, but I doubt that most games released on PS4-XBone couldn't work almost identical on last gen.


Heh.

 

 

OP: Premature, much?



outlawauron said:
Soundwave said:

Uh ... obviously you weren't gaming in the early 90s ... the SNES-Genesis console war was arguably the most fierce one the industry has seen, only one competetive console ... lol. The Genesis had many great games too and if anything Sony gets far too much credit, Sega really is the one that laid most of the ground work for the industry being aimed more at an older audience and changing how games were marketed. 

And? Genesis is only relevant because it was Sega's last console that survived a console cycle. I think the reason why people feel this way is nostalgia. Nostalgia plays a bigger role  during this period because that's your first (and likely fondest) memories of video games. I started gaming at the end of the 4th, start of the 5th for reference.

Sega Saturn?

The genisis had enough good games that made it worth owning. Was the only console my family had for the generation and we were happy. Would I call that generation the best ever? No but I'd put it above the 1st,2nd and 5th at least. Had I had a SNES I'd probably put it above the 3rd as well. You can't argue nostalgia for me, fist console I was playing on was an Atari, then the NES.



If you take out Wii U of this gen, yes it is the worst. Almost every game that comes out for PS4 or XB1 is overhyped and then it sucks.