What if I told you that I find The Order to be more interesting than most of the things this generation has spawned so far?

Cross-gen games aren't terrible, especially when last-gen versions seem to exist to check off a box. (See the horrendous PS3/360 versions of Shadow of Mordor.) But their existence does create an excuse to not upgrade, and when one of the devs of Far Cry 4 says building that game with last gen in mind ultimately hurt it (http://www.dsogaming.com/news/ubisoft-dev-admits-that-far-cry-4-suffered-from-cross-generation-development-decisions/), it lends some credence.

Off-topic: wow, that list of 6th-7th crossgen games is awful. A parade of shame, it is.

I was being sarcastic =P, I'm part of the PC userbase like you are and was making a jest at the myth that PC gaming is dying and how PC gaming somehow isn't important when it matters but is when it's time to get critical of it which was why I made the original quote.

I actually can't wait till I get my new parts, then I can grab Cities Skylines, play Ground Zeroes, Alien Isolation, Shadow of Mordor, Nazi zombie trilogy and MGSV PP.

This post sums it all up for me. I don't know why people think cross gen is new. All the bigger games tend to do it. I loved the 360 "cross gen" titles too as they tended to be 60fps as well as being higher resolution. Burnout Revenge was so much better on the 360 than PS2 and XB that it was practically a new game. We're getting that now too IMO, it's just that they are coming to 2 current gen platforms rather than 1.

This is what I'm trying to say but I couldn't hit the nail as precise as you. There are at least as many great games as in other gens' early years and as you show cross-gen games aren't something new. I fully understand some people's lack of incentive to upgrade if they can play all the games they're interested in on their last gen consoles but I already have a PS4 + Wii U and my enjoyment of a certain game isn't the slightest affected by the game being cross-gen or not.

Again if the lack of current gen only games is the real complaint Gamespot's article/title should reflect that.

The video isn't complaining about a lack of next-gen exclusive titles. He actually mentioned two cross-gen titles as examples of games he wishes there were more of. He's not even really complaining about the QUALITY of the titles. He's talking about two things: the unreliability of release dates for big titles, and the lack of GROUND BREAKING, GENRE DEFINING titles.

Like how Dead Rising and Just Cause introduced new scale and openness to previously enclosed, small genres like zombie horror and action shooter games. How games like CoD4 and Halo 4 redefined first person shooters for a new generation (I suspect he was mostly referring to multiplayer). How Gears of War pretty much revolutionized how third person shooters would play.

I mean, I never played games like these before I played them on my Xbox 360. I never played an open world zombie game or a game with Halo 3's level of multiplayer (which blew what Halo 2 did out of the water) or pretty much ANYTHING like Gears of War before GoW came out.

He's mentioned a few titles like Titanfall and Shadow of Mordor as games this gen that did that, so he's not saying there's a dearth either. There just aren't enough.

Yeah, I never said journalists are above criticism. I never said it was a dev's job to cater specifically to the taste of one person. I don't really know what you mean by "a journalist should take these things into account," because...a games journalist can judge a game by no one else's tastes but his own.

I wouldn't say his argument had no substance, but that's not really the point here. I was saying that this other person was criticizing a journalist for essentially doing his job.

This guy isn't making you watch his videos. No one is saying you have to care. I'm not saying that. Frankly, I'm beginning to wonder why I'm even writing this because you seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying. I guess it's because I'm hoping that with this one, maybe we'll be on the same page?

I will say it again: it is ridiculous to say no one should voice their opinion on a game unless they make games. It is ridiculous to expect them to engage in game design, when their duty is to comment and inform, not design. Leave game design and speculative game design articles to people who actually design games.

Roger Ebert never made a movie, but he was still one of the most respected movie critics when he was around. Most movie, television, music and movie critics HAVE never and WILL never make anything in the fields they cover. Now, I'll admit that comparing Roger Ebert to a GameSpot british video guy is ludicrous, but in the end I hope that makes the basic idea of what I am saying clear. I'm not defending the quality of the video (though I do think its basic premise is correct: outside of Nintendo this generation has been pretty slow and disappointing so far), just his right to say it without having to design his own game first.

Wii U?

These days, originality is getting more and more elusive. Everything (hyperbole) has been done already.  It will take time before this guy's standards are met.

As for me, I'm enjoying the hell out of this generation (best so far IMO).

Sorry but what do you mean by offer?

A rewind to 2008 had me realize that the majority of Great Console Games from the early 7th gen weren't console games.

Bioshock, The Orange Box (Portal was the only new title in the collection), Mass Effect were PC games. Assassin's Creed, marketed as a console game, but on PC 5 months after debut. Gears of War, also on PC 7th months after debut.

For the sake of argument, call Gears (2006) a console game that unquestionably qualifies as a Great Console Game.

Call of Duty 4, unquestionably a PC game with console versions, but irrelevant because it was not a new franchise even though it could arguably considered a reboot. It's still Call of Duty "4"

The PS3 had Uncharted, Heavenly Sword, Resistance Fall of Man. Heavenly Sword was a dead end franchise (no sequel, no franchise); hardly considered a Great Console Game defining the 7th gen. Resistance received its due, but saw early success mainly due to lack of competition (no games on the PS3 in 2007? Play Resistance: FoM). Motor Storm also saw sequels, but similarly, is unlikely to show up in the 8th gen.

It's a hard sell to say that Resistance or Motor Storm were Great Console Games.

So we are left with Uncharted as the only enduring new franchise in Playstation Land released in the second year of the 7th gen.

8th gen has Titanfall (sequel in development), Destiny (Bungie will make it a franchise), Watch Dogs, The Order (almost guaranteed a sequel given the R&D that went into setting up the game engine and game universe), Sunset Overdrive (may have suffered commercially due to being an exclusive on the smaller marketshare platform).

None of these budding franchises are being predicted as ones to cross into the 9th generation (a decent marker for the impact of a new franchise) even if they do see sequels, but all I'm really counting from the 7th gen as of this time frame (2008, second year of generation, 3rd year for XB360, but Gears was released in 2006, the 2nd year on the market) is Gears of War and Uncharted.

Granted, two of the best franchises to come out of the 7th gen (three games from each franchise in one hardware generation is almost unprecedented), but when I think of 2008, it's a myth that the 7th gen had all kinds of Great Console Games. Lots of sequels from existing franchises. Lots of cross platform games that were also for PC; no console required.

I don't know if I'm the only one seeing this, but about the only complaint that can be made about the 8th gen is that we haven't seen this generation's equivalent of Gears of War and Uncharted.

That hardly makes it a big disappointment, much less a failure.