By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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

Nate4Drake on 25 March 2015
RubberWhistleHistle said:
Nate4Drake said:
I don't agree at all because this Gen just started, and no comparison can be done with other Gen which already finished. Every console has to finish its life cycle before talking. PS4 just got Bloodborne, 2015 will be fantastic, then VR will come, and many other great games; just to make an example.

well, maybe i can see reserving judgement until 2015 is oficially over, but i said that its a fact, so i cant really go back on that now. 

I would wait the end of this Generation, probably 2021.     Now it's a bit too early.  Even the end of 2015 is so early.   Maybe you could say you are not satisfied from what you have seen so far.



”Every great dream begins with a dreamer. Always remember, you have within you the strength, the patience, and the passion to reach for the stars to change the world.”

Harriet Tubman.

Around the Network
RubberWhistleHistle on 25 March 2015
pokoko said:
RubberWhistleHistle said:

id hate to repeat myself, but i guess ill do it for you since you took the time to find those pictures. of course shitty games get released every generation, but what im saying is that there are always advancements in every generation, but in this generation there are none at all. nothing is progressing at all anymore. in fact, we are going backwards, releasing things that have already been released. i swear, i have said this like four times.

And it still means nothing at all.  It's just you looking for something to complain about.  New games are being made.  Remasters do not affect that.  All they do is to expand the library with quality content, which is never a bad thing.

It's like whining about War and Peace being reprinted.  Oh no, they're reprinting classic books instead of writing new ones!  That's horrible!  Greed!  Know what else?  I saw a rerun on television the other day.  That must eat you up inside.

That whole thing is laughable.

 

the only thing that is laughable is your ridiculous analogy. there are so many differences between the vg industry and the fucking.. book industry. my god. 

but anyway, why dont they literally just remaster every game that came out on the ps3 to the ps4. if they just focused on that the first year, ps4 would have an incredible library already. 



naruball on 25 March 2015

How come the title hasn't changed even though at least one mod is aware that it is false?

Also, isn't there a rule that a title cannot have a word in capitals?

Edit: Lastly, are we allowed to misuse any word we like? Or is it just the word "fact". Because from my experience, most of the times used here, it means "in my opinion".



RubberWhistleHistle on 25 March 2015
Barkley said:

pokoko said:

 New games are being made.  Remasters do not affect that.  All they do is to expand the library with quality content, which is never a bad thing.

It's like whining about War and Peace being reprinted.  Oh no, they're reprinting classic books instead of writing new ones!  That's horrible!  Greed!  Know what else?  I saw a rerun on television the other day.  That must eat you up inside.

That whole thing is laughable.

 

re-releasing movies on bluray is bad, they could be making new movies! LOL

Hate against remasters as if they take something away from us is ridiculous, implying they are a new notion and previous consoles especially the GBA weren't completely full of them either is ridiculous.

thats why i couldnt stand the gba. i didnt buy a gba to play snes games on it, yes that was out of control and annoying.



RubberWhistleHistle on 25 March 2015
naruball said:
How come the title hasn't changed even though at least one mod is aware that it is false?

Also, isn't there a rule that a title cannot have a word in capitals?


wow, you would grasp at anything to silence this discussion, wont you? 



Around the Network
Mike_L on 25 March 2015
RubberWhistleHistle said:

in fact, we are going backwards, releasing things that have already been released. i swear, i have said this like four times.

You clearly haven't read these 2 posts from Shadow1980 and Conina. I'd recommend you do so. It might make you a little less narrow minded.

 

Shadow1980 said:

I don't get the ire towards cross-gen games. They were fairly common back in the early days of the seventh generation as well, with the 360 getting many games that were also available on PS2 and/or Xbox, including:

Need For Speed: Most Wanted
Tony Hawk's American Wasteland
Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter
Battlefield 2: Modern Combat
Just Cause
Far Cry Instincts
Tomb Raider: Legend
Blazing Angels
X-Men: The Official Game
Hitman: Blood Money
CoD 3
Splinter Cell: Double Agent
Burnout Revenge
Test Drive Unlimited
Marvel Ultimate Alliance
Tony Hawk Project 8
Smackdown vs. Raw '07
Superman Returns
Need For Speed Carbon
Final Fantasy XI
Crash of the Titans
Need For Speed: Pro Street

And all the common sports games as well as a number of tie-in games based on movies and whatnot besides the ones listed above.

So, nothing new under the sun. Third parties aren't terribly keen on immediately switching from one system to another as there's still money to be made selling games on last-gen systems, and given the nature of gaming hardware in the 21st century, cross-gen games are an easier way of supporting two generations at the same time. Whether it was the over 100 million PS2's in homes in '06 or the over 160 million 360s & PS3s out there today, that represents a lot customers out there that still haven't transitioned to the newer systems. Once the newer systems get better install bases we see developers gradually drop support for older systems, and we're seeing that already this year. After perusing the list of upcoming 2015 games on Wikipedia, I'm seeing only 8 or 9 notable or semi-notable retail-release games coming to last-gen systems, a significant drop-off from last year. There's more and more games being released on current-gen systems only.

Now, I will say that I have played a couple of cross-gen games on both last-gen and current-gen, and the current-gen versions were by far the superior versions. For example, the 360 version of Destiny was just dreadful to look at and play after playing the very pretty PS4 version, so I don't buy the "it doesn't make a difference" argument. Resolution, performance, and various subtle and not-so-subtle graphical effects make a big difference. I don't feel put off at all by the several cross-gen games I bought, and I feel I was better off buying the current-gen versions. Yes, I do want more current-gen-only games as they're better able to take advantage of the newer hardware, but I'm not going to feel ripped off by the existence of cross-gen games in the first year or two. If you don't like cross-gen games, then maybe being an early adopter isn't a great idea. Wait until it gets enough current-gen games to pique your interest, then buy one. The price may even have gone down by then.

 

Conina said:

The PS4 launch is 16 months ago... only ONE of these listed games was released in the same time frame since PS3 launch, two of them were released in year 5.

  • MGS 4 = 20 months after PS3 launch
  • Heavy Rain = 40 months after PS3 launch
  • God of War 3 = 41 months after PS3 launch
  • Killzone 2 = 28 months after PS3 launch
  • LittleBigPlanet 1 = 23 months after PS3 launch
  • LittleBigPlanet 2 = 51 months after PS3 launch
  • Uncharted 1 = 11 months after PS3 launch
  • Uncharted 2 = 35 months after PS3 launch
  • Uncharted 3 = 60 months after PS3 launch

And if Heavy Rain counts as "Sony's First-Party-Exclusive"... what has happened to quality games the Sony published in 2006 and 2007?

Genji: Days of Blade (Metascore 55), Untold Legends: Dark Kingdom (Metascore 58) and Lair (Metascore 53)?

 

There are at least as many great games 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.



Emperorbach on 25 March 2015
pokoko said:
RubberWhistleHistle said:


lol what did i revise? at what other point did this industry live off the backs of games that came out in years prior? at what other time were games being divided and sold in pieces to maximize profit? its pretty clear.. previous generations saw advancements in gameplay mechanics. we dont see things like that anymore.  here is no need to revise any history to see it. all you have to do is look at it.

Why didn't you mention the way Nintendo was crushing developers during the NES days?  When they'd make them pay to manufacture their games THEN they'd limit production to protect Nintendo titles?  Developers weren't making as much as they could because Nintendo would not print enough to meet demand.  Studios were going out of business for NO REASON and Nintendo did not care.  On top of that, any game had to be a Nintendo exclusive for 2 years.  Nintendo of that period was the most cut-throat and greedy company video-gaming has ever seen, far worse and the EA and Activision of today.  They did their best to create and maintain a monopoly and, had Sega and others not come along to disrupt that, it would have ruined gaming.

As for the "Nintendo Seal of Quality" you will probably reference, it had nothing to do with games being worth a damn.  It just meant people paid Nintendo and there was a base-level code check.

Like it or not, the NES and SNES era produced many of the worst games ever made.  If there was a TV show or product character that appealed to kids then they probably had a game.  The amount of garbage games being produced back then was staggering.  At least today people can find out about a game before they buy it.

And you're making the past out to be some kind of paradise where greed did not exist?  This might be the first and last time I ever use this acronym but, "lol".


YOU NEED TO MAKE A THREAD ABOUT THE GOOD AND BAD NINTENDO DID TO GAMING WHILE SAVING IT !! people need to know



naruball on 25 March 2015
RubberWhistleHistle said:
naruball said:
How come the title hasn't changed even though at least one mod is aware that it is false?

Also, isn't there a rule that a title cannot have a word in capitals?


wow, you would grasp at anything to silence this discussion, wont you? 

I don't know, man. I thought that since we have some rules, we may as well follow them. Fuck me, right?



Barkley on 25 March 2015

The staff needed to remaster a game is very small compared to that needed to create a whole new game. They don't need designers, they don't need concept artists, they don't need to write stories, they don't need voice actors, or motion cap or the majority of the time even animators.

Games are in the design and concept stage sometimes longer than the actual programming and graphic design, if you think that remasters reduce the amount of games we get, you are terribly wrong. If anything is reducing the amount of games we have it's the increased standards, especially when it comes to graphical quality.


Remasters are not a problem, remasters are not taking anything away or preventing anything at all.



Tachikoma on 25 March 2015
RubberWhistleHistle said:
Tachikoma said:

The figure isn't even 10% and propositioning a non realistic situation does not help your argument or change that you are peddling opinion as fact, like usual.


propositioning an unrealistic situation like that demonstrates that there is a personal line that people have where they would be irritated if that many releases were remasters.  

Yet, were nowhere near that theoretical line, so your point is entirely moot and you're delibrately meandering to avoid the ultimate conclusion.

Namely, the thread is based on opinion, not fact.