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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - What was the best generation for Games (POLL)

kenzomatic on 13 March 2008
kenzomatic said:

What do you think was the best generation for Games?

These were the results.

2nd (atari 2600).....8%
3rd (NES)..............11%
4th (SNES)...........40%
5th (PS1)..............10%
6th (PS2)..............15%
7th (Wii)................16%

A little over 100 people voted and the result are from this site. 

Please also post.


 



"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."

Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable! You are a poor scientist. Especially if you think the moon landing was faked.

ioi + 1
Around the Network
Kasz216 on 13 March 2008
Garcian Smith said:
El Duderino said:
Garcian Smith said:
El Duderino said:
Garcian Smith said:
Anyone who says anything other than 6th or 7th is succumbing to nostalgia.

Hell no, you can´t say one generation is better just because it´s newer and more advanced... do you think we are better than our parents just because we have Ipods and interwebs ??? IMHO the Snes era did most for gaming, the different directions gaming went at that time was just incredible... the other generations are great but they would be nothing without the advances the Snes made...


You're confusing "most influential/revolutionary" with "best." Yeah, there were a lot of highly influential games made during the SNES era, but you also can't deny that the games that built upon those concepts in later generations are better.


YOU are confusing "best" (which btw. is hard to define) with more advance graphics, more dimensions and shiny colors... for me best IS influential and revolutionary...


Then you're defining "best" as something other than what "best" clearly means. Take a basic game - say, on the SNES - and layer a few new and interesting concepts on it, and improve the graphics and sound, and why exactly don't you end up with a better game than the original?

@ Kasz216: Seriously? I mean, I'm as big of an Earthbound fan as the next guy, but the SNES simply wasn't capable of many of the things that we see in modern RPGs. I mean, could the SNES handle something as complex as Vagrant Story, let alone a modern RPG like Oblivion?


I wasn't a fan of Vagrant story, honestly.

As good as Oblivion is gameplay wise, it completely lacks in story, world development, characterzation, general plot and a number of other things.

The increase of graphics and sound quality seems like it retards a number of other factors in the production of RPG. To me there isn't an RPG i've played that's come close to Earthbound, Chrono Trigger or the SNES Final Fantasys in just about anything aside from Graphics, sound and the occasional feature like progression of day and night.

Which is sad since the Final Fantasys and Chrono Trigger had remakes. The remakes just don't hold up though. I hate the new character designs and the PS1 versions were just inferior ports with some CGI in it.

Likely part of the case is do to the fact that I'm a fan of turn based games. Hence the earlier mention of SRPGs as well.

Tactics Ogre: Let Us Cling Together, is still the best SRPG i've ever played, most other games are copies that have oddly managed to make things worse in both gameplay and story.

At the end of the day, being able to do more things doesn't matter if you can't score the goal. 



Million on 13 March 2008
Onyxmeth said:

Chess cannot be improved upon. It's a bad analogy.

Secondly I was referring to the 1930's because of the Citizen Kane comment, not because it's when the ability to act actually began. I was wrong however since CK came out in 1941. I just IMDBed it.

When you remake a movie, you don't necessarily make it better. Sure the film quality can be better, and the sound can, but the performances will be different and I give you Psycho as an example. On the other hand a videogame remake like Resident Evil improved upon the first in every way and no one can deny that. It handled better because of new technology, looked better because of it, sounded better because of it, because there is no human inside of a game, just further advancing technology.

I understand those that want to give other eras, but it's based more on your own interest at the time than anything else. I was more interested in gaming from 1996-2000 so my favorite consoles are usually the Dreamcast, N64 and PS1 and their games but I don't believe their games are superior, I just loved gaming more back then.


Chess can be improved on , if the games strong points are it's difficult and it's tactical nature then chess could be made more difficult and tactical to play , this "improvment"may not be likable by some but it would still be that , an improvment.

 Let me present an analogy to demonstrate my main point using football . My favourite team in the premiership is Man Utd ( but for argument sake i'll use Liverpool) they have a amazing style of play , team work , record and they have execeptional players like Gerrard and Torres , because of this I love them , they're great in my mind they are the best. However when we apply the true defintion of the word "Best" Man Utd , Arsenal and Chelsea are all better teams as they have had comparably better seasons this year.

 People are using the defintion relativley to themselves that's where the problems arise.




Kasz216 on 13 March 2008
Onyxmeth said:

Chess cannot be improved upon. It's a bad analogy.

Secondly I was referring to the 1930's because of the Citizen Kane comment, not because it's when the ability to act actually began. I was wrong however since CK came out in 1941. I just IMDBed it.

When you remake a movie, you don't necessarily make it better. Sure the film quality can be better, and the sound can, but the performances will be different and I give you Psycho as an example. On the other hand a videogame remake like Resident Evil improved upon the first in every way and no one can deny that. It handled better because of new technology, looked better because of it, sounded better because of it, because there is no human inside of a game, just further advancing technology.

I understand those that want to give other eras, but it's based more on your own interest at the time than anything else. I was more interested in gaming from 1996-2000 so my favorite consoles are usually the Dreamcast, N64 and PS1 and their games but I don't believe their games are superior, I just loved gaming more back then.


I disagree... look at the recently remade Final Fantasy 4 for DS. Look how crappy the character designs and art direction are... amazingly way worse then the 2-D sprites were.

Often when your remake a game you do change things and often this ends up making the game worse then better.  There is the potential to make it better but the potential doesn't always translate into realization. 



Phendrana on 13 March 2008
Million said:
Onyxmeth said:

Chess cannot be improved upon. It's a bad analogy.

Secondly I was referring to the 1930's because of the Citizen Kane comment, not because it's when the ability to act actually began. I was wrong however since CK came out in 1941. I just IMDBed it.

When you remake a movie, you don't necessarily make it better. Sure the film quality can be better, and the sound can, but the performances will be different and I give you Psycho as an example. On the other hand a videogame remake like Resident Evil improved upon the first in every way and no one can deny that. It handled better because of new technology, looked better because of it, sounded better because of it, because there is no human inside of a game, just further advancing technology.

I understand those that want to give other eras, but it's based more on your own interest at the time than anything else. I was more interested in gaming from 1996-2000 so my favorite consoles are usually the Dreamcast, N64 and PS1 and their games but I don't believe their games are superior, I just loved gaming more back then.


Chess can be improved on , if the games strong points are it's difficult and it's tactical nature then chess could be made more difficult and tactical to play , this "improvment" may not be likable by some but it would still be that , an improvment.


Because 3D chess was such a smashing success.



Around the Network
Million on 13 March 2008
Phendrana said:
Million said:
Onyxmeth said:

Chess cannot be improved upon. It's a bad analogy.

Secondly I was referring to the 1930's because of the Citizen Kane comment, not because it's when the ability to act actually began. I was wrong however since CK came out in 1941. I just IMDBed it.

When you remake a movie, you don't necessarily make it better. Sure the film quality can be better, and the sound can, but the performances will be different and I give you Psycho as an example. On the other hand a videogame remake like Resident Evil improved upon the first in every way and no one can deny that. It handled better because of new technology, looked better because of it, sounded better because of it, because there is no human inside of a game, just further advancing technology.

I understand those that want to give other eras, but it's based more on your own interest at the time than anything else. I was more interested in gaming from 1996-2000 so my favorite consoles are usually the Dreamcast, N64 and PS1 and their games but I don't believe their games are superior, I just loved gaming more back then.


Chess can be improved on , if the games strong points are it's difficult and it's tactical nature then chess could be made more difficult and tactical to play , this "improvment" may not be likable by some but it would still be that , an improvment.


Because 3D chess was such a smashing success.


 Chess is a poor example for demonstrating your point , the majority of chess is played in RL ( and if it isn't you should find a friend and do so). I was speaking theoreticly , in practice changing the game of chess would make less enjoyable because it isn't the traditional chess that many know and love. But I'd still say a superior chess game could be created .




El Duderino on 13 March 2008
Garcian Smith said:
Faxanadu said:
there is no I in sarcasm

show me a game this gen that is more fun to play than secret of mana, chrono trigger, link to past, zombies ate neighbours or illusion of gaia. has nothing to do with nostalgia but with fun.

@ El Duderino: Nobody died and made me king of definitions; I just looked up the word "best" on dictionary.com and got, as a relevant definition: "1.of the highest quality, excellence, or standing: the best work; the best students." Nowhere in any of the definitions of "best" as an adjective will you find the words "influential" or "revolutionary," or any of their analogues.


 So does better graphics and sound equal higher quality ??? Or exellence ??? No not at all, whats quality and exelence in a videogame ??? Whatever it is I doubt you couldn´t find it in the NES or SNES era. 

I never sayed gaming went downhill after the 90s, I´m just saying it didn´t get that much better, sure new exciting things have been done, but did they make the video game experiance that much better ??? Are kids today having more fun than kids back then ??? Games are ment to be fun, challenging and entertaining, how can you say games today are more fun challenging or entertaing that back in the 90s ???

If quality is graphics and shaders then I could make a picture of my butt and say it has more quality than the Mona Lisa, but thats just not true (unless you really like my butt :) 

 



 

 

 

Million on 13 March 2008
El Duderino said:
Garcian Smith said:
Faxanadu said:
there is no I in sarcasm

show me a game this gen that is more fun to play than secret of mana, chrono trigger, link to past, zombies ate neighbours or illusion of gaia. has nothing to do with nostalgia but with fun.

@ El Duderino: Nobody died and made me king of definitions; I just looked up the word "best" on dictionary.com and got, as a relevant definition: "1.of the highest quality, excellence, or standing: the best work; the best students." Nowhere in any of the definitions of "best" as an adjective will you find the words "influential" or "revolutionary," or any of their analogues.


So does better graphics and sound equal higher quality ??? Or exellence ??? No not at all, whats quality and exelence in a videogame ??? Whatever it is I doubt you couldn´t find it in the NES or SNES era.

I never sayed gaming went downhill after the 90s, I´m just saying it didn´t get that much better, sure new exciting things have been done, but did they make the video game experiance that much better ??? Are kids today having more fun than kids back then ??? Games are ment to be fun, challenging and entertaining, how can you say games today are more fun challenging or entertaing that back in the 90s ???

If quality is graphics and shaders then I could make a picture of my butt and say it has more quality than the Mona Lisa, but thats just not true (unless you really like my butt :)

 

 

This gen doesn't only have superior Graphics and Sound , the games also have better AI  , Depth , Life , Replay Value , Multyplayer value , Value in general than they ever did. Like I said before calling 90's titles quality by 90's standard is acceptable , that was their era , their time to shine . This is 2008 dude Super Mario Bros is only "quality" because of the standard it overcame in it's time , if that game had never been created until 2008 I bet it wouldn't even had got past the board room. 

 




Garcian Smith on 13 March 2008

@ Kasz216: I wasn't a big fan of Vagrant Story either; I was just using it to illustrate the fact that increased processing power means more than better graphics and sound.

As for Oblivion, things like story and characterization transcend hardware power, true, but aside from Earthbound, all of the games you mentioned are sort of one-dimensional in that regard anyway. If you want to look at games that were really well written, you need to look beyond the SNES generation. (Fallout: 1997; Planescape Torment: 2000; KotOR 2: 2004; Portal: 2007, just to name a few.)

And that brings me to another point: Games have steadily increased in production values as time goes on, meaning that developers can afford to do things like hire real writers (or translators, in the case of foreign-developed games). That's why you'll very seldom find a well-written game before the "Fallout generation" of RPGs.

 

@ El Duderino: All other things being equal, do I think a game with better graphics and sound is better than one with inferior graphics and sound? Hell yes, and you'll have a hard time finding someone who would say otherwise.  Do you think that they're somehow equal, or that the less pretty one is somehow superior?



"'Casual games' are something the 'Game Industry' invented to explain away the Wii success instead of actually listening or looking at what Nintendo did. There is no 'casual strategy' from Nintendo. 'Accessible strategy', yes, but ‘casual gamers’ is just the 'Game Industry''s polite way of saying what they feel: 'retarded gamers'."

 -Sean Malstrom

 

 

El Duderino on 13 March 2008
Million said:
El Duderino said:
Garcian Smith said:
Faxanadu said:


 


So does better graphics and sound equal higher quality ??? Or exellence ??? No not at all, whats quality and exelence in a videogame ??? Whatever it is I doubt you couldn´t find it in the NES or SNES era.

I never sayed gaming went downhill after the 90s, I´m just saying it didn´t get that much better, sure new exciting things have been done, but did they make the video game experiance that much better ??? Are kids today having more fun than kids back then ??? Games are ment to be fun, challenging and entertaining, how can you say games today are more fun challenging or entertaing that back in the 90s ???

If quality is graphics and shaders then I could make a picture of my butt and say it has more quality than the Mona Lisa, but thats just not true (unless you really like my butt :)

 

 

This gen doesn't only have superior Graphics and Sound , the games also have better AI , Depth , Life , Replay Value , Multyplayer value , Value in general than they ever did. Like I said before calling 90's titles quality by 90's standard is acceptable , that was their era , their time to shine . This is 2008 dude Super Mario Bros is only "quality" because of the standard it overcame in it's time , if that game had never been created until 2008 I bet it wouldn't even had got past the board room.

 


 As I sayed before, do the superior graphics, sound, AI (which still sucks in most games) and multiplayer value make the games more fun, challenging or entertaining ??? I don´t think so... Oh and how can you say games now have more depth, life and replay falue ??? That is a very subjective thing to say and I don´t agree at all...