Well, I think you make very good points. To elaborate, I used the terms because of a lack of words really. Meaning, I don't know what words to use to appropriately convey what I mean. For example I could have used more specific terms like generic and art but that would automatically deem my view of the Wii's library generic by the conventional definition and every game that falls under 'art' art and that's simply not what I mean.
When I say generic, I mean highly accesible games, games that don't concentrate or put great emphasis on battle systems, or implementing a cover system, or adding destructible environments to increase the realism or very deep storylines to increase the level of immersion the player can possibly achieve. The Wii's bread and butter games aren't games with much substance, they aren't deep, they are designed to be picked up and played and instantly you're just in the thick of the game. This isn't neccesarily a bad thing. Alot of these games are very fun. The other day I played punch out in gamestop for about 30 mins and had a blast. But the people that these games are designed for don't have the experience or knowledge of battle systems and such to even look for their presence. I am your traditional gamer, and although i can definitely enjoy these types of games, you can see why a gamer like me would eventually tire of the game. Additionally, you can understand how I would need games that introduce new aspects of gameplay or evolve old one's. A gamer like myself views gaming as an art moreso than entertainment. Whereas the casual gamer views it vice versa.
That's fine if you think that way. I don't. Again, it isn't the words I don't understand, it's your underlying message of drawing a line in the sand and throwing games to one side or the other. The way I see it, I see the games in many shades of grey(upstream/downstream games) and I believe you see them as either black or white. Your line of thinking is fine for you, I just don't see things your way at all.
Well, what I said doesn't mean that I don't believe there are games that blur the lines, of course there are. Of course, I'm sure you don't believe these lines exist. Do you believe games shouldn't be defined, or things in general shouldn't be defined?
I completely completely agree with your point Onyxmeth. However, he did proclaim a golden era for gaming which was the point I was mostly disputing. Having said that, If you allow me to be bold enough to proclaim this era the golden era. I say this because I believe, that in the simplest terms, an industries Golden Age is the age when it reaches it's peak. The video game industry is almost on par with the film industry in terms of popularity and surpasses in terms of quality. More Importantly, game quality and popularity has never been higher in our history. There's no saying that the industry won't become even more popular and of even higher quality but I believe it won't. Why? Simply because popularity is the end of everything. Popularity means money, bankable etc. Money eventually errodes everything. This is most true when speaking about creativity and passion. I predict that by the late 8th Generation, gaming will commence it's downward spiral.
If you completely agree with my point then why are you still trying to prove this to be a golden era in gaming? My point was that you can't correctly evaluate an era and it's status as golden as it's going on. It's something we as a collective gaming community reflect upon years later and make a majority decision on.
Tag: Became a freaking mod and a complete douche, coincidentally, at the same time.
If a golden age were to be defined. I would grudgingly give it the period of time late in the PS1 and up to mid PS2. An era of gaming shouldn't be defined solely on the qaulity of games. The Golden Era would be a sign of growth, innovation, new in all areas. What we are seeing from the PS3 is really the opposite. The PS3 is the peak of what the PS1 and SNES started.
We are not seeing growth from third party industry. We are seeing a shift of of third party software grabbing more current defined market. This comes at the expense of smaller growing companies. A Golden Era would be able to allow all companies to grow. Just idling listening proves other wise.
We are not seeing the large innovations in gameplay. Often we are seeing a refinement to gameplay. I'm not going to go on about the values of all the continues, but most of the new games are not all that new at all. LBP one of the most newest games out there isn't much more than an awesome customizable Mario Physics orientated platformed. As for artistic elements I would give props to PS2 and to a lesser extent the Wii. Again this isn't the sign of a Golden Era being the PS3 time.
Designers, fans, critics in this generation are not showing maturity or growth. Almost all of it is pointing that we at the peak and are now fighting for the peak. This is shown by the everyone deriding the other companies, games and consoles. How can this be a Golden Era where respect is so little?
Ok, let's say the PS3 is or has reached the top. The mountain it climbed is the tallest. It's a great achievment. Nintendo decided to stop climbing Everest this generation. They saw what happens when you reach the top. Theres only one way to go from the peak. Instead they changed mountains. Maybe they are diving into the underwater mountains. Which in size comparison dwarf Everest or maybe they have moved to Olympus the tallest known mountain in our Solar System.
However you look at it the PS3 has not reached the top. The Nintendo is near the bottom of a new mountain. Are we in a Golden Age? no. Not for PS3 or Wii. The only difference is that the Wii now is at a bigger mountain to climb. While all the fan fare is about Everest the tune will change to Olympus. Will the other companies stay at the Peak of Everest and let Nintendo eventually climb to a relatively higher mountain. Unlikely. When the last shift happens and everyone is now Climbing Olympus there will be so much space near the bottom and mid that there will be unpresented up. Even more companies will be able to stake claim to the even more paths up. This will be the next Golden Era of gaming.
Once again though as the companies start reaching the top of Olympus it will be cut throat. Repeat above.
@OP While I respect that the games are your peak of preferred gaming. This is not the Golden Era.
Squilliam: On Vgcharts its a commonly accepted practice to twist the bounds of plausibility in order to support your argument or agenda so I think its pretty cool that this gives me the precedent to say whatever I damn well please.
And about the Banjo Kazooie Nuts & bolts (it's totally casual and is not like the old)? And all the Viva Piñata titles? And all the exclusive titles in the live for the casual gamers? And the "Scene It"?
The xbox live is the best online service in the moment, and it has a lot of casual games, I am not saying this thing because I have a 360 (I am a Nintendo fanboy as you can see), I am saying this because this is the truth. The 360 is the console with more diversity in this generation.
You really think that your thread is right?
"Games that appeal to 'Casual Gamers and Hardcore Gamers alike':
I completely completely agree with your point Onyxmeth. However, he did proclaim a golden era for gaming which was the point I was mostly disputing. Having said that, If you allow me to be bold enough to proclaim this era the golden era. I say this because I believe, that in the simplest terms, an industries Golden Age is the age when it reaches it's peak. The video game industry is almost on par with the film industry in terms of popularity and surpasses in terms of quality. More Importantly, game quality and popularity has never been higher in our history. There's no saying that the industry won't become even more popular and of even higher quality but I believe it won't. Why? Simply because popularity is the end of everything. Popularity means money, bankable etc. Money eventually errodes everything. This is most true when speaking about creativity and passion. I predict that by the late 8th Generation, gaming will commence it's downward spiral.
If you completely agree with my point then why are you still trying to prove this to be a golden era in gaming? My point was that you can't correctly evaluate an era and it's status as golden as it's going on. It's something we as a collective gaming community reflect upon years later and make a majority decision on.
I agreed that a golden era is determined after the fact and the logic you used to argue that point. The bold though, is something you didn't completely make clear and something I don't agree with exactly. Your statement lets itself open to the notion that we decide when a golden era has passed. I don't believe we do. I believe we merely recognize or aknowledge a golden era.
As I said before, a golden era is the era in which an industry goes through the process of reaching it's peak and then peaks. It ends when the peak ends, meaning when it begins it's downward trend.
How I define peak is when the collective make up of said industry peaks. A mixture of quality and popularity, innovation and production quantity.
Hollywood in the 30's-50's was just mind blowingly popular. Going to a theatre was a unique experience. Theatres were grandiose cathedrals with elaborate decor and architecture. The quality of movies was extremely high and Hollywoods library was equally diverse. People flocked to theaters at about half a clip of the populace. Keep in mind that Gone with the wind in terms of tickets sold dwarfs titanic, in the 30's! A time in which the US population was about 90-100 million or so. At the time of titanic, the population was slightly over 300 million.
That's perspective and that's what you call a Golden Era.
Well, what I said doesn't mean that I don't believe there are games that blur the lines, of course there are. Of course, I'm sure you don't believe these lines exist. Do you believe games shouldn't be defined, or things in general shouldn't be defined?
My point is that most games blur the line, which makes the purpose of having only one point of seperation useless. I differentiate games based on genre, and within genre, certain aspects that make them more or less accessible. I take the genre and have them on a list of general accessibility to gaming populace at large, with the most accessible games being downstream games and the least accessible being upstream games. The accessibility of these said games are not entirely intertwined with two competing factions of gamers, but they do help judge selling potential and market demographics.
Tag: Became a freaking mod and a complete douche, coincidentally, at the same time.
Well, what I said doesn't mean that I don't believe there are games that blur the lines, of course there are. Of course, I'm sure you don't believe these lines exist. Do you believe games shouldn't be defined, or things in general shouldn't be defined?
My point is that most games blur the line, which makes the purpose of having only one point of seperation useless. I differentiate games based on genre, and within genre, certain aspects that make them more or less accessible. I take the genre and have them on a list of general accessibility to gaming populace at large, with the most accessible games being downstream games and the least accessible being upstream games. The accessibility of these said games are not entirely intertwined with two competing factions of gamers, but they do help judge selling potential and market demographics.
Well, I don't believe our definitions differ that much. You seem to break it down more, and make it more specific. As I said before, my definition is most dependant on how a game is designed. Mario would be a casual hardcore game. Meaning a hardcore game mith mass appeal. Halo 3 is more or less the same. When I say casual however I don't mean it in the same way as when I say casual game, like wii fit. When I use casual within those parameters, I mean a simplified game made to pick up and play. When I say casual hardcore I mean a hardcore game with hardcore aspects that is massively appealing. Our definitions don't differ that much.
um no, not entirely true. first off, while the PS3 has a diverse library, it is mainly for hardcore gamers. Second, the wii is starting to get third party support and hardcore games from companies like(most notably) HVS, vanillaware, sega ect.. i do,however, agree that the 360 is mainly for hardcore fans. i just think that the wii has, or at least will have, the most diverse game library.
exactly what I would have said.By the end of this gen,the wii will most likely have the most diverse library.I guess it does even now based on the wii play series,few 1st & 3rd party hardcore games,music games,casual games,anime games(exclusive 2 wii),point & click games & a whole new genre,fitness games.need I remind u dat the hardcore is coming round?
The Conduit, Dead Space Extraction, Resident Evil: Darkside Chronicles, Red Steel 2, Gladiator A.D, Rabbids Go Home, The Grinder, New Play Control!: Metroid Prime Trilogy, Silent Hill: Shattered Memories, Need for Speed Nitro, Spore Hero, Grand Slam Tennis, Indiana Jones and The Staff of King, Madden NFL 10, No More Heroes 2, Monster Hunter 3, Pikmin 3, TMNT:Smash Up,Dragonball adventure game, exclusive Bleach game, Zelda wii which has been confirmed to be in development.Recently released,Punch Out!, New Play Control; Donkey:Kong Jungle Beat and Klonoa.
3DS: tolu619
Wii U: FoyehBoys
Vita, PS3 and PS4: FoyehBoys
XBoxOne: Tolu619
Switch: Tolu619
Kugali - We publish comics from all across Africa and the diaspora, and we also push the boundaries of Augmented Reality storytelling. Check us out!
