This upcoming gen - most pointless gen ever?

Honestly, the PS3 and 360 are doing nothing to improve the experience of this generation, outside of improving the visuals and making systems more powerful.

The early gen created gaming.

NES/SMS revived it, expanded it.

Genesis/SNES expanded it even more.

Saturn/PSX/N64 brought 3D, expanded it.

DC/PS2/XB/GC vastly improved the 3D.

This gen, I wouldn't say vastly improved it, and the only reason I would say it expanded the industry is because of the Revolution.

If these visuals I've seen are the best that these systems can be done, the systems have no reason to exist. Sony and MS would do better to just work on bringing out the best in the PS2 and Xbox instead of demanding $400/$500 for new visuals and better hardware - not a new gaming experience.

>>40
The sad thing is, you're not going to see a business model change:  you're going to see a crash.  I don't think cheap downloadable games is the way to go, because, well... Other than one or two exceptions, cheap downloadable games fucking suck.  2d sidescrollers are still fun once in a while, but their time as industry king is over, just like you're never going to see a Space Invader ripoff boom again.

Fact is, we're reaching probably a great, yet terrifying time for the industry, a time where graphical excellence isn't the dirving factor, because it's more or less everywhere.  Where on a plateau, so everyone's on a level playing field.  This is scary for those fags in the industry who can't be bothered making a game that does anything but look good.  Games that have no original quirks, fun gameplay mechanics or personality will fail, companies will go under, and good riddance.  Games like F.E.A.R. and Black will begin to dissapear.

ALL hail the revolution!

I didn't like the last gen (ps2/gcn/xbox). Those systems had like no games I enjoyed. I should've stuck with dreamcast. Now that I think of it, I should've gotten an xbox for that panzer dragon game and JSRF and maybe jade empire and phantom dust, but I could never see buying an xbox for some reasons.

impressive graphics and tech stats do not necessarily make for a good game or a fun and worthwhile gaming experience. just because you can play online, the game is better? just because it is in HD, the game is better? just because you can walk around every building, the game is better? hardly. some of the most fun, innovative, and challenging games ever created are STILL the old arcade games, the Space Invaders, the Missle Command, the Tetris, the original Donkey Kong and Mario Brothers. we are still playing and worshipping these games 20, even 30 years after they were released. in 30 years, are we still going to be playing Call of Duty and Ghost Recon and Madden/NBA/World Cup/whatever 2006? i doubt it.

so why are those first explorations into gaming so lasting? are we only hanging onto them because of nostalgia? or is there something more to them that we are missing in our games today? i really don't know the answers to these questions. but i'm willing to bet that it has something to do with the fact that when these games were created, a 'status quo' of gameplay had not yet been established. developers had no idea what they were doing - interacting with a screen had never been done like this before, and developers were grasping in the dark for ways of representing things like movement and progress. genres had not yet been established. there was no such thing as a FPS, and if you wanted to create one, you had to think up how to do it by yourself, rather than relying on an industry standard. compare this to how games are made today: we already know (or we think we know) how a FPS should work, so when someone wants to make one, they use an established 'template' of visuals, interaction, movement, etc. the focus has shifted dramatically.

i personally would like to see a rethinking of what it means to interact with a game. i would like to see more games like Killer7, that throw the old standards out the window to create something entirely new, fresh, and unique. is this even possible? will it ever happen? probably not. but if there IS a chance i believe that it lies with Nintendo and the Revolution. they're at least TRYING to rethink things.

>>some of the most fun, innovative, and challenging games ever created are STILL the old arcade games, the Space Invaders, the Missle Command, the Tetris, the original Donkey Kong and Mario Brothers

I haven't touched a single one of those in 20 years.

>>we are still playing and worshipping these games 20, even 30 years after they were released

People who jism all over their childhood maybe.  Those of us that don't have our vision obscured by lenses of a light red variety try and play these ancient games and realize alot of the advances have been for the better. 

>>i would like to see more games like Killer7, that throw the old standards out the window to create something entirely new, fresh, and unique.

Case in point:  Killer 7 was unique and looked great... it was a shitty game.  No one sane liked the gameplay, but by god it was wacky provided you could get through it.

Funny thing about the old standards?  They work.  Funny thing about new things like Killer 7?  Usually don't work as well and fall flat on their face.

I hate people like this.  They have two speeds: Sucking forefather cock and going "wow" over anything crazily different regardless of quality.  I call this "pretentious artist syndrome" where you go to art college and they teach you two things:  The old masters and crazy modern art.  All discussions of quality and skill as well as creativity goes out the window as people focus on how crazy it is/how old it is. 

What Nintendo's doing is trying to eject the symbol of the off-putting controller in non-gamer's minds, and ease them into gaming with a controller that looks like something they're used to.  Normal controllers aren't broken, they're not outdated.  They're not archaic or overused.  Gaming isn't stagnant because of the existing genres, existing controls, or existing franchises. 

Gaming's stagnant because the faggots who are in control ran out of ideas/stopped caring about their shit ten years ago and they've made it ridiculously difficult for new blood to get a foothold.  Gaming's stagnant because no one's pushing the limits of what genres can do, no one's playing around, no one's going over the top.  Most of all, gaming's stagnant because for 90% of you, they put cute animu artwork/a black sportsman/a franchise on the cover and you snap it up regardless of quality.  You buy ports and re-releases.  Instead of seeing something like Mario Party or Wario Ware and thinking "well, it's clever and fun for five minutes, and that's all that matters" you should instead be going "NO, that's NOT fucking GOOD enough.  Fuck you, take it BACK, do it AGAIN."

Change is good when something is broken/dead.  Change for no reason other than to change things fucks things up.  The important thing about the Revolution is not the new controller in and of itself.  It's not the new control schemes that might lead to new genres.  The important thing is that it's a more advanced tool to help storytellers immerse their audience in a story through smoother control.  The games that use this thing are important, the controller's just a conduit.

The fact that engrossing gameplay detracts from any graphical shortcomings should highlight that a game should be played for fun, not to compare it to photos to see how realistic it is in comparison. Nice graphics are a plus, but mean nothing if the game itself is utter crap. Me, I'm looking fwd to the Rev, at least its different.

Xbox can almost still keep up with the latest graphics, but PS2 definitely needs to go graphics are starting to look outdated with all the jaggys. I'm a big gameplay should be more important than just graphics video gamer, but that shouldn't stop progress. Sure next gen won't be as big an improvement as other generations, but it needs to happen. Although I could've waited one more year.

fuck hd

As a fine example how newly released low tech games can still be more fun than whole virtual worlds stuffed with 3D objects: I'm playing Drill Dozer right now on the GBA. And you should do the same. Who was it again that said "gameplay is key"?

>>As a fine example how newly released low tech games can still be more fun than whole virtual worlds stuffed with 3D objects: I'm playing Drill Dozer right now on the GBA. And you should do the same

Damn right, Gunstar Future Heroes = A fine example of how 2D finesse easily outplays 3D garbage

good point my fellow 2-D lovers, 2D is still king for tough action. games like smash brothers, viewtiful joe, and dare i bring it up again? cave story, take advantage of the simplicity of 2-d gameplay. it'd be undoubtably much harder to do those games in full 3-D. in 2-D everything is laid out in front of you. 3-d can hide stuff behind you, make jumps that SHOULD be simple difficult due to lack of depth percetion from a TV screen, and can generally had a LOT of hassle.

The Nintendo DS is the real winner here.

>>52 speaks the truth!

>>51
You're totally doing it wrong. I've only had that problem with three games, Lament of Innocence, Turok 1, and Daikatana, two of which aren't even true 3D but first-person. May have a depth perception problem.
Oh wait, GTA too, but that's only if you're trying for the helicopter you have to bother with hard-ass jumps.
Anyway, I'm sticking with PC, because the only game I'm getting is Supreme Commander. I probably won't be heard of ever again once it gets released. But just in case pipeworks feels ambitious, I'm tagging a PS3 for the next Godzilla game. Save The Earth is probably the greatest party game ever, edging out Smash Bros. But it would score even higher if the challenges were fully coded in and supported multiplayer, and had a few extra melee modes. I don't know if anymore SMT games are coming but if they are, added bonus. I'll probably only use it to play DVDs and artsy games past them two. Most of the PS2 games I've beaten with one rental so I don't think this'll be too different. I'll also pick up the next GTA if it looks like it adds enough content and lacks shitty music like San Andreas did. (Biggest reason I skipped it.) I don't really see the console systems doing anything special this time around, I just have a few favorites I'm getting the PS3 for.

>>52
Yea, I have to agree, the ds is easily the greatest system on the market today >xbox,360,ps2,psp,gc,gba,gizmondo, and the phantom

>>55

Gizmondo am scam.

>>4
Actually, the GC was profitable for Nintendo.

Nintendo's plan is maximize profits for their consoles, it doesn't really matter how many consoles are sold if you lose money on each one, does it?

Same goes for PS3. Right now, the Xbox for MS is just something that they do because they can afford to do it, just like everything else MS does. Same for the PS line-up, except that this is profitable for Sony.