The 32-bit console thread

[neorichieb1971]

I'm a bit hesitant to agree whenever someone starts comparing one generation of games to another. To be honest, they've all had their great moments and their pitfalls. I think it is often more a comment on the type of genre you prefer.

In the 32bit era the industry shouted "look at this technology" and you would look at it, buy it and find it plays some pretty nifty games. Games that worked, apart from CD scratches most of the consoles performed admirably.

In the 128bit v2 era the industry shouts "look at this technology" and you would look at it, buy it and find the games are no better than their 32 bit counterparts. You just feel like you've got this wonderful technology that might one day provide an experience you'll enjoy.. But for the most part you will find things broken, things that need tweaking, things that need downloading.. Your constantly reminded by the fan noise, the disc drives, the red lights of death that your playing something that is about to die.

This deep in the 32bit era you could probably name 25 franchises worthy of a mention. The same lifespan in this era you could probably name about 10. Of those 10, maybe 3 might offer something substantially clever.. The other 7 are more likely 32bit games with 128bit graphics.

Tekken 6 is a prime example of lazy, shoddy, unprofessionalism that has filtered its way into mainstream gaming. Its not even funny. The predecessing games in the franchise put it to shame.

[Skykid]

. Saturn ftw, but PS had a good innings too.

Units sold 102 million (as of July 20, 2008)
Units sold Worldwide: 17 million

'a good innings'

Now now Kernow, it's not a reference to the quantity sold. Let's not pretend I don't know that the Saturn bowed out early under pressure from the PS1 and in comparison had paltry sales figures. It's entirely about the concentration of good software, and dependant on the type of games that move you. On the whole the Saturn probably only had as many (or possibly even less) great games than the PS1, but the PS1 was so chock full of 3rd party tat you couldn't really tell.

I don't like it, there's no proper objective overview of the playing field anymore.

Games "journalism" has been bullshit for a long time; it's just more obvious now than it used to be. Look at what happened with The Bouncer ~9 years ago; practically every gaming mag on the planet was apparently convinced that it was going to be the Greatest Game Ever and hyped the hell out of it, and it turned out to be mediocre. Before that, gaming mags routinely acted as rumor mills, often essentially hyping things that didn't actually exist in any meaningful sense. It made for exciting reading, but it wasn't anything close to actual journalism.

Yeah, but even then the Bouncer met with criticism on release. I mean, it was genuinely poor. Today's games aren't poorly made, just boringly generic, like clones of each other. Purely action based, button mashing graphics fests. If only one or two existed, perhaps they would be fine examples of current-gen games, but the abundance creates a lack in diversity and some kind of get-rich-without-having-to-try-very-hard developer mentality: one that Journalism pays no mind to and instead continues lavishing high marks on everything. That's kind of where I was going with the objective playing field thing. If they're not objective then you can't really trust them, which is why everyone get's their new 9/10 game home, plays it for an hour and then realises 'oh shit, this is kind of the same as the last one I bought'.

[crithit5000]

In the 16bit era a PR company would send you a game and a nice letter and then you could rip it to pieces if it was rubbish.

Publishers used to send magazines all kinds of swag back in the day as well. Hell, GameFan at one point had a small blurb each month showcasing the more ludicrous things they received. Nobody gave a crap back then because the whole idea of 'ethics' in games journalism wasn't really pushed hard until recently.

In the 32bit era the industry shouted "look at this technology" and you would look at it, buy it and find it plays some pretty nifty games. Games that worked, apart from CD scratches most of the consoles performed admirably.

Geez, I seem to remember tons of stories about people's Playstations overheating, faulty lasers, and placing them on their side to alleviate those issues.

[neorichieb1971]

I know what you mean, but the industry is inventing problems that didn't exist then. Things just are not simple by design anymore.

[louisg]

I'm a bit hesitant to agree whenever someone starts comparing one generation of games to another. To be honest, they've all had their great moments and their pitfalls. I think it is often more a comment on the type of genre you prefer.

I think that's mostly true. But, even though there are a lot of mid 90s games I like, I feel that the next generation really nailed what they were trying to do. People in the mid-90s were so fascinated by 3d graphics that almost everything had to be 3d whether it benefited from it or not.

The current gen has a lot going for it. We've seen the resurrection of *games*. Not simulations, not cinematic experiences, but games. This is a major shift in the way people are looking at things. Graphics have reached such a saturation point that we can have somewhat popular titles that are more than just a good-for-the-time virtual reality experience.

I have to say, my two favorite generations are 16-bit and the previous one.

[Rob]

This is not a Nintendo game, its a Sony game and therefore it should be more realistic.

Like Parappa or something.

[CMoon]

Well if you are thinking one generation is better than another one, why do you think this is (directed at all of you)?

Creativity of programmers?

Hardware?

Game development pushed by demographic trends?

Paradigm swings within the video game world?

etc.?

[UnscathedFlyingObject]

I love everything from the NES to the PS2. The current generation doesn't appeal to me as much because of lack of variety. Most retail games are some kind of FPS, wander-aimlessly kind of game, or generic RPG. Where are my retail shmups, platformers, and puzzlers. Not to say that there aren't any games that interest me tho. If there's one thing that this generation is doing well is 3D action games like DMC, and I like those. I'd really like to play Ninja Gaiden Sigma 1&2, God of War 3, Bayonetta and Demon's Souls (just felt like throwing it in here.) The current generation is deviating more and more from what I like, however, there are still enough titles to hold my attention.

Edit: if a game isn't retail, it doesn't exist for me.

[neorichieb1971]

Well if you are thinking one generation is better than another one, why do you think this is (directed at all of you)?

Creativity of programmers?

Game development pushed by demographic trends?

[CMoon]

I think the whole 'game genres determined by demographic trends' is interesting, because it is basically saying that since games are very expensive to make, you can't afford not to have a built in market. I'd like to say 'well, just make games cheaper', but to be honest, $60 for a game is in some ways too little. Remember this is what atari and intellivision cartridges cost back in the day.

[UnscathedFlyingObject]

Back then, it was the new thing so we got overcharged. I started gaming with my NES but didn't start owning games until I had my SNES and games were so damn expensive on it. I'm glad the PSX had cheaper games. I never bought a N64 in its heyday because a lot of games were $20 more expensive. They seem to be going back to overcharging people again, which sucks. We need market oversaturation, so we start getting new games at decent prices again.

My personal strategy to buying games is just to wait 'til they are last year's model. I'm not obsessed about having the latest, and it's not like I have the cash devs are asking me for games.

[neorichieb1971]

Its not the programmers fault since they are robots anyway, they program a game engine which allows the artists to do what they want to do in that world. It is the vision of the director of the game that decides most of the decisions that say if a game is going to bring something new to the table or not.

Myself as a director, the first question I would ask the programmers is something like "Can you do this?" "Can you do that?".. To get an idea of what is possible and base the game from the ground up like that. If I don't have to ask those 2 questions, i'm basically copying something that is pre existing. If that is the case, I say to myself "Can we at least better that example?". If the answer is "no", why continue onwards? You have the foresight of knowing what is possible so you should at least be able to bring something new to the table. The demographic of gamers these days is to expect "more of the same". They love this world of FPS, boom boom bang bang, calling each other names, wrecking online races by finding ways to piss people off or finding ways to get ridiculous times by jumping whole buildings.

I hate to say it but I feel Microsoft are a company that have the money and resources to really CREATE! To bring something completely mind blowing. They have talent that could wipe the floor in every genre, so why are they concentrating so heavily on just 2 or 3 of them? Microsoft lack creative control of what they make because they have 2 or 3 studios working on exclusive I.P's.

You have forza, Project Gotham in the racing. Halo and Gears on the FPS/Gun n run side.. You have RARE who have done nothing noteworthy in 10 years. So the richest game company in the world has that to show for its leading edge console and development teams. Although you could argue that there is a lot of quality in those games, its just a few games. Its not what I would call a landslide, and really with Wii being relatively underpowered and Sony going the multi media route, Microsoft should have had this game wrapped up already. If Microsoft had a change of heart and brought much more to the table, i'd find lots of reasons to buy one. But whilst they making much the same as everyone else i'm sticking to one console.

[EinhanderZwei]

Hey guys, reading through the last posts, I've figured out what was superior in 32-bit gen compared to today:

NO HOLDS BARRED

Seriously, modern games are usually forced to be friendly to everyone - family-friendly, kids-friendly, teens-friendly, tough-guys-friendly, therefore the industry lacks some craze and hostility. Imagine if something like Carmageddon 1 would be released nowadays - the devs will get lawsuits up their asses. Even Rockstar doesn't put much effort in the GTA criminal controversy, instead displaying male frontal nudity in the add-ons. It's gross, yeah, but it can't harm anybody. Or let's take God Of War - 'OMG, this game has boobs, and it was approved by Sony!!!'. Guys, there exists Cobra Mission which is much better game despite its age and different genre (but don't get me wrong, I love GoW). The developers do not want to risk, and their imagination is limited by thoughts like 'I have a crazy idea, but will it sell well?'. Maybe they don't know that Neon Genesis Evangelion - the best anime ever, as was admitted by Japanese viewers themselves - was created by a lonely guy struggling with suicidal tendencies and not giving two fucks about the reception?

[neorichieb1971]

Maybe thats it, the industry lacks new blood. Everyone kicks the same, punches the same, wins the same.

[Smraedis]

The only good thing about all these uninteresting games in the current generation for me, is that I've been able to learn lots of older games but I'm just waiting for some good lightgun games to be made.. if only they would sell like FPS games do.

Harder games would be nice thanks.

[CMoon]

It is remarkable that so many games today push for the Mature status, yet fail to have the balls to go against the grain. In fact, being rated M may just be part of being like every other game.

[EinhanderZwei]

It is remarkable that so many games today push for the Mature status, yet fail to have the balls to go against the grain. In fact, being rated M may just be part of being like every other game.

You've managed to put my rants in just 2 sentences without the loss of the point

[louisg]

It is remarkable that so many games today push for the Mature status, yet fail to have the balls to go against the grain. In fact, being rated M may just be part of being like every other game.

The older I get, the fewer M-rated games I play. Also, the older I get, the fewer big budget cookie cutter games I play.

Hey guys, reading through the last posts, I've figured out what was superior in 32-bit gen compared to today:

NO HOLDS BARRED

That's sort of true. Even though the mid-90s saw an astounding amount of of half-assedness, it also saw a lot of experimentation. But, I'd make the point that the downloadable or low budget games continue to be interesting while mainstream "hardcore" games tend to stagnate.

[Skykid]

Maybe thats it, the industry lacks new blood. Everyone kicks the same, punches the same, wins the same.

That's kind of what I was getting at on the last page.

[PC Engine Fan X!]

I think the whole 'game genres determined by demographic trends' is interesting, because it is basically saying that since games are very expensive to make, you can't afford not to have a built in market. I'd like to say 'well, just make games cheaper', but to be honest, $60 for a game is in some ways too little. Remember this is what atari and intellivision cartridges cost back in the day.

I remember it cost $39.99 USD + tax to buy a brand new Atari 2600 boxed set of Ms. Pac-Man from my local The Wherehouse store back in 1983. Got it the day it came out. So yeah, those new Atari 2600 games weren't cheap on the intial day of release. Video gaming back in the early 1980s wasn't a cheap hobby to begin with either just like how it is nowdays.

Even Atari Corp. would sell it's Atari VCS console (later re-named the 2600 when the 5200 Super System finally arrived in stores) at the asking MSRP of $199.99 USD brand new and it still sold like hotcakes.

It's a known fact that GCE sold their Vectrex cartridges with a MSRP of $29.99 USD back in 1982-1984 (until the infamous "Great Video Game Crash of '83-84" incident) when some stores were selling them brand new at a mere $5 a pop just to get rid of their remaining inventory. It was another $199.99 USD just for a brand new Vectrex console but after the "Great Crash", it could be had for a mere $49.99 USD. Quite a steal back in those days. ^_~

Of course nowdays, a Sean Kelly produced Vectrex multi-cart solves the multiple Vectrex game carts problem with a very handy single cart setup for all your gaming needs. Still doesn't address the need for all the necessary Vectrex screen overlays though. But one of Tony Price's complete Vectrex screen overlays reproduction sets will fit the bill quite nicely. Unfortunately, Mr. Price doesn't make or sell them anymore.

PC Engine Fan X! ^_~