General Gaming What is your favorite videogame home console ever?

[Bjomesphat]

1 minute ago, mikechorney said:

No.

 

So games aren't inherently getting better with each gen?

[AbsolutSurgen]

Just now, Bjomesphat said:

 

So games aren't inherently getting better with each gen?

Not each and every one.

[Bjomesphat]

Just now, mikechorney said:

Not each and every one.

But your argument is that as a whole, games get better with each gen?

[AbsolutSurgen]

10 minutes ago, Bjomesphat said:

But your argument is that as a whole, games get better with each gen?

No.  I don't think I have said anything about "games as a whole".  I'm not sure I've thought about it enough to even have a point of view.

 

My point of view is that progressing technology is an enabler that has allowed devs to make even better games.  As well, the "game-making craft" [for lack of a better term] has progressed, partially because developers have taken the learnings from other games and continue to improve upon them.  The "best games" continue to get better.  I continue to be "surprised and delighted" by the new experiences that the best game developers make.

 

However, bad games continue to be made.  Bad decisions continue to be made by some developers.  Shovelware continues to be made.

[Bjomesphat]

On 7/7/2018 at 6:06 PM, mikechorney said:

My favourite console of all time has to either be the PS4 or Xbox1 -- both have the best examples of video games in almost every genre.  If you were to ask me to answer this question 5 years from now, I fully expect to answer PS5 of XboxNext.  Games are just continually getting so much better, year-on-year. 

 

Just basing off of this quote.

 

Personally, I don't believe having knowledge of previous games (basically learning from your mistakes) or a continual evolution in regards to game-making will inherently make games better. There's so many factors that shape the quality of a game (or any entertainment medium) that improvement of a formula or mechanic doesn't necessarily equate to better. We're kind of at a point now where you can expect 95% of AAA budget games to look great on paper; they can check all of the boxes for what a great game should be, but still not end up being a great game. They might look great and play great, but there's more to an experience than what's on the surface.

 

There's a reason a game like RE4 still hasn't been topped, for me, in the action game genre. Later games (not just in the RE franchise) have looked better and definitely played better, had better stories and even larger scope, but there's still something that RE4 has that hasn't really been replicated. It's a lot of things really, and it's how it all fits together in a package. But it's also not something that can be boiled down to graphics, gameplay, or presentation.

[SaysWho?]

10 minutes ago, Bjomesphat said:

 

Just basing off of this quote.

 

Personally, I don't believe having knowledge of previous games (basically learning from your mistakes) or a continual evolution in regards to game-making will inherently make games better. There's so many factors that shape the quality of a game (or any entertainment medium) that improvement of a formula or mechanic doesn't necessarily equate to better. We're kind of at a point now where you can expect 95% of AAA budget games to look great on paper; they can check all of the boxes for what a great game should be, but still not end up being a great game. They might look great and play great, but there's more to an experience than what's on the surface.

 

There's a reason a game like RE4 still hasn't been topped, for me, in the action game genre. Later games (not just in the RE franchise) have looked better and definitely played better, had better stories and even larger scope, but there's still something that RE4 has that hasn't really been replicated. It's a lot of things really, and it's how it all fits together in a package. But it's also not something that can be boiled down to graphics, gameplay, or presentation.

 

What's that something that RE4 has over other games?

[crispy4000]

3 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

What's that something that RE4 has over other games?

 

Broadly speaking, its pacing.

[SaysWho?]

Just now, crispy4000 said:

 

Broadly speaking, its pacing.

 

And what else?

[skillzdadirecta]

RE 4 is a great game for sure, but it's been surpassed at what it does well several times over at this point. Doom (the recent one) is one of the best paced games I've ever played. While Bioshock, for all it does well is very poorly paced. Game pretty much dies in the middle. RE4 isn't necessarily the best paced game ever and pacing doesn't make or break a game in my opinion. It's important

 

[crispy4000]

I've always felt that improvements in "game-making craft" can be very subjective, with how industry trends change and focuses shift.  So for example, if you love open-world quest systems, skill trees and the current microtransaction trends, this generation could be ticking all the right boxes for you.  Those have now been iterated on to high heaven.  But not everyone's going to feel thrilled about that.
 

The larger canvas that new technology brings also naturally shifts certain design philosophies around pacing, map design, and balance.  Sometimes working under forced limitations creates a tighter-knit game.

 

The good news is that we do have indie games to cover the many cracks big-budget retail leaves open.  So I do think we're seeing the best of both worlds.  It's a good time to play games.
 

51 minutes ago, Bjomesphat said:

Just basing off of this quote.

 

Personally, I don't believe having knowledge of previous games (basically learning from your mistakes) or a continual evolution in regards to game-making will inherently make games better. There's so many factors that shape the quality of a game (or any entertainment medium) that improvement of a formula or mechanic doesn't necessarily equate to better. We're kind of at a point now where you can expect 95% of AAA budget games to look great on paper; they can check all of the boxes for what a great game should be, but still not end up being a great game. They might look great and play great, but there's more to an experience than what's on the surface.

  

There's a reason a game like RE4 still hasn't been topped, for me, in the action game genre. Later games (not just in the RE franchise) have looked better and definitely played better, had better stories and even larger scope, but there's still something that RE4 has that hasn't really been replicated. It's a lot of things really, and it's how it all fits together in a package. But it's also not something that can be boiled down to graphics, gameplay, or presentation.

 

Better said than I could. 

[crispy4000]

6 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

RE 4 is a great game for sure, but it's been surpassed at what it does well several times over at this point. Doom (the recent one) is one of the best paced games I've ever played. While Bioshock, for all it does well is very poorly paced. Game pretty much dies in the middle. RE4 isn't necessarily the best paced game ever.

 

Never said it was.  But if it's not, it's up there.

Totally agreed on Bioshock, btw.  Still a fantastic game.
 

9 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

And what else?

 

I don't understanding why there would need to be something else.  Especially when pacing compasses so many things.

[SaysWho?]

Just now, crispy4000 said:

 

Never said it was.  But if it's not, it's up there in the upper echelon.

Totally agreed on Bioshock, btw.  Still a fantastic gme.
 

 

I'm not sure why there would need to be something else.

 

When I read that everything comes together in a way that goes beyond "surface" level things like gameplay, graphics, presentation, and stories (which seem way more than surface-level), I expected something more than, "I think it's paced better." That's a real weak sauce position.  

[skillzdadirecta]

Just now, SaysWho? said:

 

When I read that everything comes together in a way that goes beyond "surface" level things like gameplay, graphics, presentation, and stories (which seem way more than surface-level), I expected something more than, "I think it's paced better." That's a real weak sauce position.  

RE4 definitely revolutionized third person shooting in games. Gears of War drew directly from that game.  we owe the over the shoulder camera view to RE4, although I'm sure some other game may have done that first.

[crispy4000]

7 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

When I read that everything comes together in a way that goes beyond "surface" level things like gameplay, graphics, presentation, and stories (which seem way more than surface-level), I expected something more than, "I think it's paced better." That's a real weak sauce position.  

 

It's really not though, when pacing encompasses all of that and level design, balance, spacing of plot points, etc.

The game has aged wonderfully, IMO, as a result of the way those pieces come together.  Not because it did one super-specific thing better than any other game back then, or now.  So I'll gladly stick with 'pacing.'
 

4 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

RE4 definitely revolutionized third person shooting in games. Gears of War drew directly from that game.  we owe the over the shoulder camera view to RE4, although I'm sure some other game may have done that first. 

 

That's more about trend-setting than what RE4 is on its own, granted.

[AbsolutSurgen]

 

Just now, skillzdadirecta said:

RE4 definitely revolutionized third person shooting in games. Gears of War drew directly from that game.  we owe the over the shoulder camera view to RE4, although I'm sure some other game may have done that first.

Fortunately, most other games didn't adopt RE4's controls...  They ruined the game for me.    I wish it was a game I could have loved.

[SaysWho?]

5 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

RE4 definitely revolutionized third person shooting in games. Gears of War drew directly from that game.  we owe the over the shoulder camera view to RE4, although I'm sure some other game may have done that first.

 

Oh hell yeah, it was an influential game! I still love reading about what games that generation developers take inspiration from (I usually hear about RE4 and Shadow of the Colossus). I'm talking more to mike's point that games keep improving what came before. What was influential before can seem quite standard now and even behind the curve. Still doesn't mean I won't have fun playing them and respect what they brought to the industry, but as far as if a game can pound-for-pound be considered best in its class being released now, I get what mike's saying.

 

1 minute ago, crispy4000 said:

 

It's really not though, when pacing encompasses all of that and level design, balance, spacing of plot points, etc.

The game has aged wonderfully, IMO, as a result of the way those pieces come together.  Not because it did one super-specific thing better than any other game back then, or now.  So I'll gladly stick with 'pacing.'

 

Balance and level design don't necessarily correlate with pacing. Sometimes a game can slow down, but the level design is still spectacular. The Last of Us slowed down several times due to its stealth but it's because of how open the level design was and the amount of choices you had in all areas. Sometimes it's fine to slow down and let the story breathe. Pacing is one strand in a giant tapestry of game design.

[Bjomesphat]

3 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

What's that something that RE4 has over other games?

 

I was trying to avoid that because I don't want to write an essay

 

In general terms, level design is masterful. Sure it's a linear game from point A to point B, but it knows when to funnel you down a tight corridor and when to open it up to an explorable environment. But it's also not just the physical design, it's how the levels are structured and paced. The game knows exactly when to crank it up to 11 and also when to tone it down and fade in the atmosphere. There's constantly something new around every turn, but not at the expense of throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. Everything is deliberately introduced and faded out to not overstay its welcome. All of the bosses are unique and fresh, but still maintaining the core principals of the game. You're constantly encountering unique set pieces that force you to think about the game's mechanics in different ways.

 

Honestly, a lot of it comes down to feeling, and sometimes it's hard to describe what sets it apart from other games. Especially because on paper, games like The Last of Us might seem comparable. The thing I always loved about RE4 was that you're constantly being pushed to the edge of being completely out of resources, only to slowly build your arsenal back up again to the point of being overconfident, and the cycle repeats: anxiety - confidence - anxiety - confidence. And there's so many subtler ways RE4 just feels good from the reloading animations or the way enemies react to getting hit, everything just feels right and satisfying.

 

If I had the time and energy to write an essay about why RE4 is a master class in game design I would, because I'm really just scratching the surface, but I also imagine there's plenty of in-depth analyses on Youtube.

[crispy4000]

5 minutes ago, mikechorney said:

 

Fortunately, most other games didn't adopt RE4's controls...  They ruined the game for me.    I wish it was a game I could have loved.

 

For me, I mainly feel that way about classic Resident Evil.  Tank controls with static camera angles is where I personally draw the line.

REmake still is worth suffering through it for.  I'm happy to see RE2 at E3 abandon them.

[SaysWho?]

7 minutes ago, Bjomesphat said:

 

I was trying to avoid that because I don't want to write an essay

 

In general terms, level design is masterful. Sure it's a linear game from point A to point B, but it knows when to funnel you down a tight corridor and when to open it up to an explorable environment. But it's also not just the physical design, it's how the levels are structured and paced. The game knows exactly when to crank it up to 11 and also when to tone it down and fade in the atmosphere. There's constantly something new around every turn, but not at the expense of throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. Everything is deliberately introduced and faded out to not overstay its welcome. All of the bosses are unique and fresh, but still maintaining the core principals of the game. You're constantly encountering unique set pieces that force you to think about the game's mechanics in different ways.

 

Honestly, a lot of it comes down to feeling, and sometimes it's hard to describe what sets it apart from other games. Especially because on paper, games like The Last of Us might seem comparable. The thing I always loved about RE4 was that you're constantly being pushed to the edge of being completely out of resources, only to slowly build your arsenal back up again to the point of being overconfident, and the cycle repeats: anxiety - confidence - anxiety - confidence. And there's so many subtler ways RE4 just feels good from the reloading animations or the way enemies react to getting hit, everything just feels right and satisfying.

 

If I had the time and energy to write an essay about why RE4 is a master class in game design I would, because I'm really just scratching the surface, but I also imagine there's plenty of in-depth analyses on Youtube.

 

Now this is more what I was looking for. Thanks!

 

3 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

For me, I mainly feel that way about classic Resident Evil.  Tank controls with static camera angles is where I personally draw the line.

REmake still is worth suffering through it for.

 

When I tell people I play REmake Remaster with modern controls, people go nuts. I say, "I totally get why tank controls make the game more suspenseful and that it was built with tank controls in mind. All of what you say makes sense, and I can't argue with it. But I cannot play this game anymore in tank controls despite the lovely sandbox they set up for me in the main hall to experiment because I despise tank controls."  

[skillzdadirecta]

Oh I agree with Mike's point wholeheartedly. I'm at work and typing on my phone right now, but I agree that as tech gets better it frees talented devs up to do more with less limitations and compromises. I think that's what Mike has been saying and hes right. I definitely feel games have just gotten better as I've gotten older and I've been gaming since the 2600.

[crispy4000]

8 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

Balance and level design don't necessarily correlate with pacing. Sometimes a game can slow down, but the level design is still spectacular. The Last of Us slowed down several times due to its stealth but it's because of how open the level design was and the amount of choices you had in all areas. Sometimes it's fine to slow down and let the story breathe. Pacing is one strand in a giant tapestry of game design.

 

Basically, what Bjomesphat said.  RE4 wouldn't be as good as it is without some breaks too.

 

The only thing I'd really criticize is the last boss, who felt a little too weak sauce.  Especially up against the rocket launcher.

[Bjomesphat]

9 minutes ago, mikechorney said:

 

Fortunately, most other games didn't adopt RE4's controls...  They ruined the game for me.    I wish it was a game I could have loved.

 

It's definitely an adjustment going back. I will say, the Wii controls made it feel more modern as it didn't tie aiming to movement. So if you have a decent PC you might want to consider playing that version in Dolphin. Of course movement is still a tank.

[SaysWho?]

3 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

Basically, what Bjomesphat said.  RE4 wouldn't be as good as it is without some breaks too.

 

The only thing I'd really criticize is the last boss, who felt a little too weak sauce.  Especially up against the rocket launcher.

 

I dunno, man. Some of that dialogue about, "Mmmm, you got rid of my henchman. How can I eevvveeer repay you?" and all that talk about his life being as important as an insect reminded me of dialogue I put into my Starcraft user-made campaigns in 6th grade.  

[AbsolutSurgen]

1 minute ago, Bjomesphat said:

 

It's definitely an adjustment going back. I will say, the Wii controls made it feel more modern as it didn't tie aiming to movement. So if you have a decent PC you might want to consider playing that version in Dolphin. Of course movement is still a tank.

I'd love to say that I will go back and give it a fair shake.  However, given my Steam backlog, I probably will never get to it...

[Bjomesphat]

5 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Oh I agree with Mike's point wholeheartedly. I'm at work and typing on my phone right now, but I agree that as tech gets better it frees talented devs up to do more with less limitations and compromises. I think that's what Mike has been saying and hes right. I definitely feel games have just gotten better as I've gotten older and I've been gaming since the 2600.

 

I'm kind of on the opposite end. I feel like games were better when devs had to work within limitations and figuring different ways around them. I guess that's why I prefer SNES and NES games over most other generations. 

[crispy4000]

3 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

I dunno, man. Some of that dialogue about, "Mmmm, you got rid of my henchman. How can I eevvveeer repay you?" and all that talk about his life being as important as an insect reminded me of dialogue I put into my Starcraft user-made campaigns in 6th grade.  

 

I love RE4's campiness, personally.  I don't often get into unsettling survival horror games, so the fact that it took some of the edge off was appreciated in my book.  The whole Salazar chapter was so much fun.

[TwinIon]

If there's an argument to be made for games simply getting better and better over time, I'd say it's tied directly to camera and controls. Games are fundamentally an interactive medium, and if you can't readily see what you need to see or adequately control what you're supposed to control, the rest of the experience is dramatically lessened by either of those failures. They're precisely why I never really liked the RE games or the early MGS entries. I hated the controls and the static cameras and no amount of excellence in other parts of the game could overcome those issues.

 

It's also why I think so many of the early games, from Tetris to Mario and Metroid, have held up so well. The 2D plane virtually eliminated issues with the camera and the controls were more than capable for what those games required. Similar things could be said about many first person games, at least either on the PC or with dual stick consoles.

 

Once we hit a point where the controls and camera were pretty much always good enough, the focus changes quickly to the actual content of the game and away from the mere fundamentals.

[skillzdadirecta]

2 minutes ago, Bjomesphat said:

 

I'm kind of on the opposite end. I feel like games were better when devs had to work within limitations and figuring different ways around them. I guess that's why I prefer SNES and NES games over most other generations. 

I feel like a lot of those games were limited and compromised to be honest. Hell, you had games at the time on home consoles that were shadows of what they were in the arcades due to limited tech. There was nothing more disappointing as a kid to get the NES version of your favorite arcade game and have it be a pale comparison of the game you fell in love with at the local arcade. That's just one example of how old games on classic consoles were held back by available tech.

[SaysWho?]

4 minutes ago, Bjomesphat said:

 

I'm kind of on the opposite end. I feel like games were better when devs had to work within limitations and figuring different ways around them. I guess that's why I prefer SNES and NES games over most other generations. 

 

NES had significantly more limits than the SNES, and the SNES is far superior as a result. Atari had significant limits and there's little I'd go back to as a result. Even simple things, like Super Mario World having a save system and SMB3 not having it, put World over 3, for example. Games had more personality to them as well in the SNES days since there was far more developers could do to enhance the look of a game.

[crispy4000]

16 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Oh I agree with Mike's point wholeheartedly. I'm at work and typing on my phone right now, but I agree that as tech gets better it frees talented devs up to do more with less limitations and compromises. I think that's what Mike has been saying and hes right. I definitely feel games have just gotten better as I've gotten older and I've been gaming since the 2600.

 

Less limitations and compromises is good, overall.  But it's not always a net positive for a particular game or franchise.  Or industry trends, depending on what you like.

Compare BoTW's reception with previous Zelda games.  Nintendo definitely needed an HD console to to pull it off.  Lots of people ate it up and called it the best Zelda ever.  But there's others like me who really don't think the freedom to make something like BoTW resulted in a stronger game.  I might have preferred Skyward Sword on the whole.

 

I'm still glad BoTW is what it was.  At least in the context of that series, BoTW's design felt fresh.

[SaysWho?]

Just now, skillzdadirecta said:

I feel like a lot of those games were limited and compromised to be honest. Hell, you had games at the time on home consoles that were shadows of what they were in the arcades due to limited tech. There was nothing more disappointing as a kid to get the NES version of your favorite arcade game and have it be a pale comparison of the game you fell in love with at the local arcade. That's just one example of how old games on classic consoles were held back by available tech.

 

That actually goes to my point up there in response to him (though I think his points have plenty of merit on their own even though I disagree). Compare this:

 

 

to this:

 

 

Or just this:

 

 

The NES made many concessions, and there's no way I'd play the right compared to the left, and that's not taking into account the sound quality. Minor differences are fine, but the right looks significantly toned down.

 

 

[crispy4000]

TMNT might not be the best example.  The NES ports were still awesome in their own right.

 

[skillzdadirecta]

1 minute ago, crispy4000 said:

TMNT might not be the best example.  The NES ports were still awesome in their own right.

 

They were, but they were still compromised.

[SaysWho?]

1 minute ago, crispy4000 said:

TMNT might not be the best example.  The NES ports were still awesome in their own right.

 

 

Significant concessions were made to get it to run on the NES. We can also compare Sonic 1 on Master System:

 

 

versus Genesis:

 

 

 

[crispy4000]

Just now, skillzdadirecta said:

They were, but they were still compromised.

 

Well, of course.  The NES wasn't as powerful as new arcade hardware at the time.

I was thinking more about when arcade to NES conversions resulted in a crap game.