Archive for gamerhang.myfreeforum.org A place where like-minded individuals who are into all types of mediums, and not just video games, can come to communicate and create!
 


       gamerhang.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Video Game Discussion
firemastrr

Game Systems, Past, Present, and Future

What game system, both handheld and console, do you think was the best of all time? What about best console? Best handheld? Which is better, the DS or the PSP? How about the three current consoles, the 360, PS3, and Wii? Finally, what would you like to see in the future of consoles and handhelds?

Also, I expect reasons, not just answers.
firemastrr

Okay, I'll start...

For the all-time best, I can't decide between the NES and the Wii. Both were incredibly revolutionary in the gaming industry. They both have excellent games that will forever be enshrined as some of the best video games of all time. I could spend hours on either one.

For the best console, same thing. Wii or NES. See above.

Best handheld, I must say the original GameBoy. It, too, had some excellent games and was incredibly revlutionary. It was the first really good handheld system. It was amazing.

The DS is better than the PSP. I like the touch screen and it's cheaper. If you want music and movies, don't buy a $200 handheld system. That's what I say.

The Wii is the best current console. It has motion sensitivity and tons of good games. You can surf the internet on it, and it comes with a fun collection of small games. And it's less than half as much as the other two consoles. A PS3 for $600?!? I'd rather save up for a car!

In the future, I'd like to see some real virtual reality stuff, like imagie a virtual reality street fighter. Or how about a VR PRG? Imagine something like Phantasy Star Online VR. It would be so awesome.
Koji_Tsunami

Yes, the Wii has some great games, and as you said, much revolutionary gameplay.

But what do you mean "VR PRG"?
8-Bit

Since I can't pick 2 choices I won't choose at all.

I find both the Wii and the 360 are both great consoles. I own a Wii while 2 of my friends have 360s.

I like the Wii with its fun styles of play though doesn't have the best capabilitys for graphics and I believe in the "graphics don't make the game." But both are important, I just find developers arn't putting it to its full potential.

With the 360 though... The only games I see on it that I find good are all "M" rated... Though there aresome T rated games my friends have but I dislike them. Boo! I can't get M rated games yet and my parents dislike them. It has the graphics and gameplay. Hell, I'd have a 360 too but my parents would be all "hey you already have a wii! No console for you!"
Captain Gamer

Best of all time: The Super Nintendo.

Best console: Playstation 2

Best handheld: Gameboy

DS v. PSP: Purely preference... and mine goes to DS.

PSThWii360: At the moment, the Wii. May change once the other two step up their game and release flagship titles.

What I'd like to see: (Gamer mode) I'd like to see a lean toward emphasizing video games as a medium of storytelling, skill-developing, critical thinking, sport, and comradery, and away from video games as commodity, scapegoat, and a way to shut kids up. As for what publishers could actually do to accomplish this... well, I'm not a game developer. All I can say is that Nintendo's constant innovation (Brain Age, etc) is any step in the right direction.
Konoko

Of all time - SNES - Its got one heck of a videogame library with so many greats and it had hit that point where it had the very pinniccle of 2D gaming completely nailed.
Console - PS2 - The SNES is also a console and I have it as best of all time, but I have to mention the next best, which is this one. It also has some great games and they tend to be nicely polished across the range.
Handheld - DS - I just don't like how the PSP feels in my hands and the stylus thing just appeals to me. Its a very close thing though and I have played a PSP more (since my half brother has one).
PS3/Wii/360 - I voted Wii, since the sheer appeal and creativity appeals hugely. I had been wondering about how the next-gen step up on graphics could really be that much of a deal, since it was no longer the same as the step up from 2D to 3D and now was partly about how many hairs they could simulate on the armpits of some annual sports game. I wish that was an exaggeration. There are definately things on the 360 that caught my eye, like Dead Rising and Metal Wolf Chaos, and the PS3 will have other things that will definately appeal to me...but not quite the same.

Koji_Tsunami wrote:
But what do you mean "VR PRG"?

I'm pretty sure he meant to say Virtual Reality Role Playing Game. although, VR isn't really the term. Total Immersion is probably more the thing and a good example would be the dot Hack series, a game that is actually like The World. I've often thought of something similar, but know there is only so far they can go with non-invasive neural interfaces.
They have things like Brain Gate, which let a paralyzed person operate a prosthetic limb with their mind, but it takes training to do well and is not perfect. And more to the point, there is a quantum leap between simple output and feeding stuff back in, such as a full immersion for sight and sound. And then there is a whole bunch of other problems such as protecting the body while in the game.
And of course, an invasive neural interface, although popular in fiction (Various cybers 'plugs', etc) since its the most reasonable idea, would have a hell of a hard time as a gaming tool. All those 'think of the children' video game lobbyists would have a field day and the actual caming companies would likely consider it not practical or financially viable. So, while it may happen sometime....it won't be for a hell of a long time.
Skybait J

I played a VR game once in one Reno Casino (it had an arcade it it so the adults could bring thier kids without guilt <.<). It was something like piloting a ride armor in a wastland post apocolypse world. They put a GIANT head thing over your head (so all lines of sight were covered), you put your hands in slot things attached to the helmet, and you stood on a walky pad seperated from the rest of the world by bars. I didn't do too well at the game, whatever the premise was...but it was a while ago, five or six years...They have other VR stuff as well, like those driving games where you go into a booth and the screen is on all sides. I don't think VR will really get big until it's cheap enough to be marketed to the middle class though, no matter how cool it is.

As for the next gen consoles...it's still way to early in therace to really determine which is "the best". I've seen lots of stuff against the PS3, and lots of stuff for the Wii. I've got a Wii myself (night it came out, actually), but besides Zelda, very few games have really caught my eye for it yet. Since the Wii came out, I've actually bought three to five PS2 games, four DS games, and only one Wii game. They're just so expensive....I'm less ready to risk my money for it XD

As others have said before me, the SNES and PS2 were the pinnacle of thier repective generations. The handheld market has yet to hit such a peak, and it's pretty much dominated by Nintendo's systems anyway. So right now, DS is big, and whatever Nintendo releases next will be bigger/better.
Chocolate Ninja

My personal favorite console is the SNES. Wide variety of games with tons of innovation around that time, with huge leaps in graphics quality. I don't think it's been beaten yet in terms of game selection, and that's pretty much the important part for me. Razz

X-Box vs. Gamecube vs. PS2 is pretty much up for grabs depending on game preference. As a rule, X-Box is for sports games and Halo, Gamecube is for a lot of things PS2 is for, with the addition of Zelda and SSBM, and PS2 is for engrossing RPGs and action games (and DDR). I'm not a big fan of the X-Box, since I'm not a big fan of FPSs or Madden, but between Gamecube and PS2 it's hard to say for me. I like the selection for both, PS2 is obviously better in terms of capabilities but Gamecube is cheaper, Gamecube has one of my favorite games on it and PS2 has a good number of RPGs. I may be slightly biased towards Gamecube, since that was the first console I really got to play with.

I haven't gotten around to playing with the next-gen consoles yet, but Wii looks the most promising game lineup-wise. Unfortunately, my house seems to be an X-Box house, so I doubt I'll get to try the Wii out until my school's Gaming Club meets next.

Handheld consoles I can't really say a lot about, especially the newer ones. GBA has a good game selection, though, and Phoenix Wright sounds like something I have to play at some point in my life. Razz

Overall, though, my most practical console comes in the form of my computer, whichever one it may be. <_< RTSs, online roleplay, emulation, flash games of various genres, The Sims, The Sims 2, online MMORPGs, DOS-based games, this is the console I was really raised on. But I wouldn't go so far as to call myself a PC gamer.
firemastrr

Yes, I did mean VR RPG.

Excellent so far. Carry on.
Koji_Tsunami

Define Total Immersion. It could mean a number of things.
Konoko

Koji_Tsunami wrote:
Define Total Immersion. It could mean a number of things.

Yeah, thats pretty much the point, it can. Generally, I figure by the broad definition of, feeds you the false audiovisual information as realistically as possible.
When thinking of the far possibilities, thinking of such things as feeding directly into the senses/brain is pretty common, although lots of things are small steps in that direction. Even the speaker in the Wii nunchuck could be considered a step forwards for immersion.
You're welcome to specify your own definition though, I know some would prefer to be more exact about what it means...
firemastrr

Well, I was thinking the standard sci-fi Total Immersion (I'm just gonna call it TI from now on, it's that much easier) of the helmet, gloves, and boots. It's incredibly realistic as far as the graphics, sound, and feeling. I'm basically going for realism here, be it with any weapon, standard movement, communication, or feeling. Now, I'm not saying that if your character dies, you die, but you do feel something, I'm just not sure what. You do physically hold the particular weapon you're using, with the other ones at your belt or whatever. I just mean so incredibly real that it actually could be. My only regret is probably not being alive to see it.
Konoko

Quote:
not saying that if your character dies, you die, but you do feel something, I'm just not sure what.

An extra strong full body rumble? =p
firemastrr

Konoko wrote:
Quote:
not saying that if your character dies, you die, but you do feel something, I'm just not sure what.

An extra strong full body rumble? =p


Yeah, that would be good. Make you feel shaken and weakened, but not physically damaged in any way. Things like this could be incredibly dangerous though, too...
Chocolate Ninja

I imagine that various parental associations would pounce on that like so many rats on cheese.

If ever there's a fully immersive virtual reality game like that, though, I'd definitely want to try it. I'd rather not the hardware be physically and permanently attached to me, or implanted in my brain, though. Razz
firemastrr

Chocolate Ninja wrote:
I imagine that various parental associations would pounce on that like so many rats on cheese.

If ever there's a fully immersive virtual reality game like that, though, I'd definitely want to try it. I'd rather not the hardware be physically and permanently attached to me, or implanted in my brain, though. Razz


Well, yeah, who's stupid enough to do something like that? Yes, I'm gonna make myself a part of this game permanently, so that I can never go back to my old world again. That makes no sense, and even if you could turn it off, you would still have to live with whatever you did, be it on or in your body. What if there's a hardware malfunction?? Ouch. Yeah, I think you should be able to step into and out of it. No permanent effects on your body. I have a phobia of burning bridges behind me. I hate permanent things.
Koji_Tsunami

Depends what they are. But yeah, that would be
really cool, in fact, I bet Nintendo comes out with
it in about 2084 A.D.
Seriously awesome though.

I'd buy it.
firemastrr

Koji_Tsunami wrote:
I'd buy it.


Well, yeah, so would I, if I could afford it and it didn't kill me.

Something like that would concievably cost a fortune. Like as much as a car. I suppose it would eventually go down, though.
Koji_Tsunami

You could probably buy it for about $1000 aprox. 30 years after its release, if we're lucky.
Skybait J

Hey, by 2050, we'll supposedly have a computer more powerfull than the whole human race combined for under $10,000.

And like I said, VR stuff won't become available until they can market it to the middle class! Unless its just in high-end arcades for a while or something =/
Koji_Tsunami

Hey, I wonder how much those Arcades would charge to play on that TI game...
firemastrr

Skybait J wrote:
And like I said, VR stuff won't become available until they can market it to the middle class! Unless its just in high-end arcades for a while or something =/


Oh, they'll come out with it, it just won't gain popularity for awhile, until they can market it to the middle class. Which would be around 7 months after the original development was completed. It will be like any new technology. First, it's crazy and no one needs it; second, it's an expensive luxury; then, most people can buy it, but not many do, still a bit too expensive; finally, it's common everywhere and they're being sold for a buck apiece.
Anomaly

*forlorn sigh of longing* Neural interfaaaaaaaaaaace... if I'm lucky, that kind of technology will be released and available sometime before I die, and luckily, I'm already planning to keep as fit as possible so I can have a good enough physique to really play the action games properly.

Just to clarify, Total Immersion has always made me think of the Total Immersion Video Games in Red Dwarf - full sensory interface, so instead of just seeing and hearing what's happening, you can smell, taste, and feel it as well, with even your thoughts affecting the gameplay in some situations. Imagine the kind of sandbox games they could make with that technology.

Of course, like has been said, it won't be available for a long time. Besides, I'd want advances in game AI before then. Think about it, even partial AI would be a revolution in non-linear gaming. Imagine games where instead of having set dialogue options, you can actually free-form your character's every action, and still have the NPC's respond realistically. Heck, you wouldn't even really need anything that can pass a Turing test; I doubt most fictional characters would anyway. And that stuff had better be around either before or, at the very least, at the same time as TI. Nothing could ruin your immersion like having your character be able to do anything that you can think of, but having NPC's have responses limited to a few choices.
But, to end this diatribe on a positive note, just think about it. If the technology is perfected, it would be the ultimate in gaming. Your character's potential actions would be theoretically infinite, with the NPC's ability to respond practically unlimited. Sure, it'd be no substitute for interaction with real people, and I'm sure the occasional or not-so-occasional incident will plainly remind you that you're interacting with a bunch of AI and a silly helmet, but... just imagine.

Anyway, I'd better get back to the present at some point in this post. So... new-gen consoles. My family currently only has the Wii, which is good fun, but we pretty much only have the titles it was released with. The fact we can still play and enjoy them after this long is testament to the kind of gameplay the games and system have, and as well, my brother - who actually owns the console - says that no other console has as many people, gamer and non-gamer, wanting to come over and try it out. (He often jokes crudely that suddenly, a lot of people want to play with his Wii.) That just shows how revolutionary the motion sensor gameplay is, even in theory... let alone in practice. Though, like I said, we have almost no titles for it, so it's impossible for me to give a good judgement on the console itself just yet.

As I've mentioned before, I'm getting an Xbox 360 soon - I had to give in to the siren song eventually, with the sheer number of powerful-looking titles for it. I'm especially looking forward to Crackdown, Assassin's Creed, and Dead Rising so far. However, as I don't actually have the console yet, I can pass judgement on it even less reliably than on the Wii.

Though, while I'm running through the gamut, I must say that, although the PS2 was my favourite of the last-gen consoles, I've been a bit disappointed by some of Sony's fumbling with the PS3. Although I wasn't as "in" on the whole gaming scene back then as I am now, I hear that the PS2 suffered from the same understocking and overpricing issues as its successor, which is both heartening, and even more disappointing: heartening because, hey, even after that first trouble, the PS2 was still a fine console, and disappointing because, since they've gone through the motions before, Sony probably should have known better this time. Still, I can't pass judgement on the console itself.

Altogether, though, I must say that my favourite platform for gaming is the PC. A few free addons get you perfect backwards compatibility all the way back to Pong, and I can't think how any other console can have quite the level of customizability of a PC. Besides, as well as gaming, it has all the practical functionality as a computer! Laughing Sorry, couldn't pass that one up. Although, there is one core flaw in PC gaming which just isn't present in consoles; that being, of course, the varying levels and types of hardware and software which determine whether or not you can actually play the game you've just bought or not, and there's no denying that you could likely buy all three new-gen consoles at once, with spares, for less than it costs to keep a home PC up-to-date, unless you're willing to have lapses between upgrades as long as I am.

Now, to mention the consoles before this current generation: though, as I've already said, I wasn't really "in" on gaming even in the age of the Gamecube, so you can imagine how out-of-touch I was even in the time of the N64. The SNES, quite simply, was before me. With that in mind, I'm not going to try to pass any kind of judgement on the consoles of yester-era.

I'm in a worse position with handhelds. Besides Final Fantasy Tactics Advance on my brother's GBA, I've much pretty never played them.

So... that's my take on the whole thing.
Koji_Tsunami

You misunderstand.
You would not have to have an excellent physique to play a TI game. Everyone playing said game would probably be able to do all this crap they can't do in real life.
It's just video game law, Mario is this middle-aged, fat plumber.
Who can jump five times the height of his body.
See?
Konoko

Indeed. If games became limited to what I can actually do, clumsily stepping around the limited space of my living room, regardless of how amazing the AI is, its not really got the full range of gaming available. If its a neural interface, then finding a way to simply intercept the signals woudl work best and if it was a matter of interpretation, then why not think a little further....someone just sitting in a chair can mentally be within the body of said plumber and controlling his acrobatic leaps and such, doing all the usual first person stuff....but why not also be a freemoving camera moving according to whim and selecting, commanding or taking over various squads of their army with a thought. Just because its total immersion, doesn't mean it should be restricted to putting yourself in the place of a character, it could simply be used to increase the realism, give ALL the senses a complete experience and while its at it, make the control interface a lot more direct.

Right?
Koji_Tsunami

THAT's What I'm talking about. Exactly what I meant.
Thanks for explaining.
firemastrr

Well, I think that completely replacing the character would be fun too. The trick would be to balance it. Some games or sections of games would be replacement, and others would be mind-comtrol. With this stuff, the possibilities are endless.
firemastrr

Also, as far as your "passing judgement" on older platforms, you don't have to be of that era to decide. Two reasons:

1. It doesn't matter. This is just a little forum, not some gamer magazine. State your opinion, which can be based solely on what you've heard form your best friend.

2. Just because you're young doesn't mean you can't play the older games. I'm in high school and I've played on all the nintendo systems and all the other consoles too, except for the 360.

Go ahead. Take a stab in the dark!
Naryu Elda

In response to the poll, I can't really make a decision. I have the Wii, it is very fun. But the other two systems... I have tried some of the games on the X-Box 360, but not the PS3. Also, not having owned all three (yet), I cannot really say which is better.
Anomaly

Sorry, but I have an aversion to making judgements based on anything other than my own experience.
Though, it does seem to be the general consensus that the SNES was best.
firemastrr

Anomaly wrote:
Sorry, but I have an aversion to making judgements based on anything other than my own experience.
Though, it does seem to be the general consensus that the SNES was best.


Go ahead and do what you want. I just wanted to let you know that you can basically say whatever you want, so long as you state your inexperience. Say what looks good about one, what sounds stupid about another. We'll hold nothing against you here.*

*Believe me at your own risk.
firemastrr

Naryu Elda wrote:
In response to the poll, I can't really make a decision. I have the Wii, it is very fun. But the other two systems... I have tried some of the games on the X-Box 360, but not the PS3. Also, not having owned all three (yet), I cannot really say which is better.


I'll admit I'm kinda biased towards Nintendo, but I don't like Sony and Microsoft for just doing the same old thing when it comes to next-gens. Better graphics, better sound, stick with what works, change what doesn't, that sort of thing. I like that Nintendo took a chance and completely overhauled the old GCN and tried something new. And it looks like that gamble is going to pay off very well.
Naryu Elda

Yeah. Another thing is that I can't really pick one system over another due to graphics or anything. So what if the graphics are amazing and the controls are easy? If the games are terrible, the system won't sell so well.

Case in point: N*Gage. It could had been decent, but the fact that the gams were crappy ports and it was a freaking phone has turned it into a joke.
Koji_Tsunami

Indeed, gameplay, not graphics, are what makes a system good. Wii has mostly good games so far, and you can trust Nintendo to keep it that way.
firemastrr

Yes, graghics and stuff are overrated, but look at it the other way too. It's easy for a game with excellent gameplay to be ruined by horrible graphics. The graphics are what make people attracted to the game, and they can also enhance gameplay. But I agree. To a point, the gameplay is what matters most.
Anomaly

firemastrr wrote:
It's easy for a game with excellent gameplay to be ruined by horrible graphics. The graphics are what make people attracted to the game, and they can also enhance gameplay.
I disagree. I've never cared even a smidgeon about graphics in my life; as long as I can understand what's going on, I'm fine with it, and coloured blobs can fulfill that requirement just as well as ridiculously-high-poly 3D meshes with insanely-detailed textures. For me, it's always the gameplay, and only the gameplay that counts. Anything else is a bonus.
Konoko

I think that you both are right, in some way. My general feel is that simplistic graphics can work just as well as the highly polished ones. However, if someone is making a good game, it should turn out good anyway and top of the line graphics should only be an improvement. Equally though, badly done graphics, regardless of how advanced they are, can spoil the game, or at least the feel, immersion or atmosphere of the game. Graphical glitches, things that strain the eyes, busy backgrounds that are overly distracting when trying to do something tricky, graphics that don't fit the mood of the story or are extremely repetitive, extensive fogging or extremely short field of view...

The last one in particular, I've seen in both good games and bad games, with otherwise good graphics or otherwise awful graphics and it often causes problems.
Silent Hill turned fogging into part of the game and used it as a device. That game had pretty low level graphics, but did them well and they enhanced the feel of the game. Superman 64 also tried to pretend the extensive fogging was part of the game, but it didn't add anything to the atmosphere and simply looked ugly, adding another downpoint to a bad game. Nosferatu for the SNES, had very advanced graphics, but they were badly done, makign the game more frustrating and challenging as a result. While challenge is generally a good thing, I feel it should be a test of skill, not relying too much on luck and learning things by rote so you can overcome the games inherent problems.

I won't lie, I rather like pretty graphics in a game, but equally, I scorn the likes of sport games, which seem to simply be releasing the same game with better graphics. Down to the individual armpit hair of the players. I wish I was exagerating about that. I think some games are improved for their graphics, some overly rely on them and some would be much better if the graphics were different. Graphics are far from the most important thing about a game, gameplay is definately the most, but they are still something that should be done well. If the 'done well' means lavished with extreme attention, detail and complex graphics, or simplistic yet fitting (Loco Roco?), depends on the game.

I kinda got rambly there, so I'm not sure if a coherent point got through all that. o.o;;

Edit: Also, if the character is actually shaped like a person, it can really help the hit-box detection. ;P
Chocolate Ninja

I think a game-of-the-century consists of three parts, in order of priority, innovative gameplay, engrossing story, and excellent graphics. The order depends on the person, though. More visually-inclined people place a higher priority on graphics, for instance. Trying something new, even if it doesn't work too well, scores a few points with me too.
firemastrr

Konoko wrote:
Equally though, badly done graphics, regardless of how advanced they are, can spoil the game, or at least the feel, immersion or atmosphere of the game.


Thank you. That was the point I was trying to get across.


Look, I agree that gameplay is the most important. Any self-respecting gamer will agree with you. But imagine Twilight Princess with ugly, 8-bit graphics and no animation, with slow responsiveness. It's now an interactive comic. No matter how good one thing is, they all must go hand in had for a great game. If one thing is out of line, the whole game can be ruined. It's possible that one aspect is so good that it compnsates for the other part, but it still won't be as good.
Konoko

firemastrr wrote:
Konoko wrote:
Equally though, badly done graphics, regardless of how advanced they are, can spoil the game, or at least the feel, immersion or atmosphere of the game.


Thank you. That was the point I was trying to get across.


Look, I agree that gameplay is the most important. Any self-respecting gamer will agree with you. But imagine Twilight Princess with ugly, 8-bit graphics and no animation, with slow responsiveness. It's now an interactive comic. No matter how good one thing is, they all must go hand in had for a great game. If one thing is out of line, the whole game can be ruined. It's possible that one aspect is so good that it compnsates for the other part, but it still won't be as good.


Just to make sure the point is well clarified, equally Twilight Princess with clear, crisp 8-bit graphics, responsive and smooth, would be much better than a vast, splendiferous highly rendered adventure which suffered from slow-down, graphical errors, dissapearing enemies or whatnot...and I'd obviously prefer a Twilight Princess with well-done AND advanced graphics. So, Gameplay does come first, but Graphics works as a sorting order, as long as they are done properly. Right? =D
firemastrr

Yes, that's it exactly! Thanks.

       gamerhang.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Video Game Discussion
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum