If you're bored, post here.

[Gorf]

It's a really blurry line for wii as far as which generation it's really in.

Not to me. Can I play Wii games on a Gamecube? No? Then it's next gen.

 

CAn you play 7800 on a 5200? Can you play 2600 on a O2?

 

What the hell does playing past games on a new system have

to do with it being next gen? So with that logic, the Ps2 was not

a leap from PS1?

[Megadragon15]

I would say the Wii is part of the current generation. The same way I would say the Xbox 360 and the Playstation 3 are part of the current generation. Next generation hasn't been announced yet...

Edited January 1, 2009 by Megadragon15

[Greg2600]

If you ask me, none of the three (PS3, 360, Wii) are a "next generation" above their predecessors. The graphics are not that much better, and you've essentially got the same hardware to use. Only the Wii has developed something new, with the remote, but that was tried on systems in the past, and the Wii's graphics are of course no better than the PS2 or Xbox.

[Cybergoth]

It's a really blurry line for wii as far as which generation it's really in.

Not to me. Can I play Wii games on a Gamecube? No? Then it's next gen.

 

CAn you play 7800 on a 5200? Can you play 2600 on a O2?

 

What the hell does playing past games on a new system have

to do with it being next gen? So with that logic, the Ps2 was not

a leap from PS1?

 

The argument was about playing current games on the old system, maybe you should read it again.

[kisrael]

The 7800 is probably a good example of a system that doesn't fit in the generation, since it kind of sort of had the power of its peers, but its games and game styles and default controllers were pretty much from the previous generation.

In all fairness, the 7800 was a machine from 1984 competing against a machine from 1983.

You know, this is a good point, and it's kind of too bad this thread didn't end on it

 

I was trying to think of the counterpoint, I have an urge to make an excuse for Atari technology, though I'm not sure why.

 

I think the problem is not that a 1984 7800 competing with a 1983 NES, it was a 1984 7800 that had to compete with a 1987 NES.... i.e. because Nintendo was willing to go back into the industry after the crash, they got to lead an evolution of game design in a way that Atari didn't. So I guess my statement stands; in game, game-style, and control, 7800 was rooted in 1984, and just because its technology mighta been newer than the NES (though I don't know which had more cost conscious design), it's outlook is in most ways pre-crash. So my fundamental point remains; it's a tough system to place, with hardware newer but gameplay older than its competition.

 

(Atari wasn't always on the wrong side of these things; for example the Atari 8-bits were a bit older than, say, the C=64, a system it could pretty much stand toe to toe with)

 

If you ask me, none of the three (PS3, 360, Wii) are a "next generation" above their predecessors. The graphics are not that much better, and you've essentially got the same hardware to use. Only the Wii has developed something new, with the remote, but that was tried on systems in the past, and the Wii's graphics are of course no better than the PS2 or Xbox.

 

Well, then, how will we recognize a next gen system?

It's been said before:

2600-era->NES was a very distinct generation jump, NES->Genesis was less so; more refinement.

PS/N64 was primitive 3D, PS2/Xbox/GC, you could do most things graphically you needed to.

So if you say PS3/360 are not "that much better", well, you're kind of right... though there's stuff in terms of "making a city" in like, Crackdown, that is a type of graphics/processing earlier gen would struggle with. But until we get, like, holograms, it seems like it's just refinement from here on in...

[DracIsBack]

I think the problem is not that a 1984 7800 competing with a 1983 NES, it was a 1984 7800 that had to compete with a 1987 NES.... i.e. because Nintendo was willing to go back into the industry after the crash, they got to lead an evolution of game design in a way that Atari didn't.

 

Agree completely. Let's call it what it is though! 7800 games from 1984 that didn't compete with NES games from 1987.

 

Too many people fall into the trap of "oh gee ... the 7800 was delayed and therefore out-of-date against newer technology consoles when released" ... forgetting that the NES itself was actually in market first.

 

While I get that there are pros and cons to each system, this logic always drove me a little nuts. The problem was less (IMO) with GCCs technology and more with Jack Tramiels cheapness than anything else.

[sl0re]

Hi, I know there is a Wii sub group, but I figure in there I will get the opinion of only Wii fans of which there are many. I would like the opinion of everyone even Wii haters. I have owned every Nintendo system. I collect and play games for the SNES, N64 and Gamecube still (as well as Atari and sega). The thing is, I love games like Mario Kart, Mario 64, paper mario, Metroid and so on... but I also like the multi platform games (Resident Evils, Soul Caliburs, Splinter Cells, Time Splitters to name just a few) that are on the Cube. With the Wii it seem's to me from my limited exposure to the platform that it is a perfect for casual gamers (i have a ds and love those games too) but if you really want to play next gen shooters and other multi platform games for the most part you will need a Ps3 or Xbox360. Am I right in thinking this? If so maybe for the first time the Nintendo platform would not be my first choice for the current/next generation.

 

I know eventually I will get one when they are cheap just to play the new Nintendo franchises, but would I be better off as someone who is getting close to having all cube titles he wants and yearning for something new and new games to wait and get a different platform?

 

 

I would appreciate your point of view, since the only other people that have offered opinions are the guys at Gamestop who (of course) suggest I buy 2 consoles (xbox 360/Wii).

 

I own a wii and have owned other Nintendo’s and I think your right. They don't compete (now or in the past) based on high tech / being the next gen. They compete using their name / franchise and innovations (like the wii controllers).

 

I’ll add that my wii is the only currently on the market game system I have or want.

[ApolloBoy]

It's a really blurry line for wii as far as which generation it's really in.

Not to me. Can I play Wii games on a Gamecube? No? Then it's next gen.

 

CAn you play 7800 on a 5200? Can you play 2600 on a O2?

 

What the hell does playing past games on a new system have

to do with it being next gen? So with that logic, the Ps2 was not

a leap from PS1?

 

The argument was about playing current games on the old system, maybe you should read it again.

 

Not to mention that the 2600 and Odyssey 2 are made by different companies, as opposed to the other two examples.

[jbanes]

I think the problem is not that a 1984 7800 competing with a 1983 NES, it was a 1984 7800 that had to compete with a 1987 NES.... i.e. because Nintendo was willing to go back into the industry after the crash, they got to lead an evolution of game design in a way that Atari didn't.

Did Atari ever evolve game design as an art, or did they simply press forward down the same path?

 

As I recall, Donkey Kong shook up the industry because it was so completely different from what everyone was used to playing. It was THE game to have on your system. I'd say that Nintendo was already influencing the market pre-crash, and was trying very hard to exert their influence directly over Atari by offering them the Famicom.

 

Unfortunately, Kassar was just leading on Nintendo while he bought enough time to release the 7800. Atari would have still been behind the game as soon as Nintendo got their American feet under them and began pushing their new approach to gaming out to the market. Atari would have still been stuck with the 7800 and Nintendo would still have controlled the direction of the market. In the best of all universes, a healthy Atari would have poured money into the 7800 just to see it creamed by Nintendo in the same way the NES creamed the Master System.

[atarian63]

I think the problem is not that a 1984 7800 competing with a 1983 NES, it was a 1984 7800 that had to compete with a 1987 NES.... i.e. because Nintendo was willing to go back into the industry after the crash, they got to lead an evolution of game design in a way that Atari didn't.

Did Atari ever evolve game design as an art, or did they simply press forward down the same path?

 

As I recall, Donkey Kong shook up the industry because it was so completely different from what everyone was used to playing. It was THE game to have on your system. I'd say that Nintendo was already influencing the market pre-crash, and was trying very hard to exert their influence directly over Atari by offering them the Famicom.

 

Unfortunately, Kassar was just leading on Nintendo while he bought enough time to release the 7800. Atari would have still been behind the game as soon as Nintendo got their American feet under them and began pushing their new approach to gaming out to the market. Atari would have still been stuck with the 7800 and Nintendo would still have controlled the direction of the market. In the best of all universes, a healthy Atari would have poured money into the 7800 just to see it creamed by Nintendo in the same way the NES creamed the Master System.

I dunno...

I think a healthy Atari would have had money for game dev, they were established, had a distribution channel. they would have needed some damage control with vendors but it was doable. Nintendo had none of these and was not very well funded at the beginning, had no distribution channel and no brand name recognition. Had history or management been different there would have been no nintendo here in the US.

Edited January 2, 2009 by atarian63

[kisrael]

I think the problem is not that a 1984 7800 competing with a 1983 NES, it was a 1984 7800 that had to compete with a 1987 NES.... i.e. because Nintendo was willing to go back into the industry after the crash, they got to lead an evolution of game design in a way that Atari didn't.

 

Agree completely. Let's call it what it is though! 7800 games from 1984 that didn't compete with NES games from 1987.

But this is the fundamental issue of this (ultimately undecidable, but still maybe thought provoking) debate; whether it makes more sense to think of generations strictly as a hardware issue, or a game and culture issue.

 

Wii doesn't really play a type of game different than the GC generation; but, it seems, neither does PS3 or 360. (Though I don't know if physicsy games like Big Little Planet or Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts challenge this, and when you go back to GTA:VC after GTA4, the evolution is striking)

[kisrael]

I think the problem is not that a 1984 7800 competing with a 1983 NES, it was a 1984 7800 that had to compete with a 1987 NES.... i.e. because Nintendo was willing to go back into the industry after the crash, they got to lead an evolution of game design in a way that Atari didn't.

Did Atari ever evolve game design as an art, or did they simply press forward down the same path?

 

As I recall, Donkey Kong shook up the industry because it was so completely different from what everyone was used to playing. It was THE game to have on your system. I'd say that Nintendo was already influencing the market pre-crash, and was trying very hard to exert their influence directly over Atari by offering them the Famicom.

Yes, after the crash, with the leadership changes, I think Atari was not going to be a leader in gaming... if you look to what they did in the years earlier, yeah, that did advance things; but come to think of it, the real heart of Atari was arcade based! The 2600 was some brilliant economical engineering, but Atari tried to treat its employees like cogs, and it took Activision to advance the idea of the artist/programmer. (Admittedly, though, GCC started making some jaw-dropping arcade conversions, which were technical marvels, but not really advancing on the creative front.)

 

Miyamoto was pretty amazing, given Japan's famous love of group and consensus, it's striking that that's where an individual really was able to advance the art. (Though, you know, it's always gonna be tough to know if someone is a figurehead or the legitimate driver)

[Atarifever]

It's a really blurry line for wii as far as which generation it's really in.

Not to me. Can I play Wii games on a Gamecube? No? Then it's next gen.

 

CAn you play 7800 on a 5200? Can you play 2600 on a O2?

 

What the hell does playing past games on a new system have

to do with it being next gen? So with that logic, the Ps2 was not

a leap from PS1?

Okay, let me hop into the way back machine here and try to get back into a conversation from freaking August. I especially like the immediacy implied in "what the Hell...." as if I just posted it yesterday.

 

As to your question, I may need until next August to make sense of it. It appears you're asking me to explain the most simple concept I can see coming up in this debate. The Gamecube is not supported. The Wii is. If you want to play new games today you can do so on a Wii, but not a Gamecube. Thus, with new games out today, the Wii is current generation. To claim it is not "current gen" is to claim no games come out for it today. For that matter, the PS2 is technically current gen right now. You can buy current games for it in the mainstream market. It is currently part of this generation.

 

From your crazy post, it appears you think I said that the PS2 wasn't current gen because it played PS1 games. That's just silly. To make that claim would require either poor literacy skills or a blatant attempt to avoid reading.

 

 

All this splitting public hairs by fanboys is pretty silly in any case.

[atarian63]

I think the problem is not that a 1984 7800 competing with a 1983 NES, it was a 1984 7800 that had to compete with a 1987 NES.... i.e. because Nintendo was willing to go back into the industry after the crash, they got to lead an evolution of game design in a way that Atari didn't.

Did Atari ever evolve game design as an art, or did they simply press forward down the same path?

 

As I recall, Donkey Kong shook up the industry because it was so completely different from what everyone was used to playing. It was THE game to have on your system. I'd say that Nintendo was already influencing the market pre-crash, and was trying very hard to exert their influence directly over Atari by offering them the Famicom.

Yes, after the crash, with the leadership changes, I think Atari was not going to be a leader in gaming... if you look to what they did in the years earlier, yeah, that did advance things; but come to think of it, the real heart of Atari was arcade based! The 2600 was some brilliant economical engineering, but Atari tried to treat its employees like cogs, and it took Activision to advance the idea of the artist/programmer. (Admittedly, though, GCC started making some jaw-dropping arcade conversions, which were technical marvels, but not really advancing on the creative front.)

 

Miyamoto was pretty amazing, given Japan's famous love of group and consensus, it's striking that that's where an individual really was able to advance the art. (Though, you know, it's always gonna be tough to know if someone is a figurehead or the legitimate driver)

I think you hit the nail on the head, Atari was arcades and the mind set at the time was just that,it had not changed yet. That was why many people bought a home game system was the arcades. For me that was what I wanted. They seemed to loose the edge there and things evolved, Sega was a bit like Atari, they were in their day the king of arcade, brought the stuff to the home system. Eventually screwed up with odd add on quasi systems,pissed off the resellers ,then had a system(Saturn) that was hard to program for but powerful (like Jaguar) and bam, bad reputation. Seems to follow a roughly general way that Atari did. Sadly they are only software now.

Maybe Atari needed to rehire or buy them out and put in charge the Activision guys? You know, not some corporate guy, put the idea guys back in charge. Kassar sold the crap out of the technology while it was viable but burn the bridges to the future from within and without in the process. There had to be some other choices that could have been done.

Edited January 2, 2009 by atarian63

[MCHufnagel]

If you ask me, none of the three (PS3, 360, Wii) are a "next generation" above their predecessors. The graphics are not that much better, and you've essentially got the same hardware to use. Only the Wii has developed something new, with the remote, but that was tried on systems in the past, and the Wii's graphics are of course no better than the PS2 or Xbox.

I guess you've never paid attention to the much better T & L or the amount of action going on in the current gen (360/PS3)games compared to last gen (Xbox/PS2) games. There is a large difference between them. Well a large difference in regard with the better developers!

 

And yes, I consider the Wii a current gen console. The controls alone make it different from the Gamecube. And in regards to graphics, the demos I've seen show that the Wii can do more than the Gamecube. The problem is that there are plenty of lazy development teams working on Wii games and that "family-friendly" games aren't graphically demanding (I personally hate the "Mii" look so many games have). So most people will never be able to tell the difference.

Edited January 5, 2009 by MCHufnagel

[Paranoid]

I've got a Wii, Xbox 360 and a couple of Xboxes.

 

There isn't a quantum leap between the Xbox and the 360. The graphics are better, it is clearly a more powerful system, and Microsoft has gone to some great lengths to make the 360 a more viable home entertainment unit (although a soft modded Xbox shows that it COULD have happened LAST generation). But there is nothing revolutionary. It is a very moderate evolution from the last generation.

 

The Wii is great for competitive games. It is like Atari Olympics for the 21st century. I think they know that, too. If you look at the titles that cater to the competitive nature of the Wii, all they did was re-realize the early family gaming orientation of the 4 player Atari 2600 paddle games. That is all they did, and that is EXACTLY what they did.

 

The 360 is more geared toward "serious gamer" gaming. Solo and online gaming. If I were single, I probably wouldn't have the Wii. Bowling by yourself isn't much fun. Bowling with the whole family is a blast, though - especially when my 7 year old 0wNz all.

 

A game like Fallout 3 would be poorly executed on the Wii. On the other hand, Xbox can't really come up with anything to compare with Sonic versus Mario Olympics archery.

 

It is the generation it is.

[kisrael]

The problem is that there are plenty of lazy development teams working on Wii games and that "family-friendly" games aren't graphically demanding (I personally hate the "Mii" look so many games have). So most people will never be able to tell the difference.

Yeah, it's funny to think about how many games look SO much better than, say, cartoons of the '80s... like Cobra Command, we can now render a lot better than they could animate -- and something like Wind Waker even captures much of the feel and beauty of some of the old cartooning styles...

[Godzilla]

I haven't seen a 'holy poopbags!' leap since I played soul calibur on my dreamcast. Stuff has gotten shinier and bumpier (tho still no big jump from xbox riddick,) but imho (as I said,) it's all the same stuff, an analog + digital pad & 3d textured (+ extras,) gfx. The only real 'next=gen' stuff beyond that has been dreamcast seaman & the wii & eye of jodgement (and others,) but that is really what I see as 'next-gen' Of course, it's all symantics (sp) and opinions and I have mine

[+Charlie Cat]

Hi guys,

 

Well, on pencil & paper the Wii is part on the "Next-Generation" list of current consoles. However, the Wii is not really the next-gen system in regards to cutting edge technology!

 

Years ago, Gunpei Yokoi (Former Dean of Engineering and leader of R&D 1 for Nintendo) had a strong philosophy called "Lateral Thinking of Withered Technology"! This concept means that as a corporation, we can use existing withered technology (which is cheap, well understood, and has easier access) and can use lateral thinking (which means new radical ways in old technology that haven't been done before) in which one can make it into extremely good use.

 

 

Satoru Iwata (current CEO of Nintendo) says that Yokoi's philosophy is still highly used in Nintendo's current models and that the Nintendo Wii and the DS are prime examples of Lateral thinking of Withered Technology are like. That is coming straight from the horses mouth and that Nintendo feels that technology should not get into the way of novel & fun ideas in what video games were intended to be for.

 

To answer this question correctly, Unfortunately No!!!

 

Anthony....

Edited January 6, 2009 by fdurso224

[jbanes]

Well, on pencil & paper the Wii is part on the "Next-Generation" list of current consoles. However, the Wii is not really the next-gen system in regards to cutting edge technology!

"Next Generation" (which is actually CURRENT generation) does not mean anything about hardware power or strength. If you think it has anything to do with such attributes, then you have bought into a marketing philosophy that has no real connection to reality.

 

Next generation literally means "to be generated from the existence of the previous thing". Which means that the 2600 begat the 5200 which begat the 7800. Which means that the NES begat the SNES which begat the N64 which begat the GameCube which begat the Wii. Which means that the Playstation begat the PS2 which begat the PS3. Which means that the XBox begat the 360. So on and so forth.

 

The only reason why we can group generations is because the console makers conveniently release their products with the intent of explicitly competing against another product. This creates grouping for which we can say, "Oh, they're of the same generation." Just like we can say, "I'm a Baby Boomer" or "I'm a Gen-Xer" or "I'm a Baby Buster". While one can make stereotypical assertions about one of those groupings, one cannot identify the attributes of the individual based on those stereotypes.

 

To wrap this up succinctly, all this argument about "next gen" is a bunch of bullshit that doesn't deserve anywhere near the airtime it's getting. If you want to argue that the Wii is less powerful than the PS3 & 360, go right ahead. (No kidding? Really? I had no idea! ) But leave this utter nonsense about generations out of the discussion. All that's being proven is that the vast majority of posters fail at the English language.

[moycon]

all this argument about "next gen" is a bunch of bullshit that doesn't deserve anywhere near the airtime it's getting.

 

Fair enough.

 

Hey let's switch subjects, lets spend the next 2 days discussing our opinion of what "hardcore" gamer means.

[jbanes]

Hey let's switch subjects, lets spend the next 2 days discussing our opinion of what "hardcore" gamer means.

You laugh, but I happen to have a handy-dandy chart right here!

 

Hardcore Gamer - Enjoy games that are difficult to nearly impossible. Find enjoyment in "totally clearing" games. High Scores are a typical measure of success. (Do the words "Curtain Fire" ring a bell? )

 

Core Gamer - The gamer who has typified the popular genres of games for the past 5 years. Generally this includes 3D games that are Story-Based in nature.

 

Casual Gamer - Someone who has not been targeted by the gaming market until recently. This generally includes short "pick up and play" games, and local multiplayer titles that focus on friendly challenges.

 

Obviously there's a bit of crossover in all of these, and an individual gamer may sometimes find himself fitting into multiple categories. But there you have it.

[+Charlie Cat]

:lol:

 

Anthony....

Well, on pencil & paper the Wii is part on the "Next-Generation" list of current consoles. However, the Wii is not really the next-gen system in regards to cutting edge technology!

"Next Generation" (which is actually CURRENT generation) does not mean anything about hardware power or strength. If you think it has anything to do with such attributes, then you have bought into a marketing philosophy that has no real connection to reality.

 

Next generation literally means "to be generated from the existence of the previous thing". Which means that the 2600 begat the 5200 which begat the 7800. Which means that the NES begat the SNES which begat the N64 which begat the GameCube which begat the Wii. Which means that the Playstation begat the PS2 which begat the PS3. Which means that the XBox begat the 360. So on and so forth.

 

The only reason why we can group generations is because the console makers conveniently release their products with the intent of explicitly competing against another product. This creates grouping for which we can say, "Oh, they're of the same generation." Just like we can say, "I'm a Baby Boomer" or "I'm a Gen-Xer" or "I'm a Baby Buster". While one can make stereotypical assertions about one of those groupings, one cannot identify the attributes of the individual based on those stereotypes.

 

To wrap this up succinctly, all this argument about "next gen" is a bunch of bullshit that doesn't deserve anywhere near the airtime it's getting. If you want to argue that the Wii is less powerful than the PS3 & 360, go right ahead. (No kidding? Really? I had no idea! ) But leave this utter nonsense about generations out of the discussion. All that's being proven is that the vast majority of posters fail at the English language.

[moycon]

But there you have it.

 

Heh nice list! I would add to it and omit some parts, but that was kind of my point. Everyone has an opinion of what "hardcore gamer" means and they are right and everyone else is wrong, just like everyone has their own opinion of what "next-gen" means. Both terms are flung around in earnest these days. Too bad there isn't and probably will never be an official definition since only a handful of geeks give a crap enough to spend more than 20 seconds typing a sentence about either!

[atarian63]

Hey let's switch subjects, lets spend the next 2 days discussing our opinion of what "hardcore" gamer means.

You laugh, but I happen to have a handy-dandy chart right here!

 

Hardcore Gamer - Enjoy games that are difficult to nearly impossible. Find enjoyment in "totally clearing" games. High Scores are a typical measure of success. (Do the words "Curtain Fire" ring a bell? )

 

Core Gamer - The gamer who has typified the popular genres of games for the past 5 years. Generally this includes 3D games that are Story-Based in nature.

 

Casual Gamer - Someone who has not been targeted by the gaming market until recently. This generally includes short "pick up and play" games, and local multiplayer titles that focus on friendly challenges.

 

Obviously there's a bit of crossover in all of these, and an individual gamer may sometimes find himself fitting into multiple categories. But there you have it.

Casual Gamer, What a hardcore gamer was in 1985. In other words Arcade games.