You are arguing that current games are good by offering two remakes and a sequel to a PS2 game as examples?

FF13 was a bit different but the storyboarding and new attack model was really fun stuff, I think you're being too hard on it picking on that one game as the death of the JRPG when really more the fault lies with lack of creativity or intelligence put into the JRPGs on the whole. More bland exact same story w/insert new name(s), town(s), monster(s) and plot(s)/twist(s.) And the stupidity of the western world trying to jam WRPGs up everyones butt as the only way to game in the RPG sense of things. Blame should be wider spread, and in the case of FF13 it's side-sequel pops up in a few weeks and it does add towns, overworld(3D), and the rest you complained about not being there.

I don't think of FF13 as being at fault. If you wanted to place blame, I'd go back to FF8, but really I was just using FF13 as an example. I actually really like the world that the characters explore. If you spend time reading all of the encyclopedia entries in that game (I forget what they're called), the whole back story and history of the world is really interesting. It's just a shame that more of that didn't make it into the actual game. And that you're forced to play as such annoying characters. 

Yes Mass Effect and Fallout aren't the "same" rpg as Dragon Warrior and Final Fantasy 1 were.. But how many of the same game with different text and images can you possibly need? Personally I'm glad they aren't the same.

Really, I'm just sick of every other game being an FPS even when it's an RPG. If there was a wealth of diverse games to choose from on the current gen systems I wouldn't have a problem. Instead it's "Sports, action or FPS." And by action I really mean third-person style games like God of War. Stuff like SH Homecoming or Alan Wake seem to be a mix of action and FPS (without being first person). I want to go inhabit a fantasy world for awhile. One that isn't an FPS and that has a semi-linear storyline. It doesn't need to be the same as every other Dragon Warrior (tho if you've played the recent DS remakes, you might rethink the criticism since while they all do have very similar engines, the ride is very different for each of em).

Sounds to me like you need to play Tales of Vesperia and Lost Odyssey. 

I like this generation alot because of gamerscore.  Yea it's kind of pointless but  I get satisfaction out of getting all the achievements in games.

What I don't like about this gen is DLC, it was cool when people actually put hard work into a quality DLC (ex. fable 2 or fallout 3 dlc) but now has become so standard for DLC that comanies are selling "season passes" where you get all the DLC for $30 instead of $40.  Are you f'in serious??  I pay $60 for a game and you aren't even going to release the rest of it till later?? AND I have to pay more?? F that.  I've boycotted damn near all DLC this gen

Not every game is an FPS, we also have "starcraft" games and "gto" games and "guitar hero" games and "street fighter" games etc. FPS is just one style in many that are used over and over and I'm always happy when someone actually does something interesting like mixing them First person is just a perspective, the actual gameplay can be completely seperate entity, as we see with oblivion being nothing like call of duty and portal being nothing like oblivion other than that you are in first person perspective. Unlike oldschool rpgs which actually did have mostly all the same gameplay *and* perspective with only the story being different between games.

some great replies so far, i'll follow up on this later...

I suppose.  I was thinking of the game part as the perspective, where you walk around.  The picture in combat can be from a different perspective, thats true.  I meant GTO as a style of game similar to FPS that is used over and over again, not a seperate genre.  If I were grouping gto games in with action, I would have to group RPG games in with strategy and say there are only 2 types of games

In terms of there not being many fighters, well, I was just thinking of my personal collection, I have capcom vs tetsuwhatever, teken 6, street fighter number one million and 6, marvel vs capcom 3 and soul caliber (these would all be action btw ).  Then I have 2-3 guitar hero (action) games (rocksmith rocks, the rest are worthless), Romance of the three kindoms XI (strategy),  opoona (strategy), portal (strategy) and fallout, oblivion, borderlands (action), demon swords (action), mario kart (action) and some grand theft auto game type I never play and don't even know which one it is.  So a good chunk of them are fighters..  and I don't even like fighters that much

edit: oh and I have also ninja gaiden sigma.  It's action.

edit2: Yes, starcraft type games are mostly out on the pc.  I think this type of game works a lot better on PC.  They have tried doing it on console a few times, but it doesn't seem to work well.  Still a new game though.

As far as the crappy licensed stuff goes, I feel like NES had just as much, if not more licensed stuff. But it was just better back then too. For example back then there actually were good movie based games. Lion King and Aladdin come to mind, but now if a game is based on a movie I don't pay any attention to it.

I agree it is a rather pointless endeavor that can easily suck you in if your not careful, basically a way to get people to compete against each other for best gamer score, but most of them are total crap designed for you to torture yourself trying to get them, or in the case of some completely retarded like pushing the start button which is total B/S. Really I think high score competition is enough, but I guess in this day and age not alot of games have scores so achievements or trophies is the replacement and they're way of somehow compensating us, although it is a bit overkill sometimes. I just ignore it for the most part and enjoy the games. 

I just thought I would add a different perspective to the whole trophies/achievements direction that games/systems seem to be going. I always saw them as adding replay value to a game. It encourages players to try something new, or to work at 'mastering' a game by beating it in a different, more challenging way. I loved COD4 and after I finished the game I went looking for another challenge. I then knocked out every achievement for that game, though I never did finish the bonus stage achievement on whatever ungoldly level that it was for. Some of them were down right nasty and forced you to really push the limits of what you could do. It reminded me of getting 'gold' on every level in Goldeneye for N64, doing a 'no-death' or speed run when I was a kid, or trying to find all 99 levels in SMW after you kicked Bowser's tail.

I think achievements are awesome if done right. It requires you to think differently or see easter eggs in a game where you normally would just skip right by it.

I agree, I'm on the pro-achievement/trophy bandwagon.
It depends on the game but if it's a game I thoroughly enjoy, then the achievements typically add an extra level of gameplay and challenge. 

There are some pointless ones like collection achievements (although shouldn't that appeal to most of us packrats?) but then there are others that actually require some skill and work.  I still haven't gotten them all but I remember really enjoying going for the L4D2 achievements... and they are tough!
I've only gotten 100% on a couple games but I had a good time doing it.. and that's what it's all about.

again, some good points made here.

as for the trophies, i can understand them in a sense. from what i've seen though, a lot of them appear pretty pointless. it seemed that we were getting trophies every other minute for just basic things in the game (this might have been in Little Big Planet?). is it true that you can't delete them as well? that just plain sucks.

yes, i guess the games that i mentioned were examples of 'old school' style games. i'd still say they're pretty 'current' though, even if they play similar to classic games. really, even FPS games are nothing new, they're just more popular than they were when they started. are any game styles/genres really 'new'? pretty much everything is based on the same ideas we've seen for decades now.

as for licensed games, i can't think of too many (based on movies) for the NES that were really any good. on the other hand, i was really impressed with a number of games based on children's films for the PS2 (Chicken Little and Bolt come to mind).

honestly though, i don't play too many games, so i don't have a lot to go off of.

then again, i'm not into a lot of new games either. just tried demos of Uncharted and Heavy Rain (based on recommendations here) and wasn't too into them. i actually thought Heavy Rain was horrible, though i didn't give it more than ten minutes or so. the voice acting and other aspects killed it for me. i'm a big Dragon Quest fan (my favorite series of all time), and am playing DQ IX right now. sadly, i think it just about sucks. i can't believe it, i never thought i'd feel that way about a DQ game.

ehh, i guess current generation games aren't so great after all. 

i guess my point in this thread was that i realized that there's still games being made today that get me just as excited as i ever was for any NES game back in the day. maybe they're few and far between, but they're around.

The thing that I hate about this current generation of gamers is that if a game doesn't have some sort of multiplayer gimmick in it, at all, they wont even pick it up and try it. It makes me sad. I mean alot of our games we talk about on here are NES and SNES etc, and we did FINE back then without it. Everyone has a short attention span these days I guess.

I think a lot of the problem stems from a lot of us being there from the start. There was a certain charm to the games that didn't mirror a movie with a Hollywood production budget. We had to use our imaginations and hence, I feel we connected with these games on a level today's kids can't. Evidence is seen by the longevity of some of these titles. To this very day, I still buy most of the games that I loved as a kid: Zelda, Castlevania, Contra, Ninja Gaiden .... they all live on. This experience is so hard to match up against when comparing what is out there today and therefore guys like us easily dismiss the new stuff.

Not only that, I think a lot of us would agree that the early video game eras were a pretty fun time to live in. I think right now with the tough times and the decline of much in our society, we associate the games we played as kids with feelings from a better time, hence that is why we are willing to shell out crazy money for them. We don't have time machines, so the best we can do is spend to get a quick fix of our pasts.

I have everything current, but I tend to focus on sequels from my golden era of video gaming instead of branching out and trying new things. I am kind of stuck in my ways and that is fine with me, but I wouldn't say the new generation games all suck. There is a lot of good, but also, there is a lot that does not interest me as I grow older. When I was a kid I used to chuckle at the older guys who were stuck in the 50's & 60's. Now I am doing the same thing myself. Go figure.

It's just a sign of the times.  80% of the games during the NES/SNES generation were platformers.  FPS keep getting made because people keep buying them.  There's plenty of great games out there, but you're looking in the wrong places.

Uh everyone do themselves a favor and play Rayman Origins and then tell me current gen games suck.

This. It's a bit sad that it priced bombed to $20, but in this generation FPS are king.

http://www.toysrus.com/product/in...

Is anyone on here playing Uncharted 3 multi-player? I LOVE the Uncharted series and was working on the Platinum trophy. I only needed the 75 kills in a row without dying (which seems to be stuck for some reason?) and to beat the game again on CRUSHING difficulty plus the 2 multi-player trophies. So I thought ok before I replay the game on Crushing I'll go snag the two online multi-player trophies. HOLY CRAP, about 2 weeks of playing multi-player multiple hours everyday later I am totally addicted to it and can't stop playing it. So fun. So many leveling, cash to buy things, customizations, medals, kickbacks, it is amazing. I long forgot about getting the platinum trophy in favor of leveling up in the world rankings on multi-player!

Implying that Rayman Origins speaks for all games. In my opinion, it's a matter of popular or mainstream games being too repetitive. There's still a lot of good games out there but a lot of what you see are repetitive titles that casual gamers buy. I just get tired of the call of duty and overhyped annual sports games. All in all I don't think you would hear this cliche as much if there were more variety. 

As someone who grew up in the late 90s and early 00s, I can definitely say that modern games do not suck. Perhaps one of my favorite games of all time, let alone right now, is Skyrim. No game I have ever touched has drawn me in so deeply as Skyrim, and I've played many RPGs and just about every Zelda game.

In fact, some not-so-recent games (i.e. released 3-5 years ago) are getting cheaper and cheaper, so now I can finally afford to enjoy Assassin's Creed, BioShock, and other great series. Yeah, I'm pretty cheap.

So you're not going to allow me to respond to a blanket statement with another blanket statement? Thx Hitler.

Also, I will continue to buy and play each (EA) NHL release because there is nothing I enjoy more than smoking the Bruins, Red Wings, and the Capitals with the Blackhawks over LIVE.I love to talk shit and send people messages that gamestop is having a trade in special this week for NHL , that one is reserved for when people disconnect before the game is over.