i've heard this a lot over the past ten years or so. i'm not sure if i agree...

i bought a PS3 this past Christmas for my son and i. i've got to say that i've had just as much fun playing Rayman Origins, Sonic Generations (and i've never been a Sonic fan), and even Ratchet & Clank: All 4 One than i ever have on pretty much any system, including NES. there's a bunch of PS2 games that we've loved playing as well. i recently played the first Sly Cooper game and was blown away at how awesome it is, i couldn't put it down until i beat it (i'll definitely be buying the HD collection for PS3).

i think these games stand up to anything that has come before them.

one thing i do hate though, is the trend with Trophies and pointless bullshit 'achievements'. i can see its merits in something like the Lego games, but for most anything else i think it's just stupid.

any thoughts on this?

some people are just stuck in the past and unwilling to try new things. Alot of games are shit nowadays but there is still some hope. one major thing that i hate is how there is barely any original music in games now, its all licensed shit.

early last year i would agree. Then we had the storm of awesome games. So at the moment current gen games are good.

No. look at the new ips this generation. Uncharted and Assasins Creed are downright amazing. This is the generation we saw Oblivion, Skyrim, mass effect, bioshock etc. the medium just keeps moving forward and getting better

The tropies/achievements are basically this generation's high scores. Just a way to say you're more dedicated or better at something than another guy, and something easily ignored.

I would say 75% of the current gen games blow. There are some really great games in the current gen for sure, but the thing that really annoys me are the FPS's. They've saturated the current market so much, that I rarely look at new games. It just boils down to taste though, so that 75% is my opinion.

75% of ALL games blow regardless of generation or platform.

Every system has shovelware and a small handful of great titles. If this wasn't the case there would be only one system instead of 3

Multiplayer seems in some games to get better, but honestly the top game for multiplayer this generation are COD4, Halo 3, and BF3 to me. I think this generation doesn't really have much defining it except average games with multipler getting noticed more because they're mainstream. Although there's some games that still are very good like Limbo that show some good stuff, but nothing compared to other systems libraries.

Yeah exactly.  I'm sure 75% of NES games aren't that great.  I don't say every game blows, but I do know that many of the games simply don't appeal to me. 

I don't do a lot of gaming these days, but I usually play modern stuff when I do.  Seems like there's a release every couple of months that gets me excited at least.

I wouldn't go so far as to say they suck. I will say they are all the same, giving you an option of playing only 5 different types of games.

I just though it was funny how 2 of the 3 games you mentioned have a strong retro feel to them (rayman and sonic). I think you subconciously must know older games are better 

I agree though. There is no reason for people not to like current games. To echo others (although I wouldnt list almost any of the games they did) there is still a ton of great stuff coming out for each console. I typically play more older stuff because I can pick up nearly any game and just go. No need for tutorials or learning what the buttons do.

But if you take the time to learn a modern game they are definitely a blast.

This is what it all boils down to. You cant teach an old dog new tricks. People from the previous generations are unwilling to learn new things(myself included). I find I am much busier and my life is more hectic and I dont have the time or desire to learn new games. Especially 3D worlds. I find I like my games 2D and so simple I dont have to think about it.

Tons of people like new games. I would definately not say it's a learning curve, it's hardly rocket science. Personally I like new games just fine when they are good, there just aren't many good ones. Fallout and bioware and demon swords are certainly worthwhile... New games don't average well though. I always wait for at least a couple years and pick up the ones that stand the test of time.

My opinion:

I'm a gamer. I don't care when the game came out, as long as it's fun. I'm willing to play anything and make judgement based on the game itself, not when it came out.

The people who say "Current gen sucks" are the same people that say "Kids these days don't know what fun is... PONG is where it's at"

My ideal method of play is multiplayer retro games. It's hard to find people to play retro games with though, so I usually end up playing them alone, and buying modern games for online play, or to entertain guests. If there was an online network for retro games, I would say they are best. Like an Xbox live for 8 and 16 bit games, where you could keep a friends list and easily find people to play Contra, and Ninja Turtles with.

I could not agree more.

I play everything from PS3 to NES. Like someone said earlier, if it's fun it's fun. Who cares what gen it is? I will admit that NES and SNES are my favorites and always will be, but for example right now I'm playing Arkham City and that game is so awesome.

A lot of things have changed with video games. Some for better and some for worse, but there are still awesome games coming out all the time.

I agree the music in games right now isn't as good. for the super nintendo the music is from orchestras with all sorts of cool instruments and sounds. They were also heavily into metal music which is amazing.

Games these days are awesome especially the fact you can play online with others.

I think it's a mix to your first part.  Some people can't or won't(refuse) to move on and enjoy something modern.  But, that said, there's a lot more trashy stuff shoveled now percentage wise than back in the day.  I'm not saying on NES you didn't have your fair share of steamy turds (Home Alone for instance) but there's a LOT more licensed, shovelware, flash game remakes, and budget no effort crap and it does flood out the nicer things.  Worse yet, HD generation jumped in a generation too early and it jammed up production costs like mad for everyone right to the consumer ($60 vs $50 games) so there's far less creativity and people willing to take a chance or a dare at better new ideas because now a single screw up means unemployment or mergers.  Back then it took far far less cash, people, and other in the way stuff and a small crew of even two could make something spectacular and have their creative controls with it.

To the other thing -- I couldn't agree more.  I find trophies/achievements obtrusive as they pop in games and really just downright offensive.  It's a sad symptom of the 'entitlement' and 'shortest attention span ever' generation.  You basically need to be coddled and told often you did something good, that you don't suck, and a reminder you're important in playing or you somehow feel lesser about yourself not being able to brag about those stupid little things online as they're all linked to some show-off public account.  I'm no fan, and I hate I can't remove them off my system when I no longer have the game (crap I get rid of, or finished and done with so I sell it.)

I do play some modern stuff but very little. Every supposedly "good" game is just another FPS. It seems like every game my friends are looking forward to is just another FPS the only difference being the names of the guns and what your shooting at (soilders, aliens, zombies). The other problems I see is there is such a saturation of crap titles this particularly holds true for the Wii I mean come on baby, gardening, cooking mama? and stuff that are not even games like all the excercise crap. There also seems to be a huge lack of creativity. It seems like games are trying to look to "real" because they have HD capabilities. I wouldn't mind some cartoony graphics for a racing, FPS, adventure games and not just on the Wii. The best thing I have seen come out in a while is Skylanders it doesn't try to look real, its a adventure platformer, and its really creative with the figuine stuff. I have a feeling we are going to be heading for another crash in the home console market maybe not as big as the 80's but siginificant just because of the high percentage of low quality games and lack of variety.

I collect and play all generation systems and agree "what's fun is fun, regardless of generation". That being said, I did grow up playing challenging games that rarely had save features and required memorization and a bit more skill and a ton more replay value, and this skews my opinion of course.

I have to somewhat agree that there is more crap these days, maybe not 75%, but the ratio on something like the NES where quality control and release quantity was closely monitored and the PS2 or XBOX, which shared similar market dominance isn't exactly the same. There is a reason the NES has a library of less than 700 licensed games and the PS2 and XBOX have roughly 2000 and 1000 titles respectively. The "wade through" ratio is definitely not equal, but the good stuff makes it well worth the time.

You just gotta find the good stuff. I've been one to say the newer generation isn't that great, but that's because I never really delved into it. Once I actually looked into it, I noticed all the cool independent games and how there is still innovation to be found. It's kinda like saying music sucks nowadays, but all you've heard is what they play on the radio. Bottom line, you can't judge the whole generation by the few games you see getting all the hype.

I don't think current gen has the same replay value, sure the games are longer in length but I won't replay 90 percent of them. The trophy thing won't keep me playing once I get to the ending either, I hate online multiplayer so those things aren't really extending the game for me. Black Ops is a good example of a game that's short and tells a narrative, once I beat it though, I have no incentive to replay it, it was a good movie though. Sure there are games that take countless hours like Elder Scrolls, they're just not my cup of tea is all.


With retro games, they tend to be simple pick up and play, I still find myself doing runs on Ninja Gaiden and Double Dragon. I like the fact that you can play through it in a sitting. Makes it easier for me to go back to rather than go through a ten hour game.
So yeah, it's a one time experience with modern games, I do like them, I think Uncharted is amazing and some of the FPS games are fun to me. I really dug Bayonetta and Vanquish. I just buy games cheap and used, they're not worth the full price to me.

OP pretty much named a bunch of games based on (and that play like) last gen games. Go play twenty shooters that all look and play the same and see how you feel about this gen's games.

Here's the thing: if you like FPS and/or Western PC-style RPGs then you're probably cumming in your pants over this gen. I don't, so I have very little interest in most of the PS3 and 360 libraries. I also don't like getting an arm exercise while I play, so there goes a lot of Wii games too. (Tho developers seem to be moving away from that stuff to the point where a lot of Wii games you can turn the controller on its side and play it like a NES controller, LOL.) Here's my problems with this gen of games, using certain games as examples:

1) Silent Hill Homecoming. The Silent Hill series has always been about weaklings mostly having to sneak past monsters, run past them, avoid detection, save guns for bosses since bullets are limited (until the second playthru), etc etc. Because it's a survival-horror game. This game tho is an action game with a horror setting. (We can probably thank RE4 for that, which also fucked up that series, imo.) The problem is, nothing is scary if you're handing it its ass. You can't go doing kung fu on something and be scared at the same time. There's also the problem of strafing controls. This control scheme is not better than the RE-style tank controls, no matter how much developers try to say it is. (See, FPS pokes its ugly head in everything, even games that aren't FPSes.) The thing is, if you go play RE3 or SH2-4, the so-called tank controls of having to turn your whole character to go one way or the other are refined to the point of gaming bliss. You actually don't have to stop and turn, you can turn just fine. RE3 added a quick 180-degree button push to aid in escape. The controls ended up rocking in the later games. And then they tossed them out for the next flavor of the month. Strafing only really adds one thing: goofiness. Your character looks like an idiot doing a jig across the room sideways. Add in how more things can be moved (for no reason) but don't add in weight to them and you have a really silly looking game. It's like your character is on the moon or something.

2) Mass Effect. YOU. ARE. AN. FPS! I'm calling bullshit on the whole RPG nonsense of grafting on "leveling" to an FPS and calling it an RPG. And to be honest, I don't care if Mass Effect, Fallout 3, Borderlands, et al ad nauseum really ARE RPGs, they are also FPSes. I don't like or want to play an FPS. But seems developers just want to keep cranking these things out in lieu of making actual RPGs. This, to me, is the bigger problem. Turn-based gaming has been relegated to the handhelds as sure as 2D platforming has. Compare the amount of Action-RPGs to the amount of turn-based ones on consoles and see what I mean. So current gen you can play a third-person action game with RPG elements grafted on, a first-person shooter with RPG elements grafted one... or a very small handful of turn-based RPGs. The big problem here is that developers really need to make a lot of turn-based RPGs if any of them are going to turn out any good. It's the same for any other genre. You get a bunch of crap and a couple good ones. Unfortunately, this gen has been mostly crap.

3) Final Fantasy XIII. Even turn-based (or semi-turn-based) RPGs have become shit by throwing in gimmicks galore, flashy graphics, zippers everywhere... all to mask the emptiness inside. You have to be cute, you have to be emo (sometimes at the same time!), there's no room for knights or paladins. they wear armor, how boring! We have to make a realistic-looking world (and populate it with annoying twits who wear the most ridiculous outfits this side of harijuku) so we can't have an overworld map. The player has to be shepherded from one cut-scene to the next because we can't figure out how to properly do the overworld exploration bits anymore! (Why do you think so many last gen RPGs had a map that was just pinpoints that you pointed at and automatically showed up in? Because 3D gaming is the death of more than just 2D platformers.) Even the best RPGs of the current gen are like this. When they aren't, you wish they are b/c it looks ridiculous. Check out the overworld map in Arc Rise Fantasia to see what I mean. And I'm starting to wonder if developers aren't just sitting back and overthinking things. "So this person is playing a JRPG instead of a WRPG. It must mean they DON'T want a lot of freedom or chances to explore things! So let's make the game one long corridor!" I personally think games like Oblivion have way too much freedom and things to explore, to the point of I just spent all day picking wildflowers in a fuckin video game. I don't want that in a traditional JRPG, but SOME exploration would be nice. I don't need to have my hand held the whole way either. I was recently playing Glory of Heracles on the DS and man, they go out of their way to explain the most obvious and well-worn RPG tropes. I don't imagine too many RPG n00bs are going to pick that game up to begin with but if you can't figure out what poison does you shouldn't be playing games at all.

4) Zelda Ocarina of Time and every Zelda game on a console afterwards. I know, OoT isn't a current gen game, but it illustrates a point, the point being I don't want to spend half the game playing the tutorial, dammit! Games haven't been getting more complicated, really, they've just started throwing it all out there at once so you need a tutorial in order to play it. Look at Link to the Past. You start out with nothing and only gradually get an arsenal of weapons. With every new item, you get two sentences on how to use it. That's it. No stupid annoying fairy floats around telling you what to do. You don't get a whole dungeon to practice on. It's just "here's your item, go use it!" How does OoT consistently score so high as to be called the greatest console game ever when the first hour or two are so goddamn boring? I'm really tired of seeing tutorials in games, can you tell? Gameplay should be intuitive. If I can't pick the game up and have fun with it for an hour I don't see a reason to pick it up at all. This all leads to the Twilight Princess debacle where I had to give up on the game b/c I couldn't catch a damn fish. Developers want to make damn sure you can do everything in their game, even if it's useless! XD

I could probably go on forever about this stuff, but really what it comes down to is taste. I really don't like a lot of new games, I really don't like the direction that games are going in. I don't want to play realistic games most of the time. That leaves a small handful or titles to play. It's not that new games are BAD they are just not what I'm interested in (mostly).