• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

What's up with the "this gen lasted too long" argument?

H

hardcastlemccormick

Banned
I would argue with struggling frame rates and games not taking advantage of comsumer-grade television resolutions that everyone has, this generation lasted too long. Developer ambitions shot through the roof, but the hardware could only support it through making linear, closed-off affairs with pretty big trade-offs.

Next-gen hardware: self-publishing available, the scope and technology that last gen wanted but didn't have, and hopefully no dumb RROD/YLOD/GPU overheating mistakes.
 
F

Fushichou187

Member
I didn't get my PS3 until early 2010 and while I can see myself being fine with this gen lasting for a number of years more, particularly with the quality of titles that have been released recently, the variety and quality of titles coming out on the PC-- indie especially-- really fire up my desire for a new console generation to kick off with increased parity with and faster/easier portability from the PC.
 
O

obauma

Neo Member
It was to long because game developers were struggling to make larger worlds (see for example Skyrim) or implement more complex physics and other interesting gameplay mechanics.

With the move to x86 and stock graphic architecture for next gen I wouldn't bee surprised if we saw incremental power updates as opposed to 5 to 7 year long cycles. Processors and graphics card architectures have a 2 year cycle and if say Sony decided to stick with x86, a "PS4 S" would be fully backwards compatible and due to near identical architectures games would run on several models with different settings and graphical fidelity. This kind of one to two year cycle can be found on smartphones and other consumer electronics and software usually still (at least with apple devices) runs on 4 or 5 year old devices.

This would even make sense from a business perspective. Selling a 300 bucks console every 2-3 years and being able to sell software to all versions of the same box for arround 5-6 years is a much better deal than selling one box every 6 years. It would also close the gap to the pc more frequently and leave customers the choice if the want the most recent high end model or the cheaper, older model which runs all the same games, but just a little less 60pish.

I'd certainly dig such a system...
 
JordanN

JordanN

Banned
The resolution sucks.

To believe 720p or lower is still accepted when you got people using 2560 x 1440 monitors is pretty sad.

Also, a console showing up later takes more time to develop a library whereas if new consoles launched earlier, there would be alot more decent games on the market.

Overall: long gens = a stale industry.
 
T

The Albatross

Member
I am very happy this generation lasted as long as it did. GIven the economy and state of affairs, it would have been disastrous had the next PS4 and XBox launched in 2010... Could have very well killed gaming as we know it. Plus, there were tons of great experiences to come out in the last few years, especially with GTA5 about to drop in a little over a month.

I love how long this console cycle was.

ON THE OTHER HAND.

The peculiar length of this cycle made for one of the most bizarre generations. Completely incredible games are now mostly forgotten because they launched early in the lifecycle, games like Oblivion, Forza, MGS, and others. The length of this cycle has marginalized a lot of incredible games only because it's been so damn long. Also, there was no definitive winner to the generation. Everybody would have said Nintendo if the generation ended in 2010, it would have been undeniable given their turn around and the sales... But in the last 4 years, Nintendo has become irrelevant. People would have said Microsoft (and I still would), but Sony made up for the $599 gaffe at the start of the generation and has the momentum going into nextgen.

A bizarre generation. One that gets teared apart. But, pound for pound, the best generation.
 
H

HueyFreeman

Banned
Big fan of the length of this generation. New systems mean developer focus on conquering the hardware, whereas if devs are allowed to work with hardware they're intimately familiar with and even seasoned at, we get games like the Last of Us.
 
E

Eusis

Member
Alphahawk said:
I keep seeing it pop up in GAF threads but I don't understand it. Personally I"m glad that I didn't have to buy a new console back in 2010. The games library for every console just got richer as time goes on and the graphics and sound are still pretty good. So why does it seem like all of GAF wishes that this gen ended early. Do you guys just like spending money? Is it a psychology thing? I just don't get it.
Click to expand...
New generations are a good time to shake things up and implement sorely needed upgrades beyond just raw specs (we'll be able to have bigger updates for PS4/XB1 games than we could have had on PS3/360, and policy changes may even get us games that keep expanding like on Steam if either policies are favorable enough or they're willing to cut out whoever's policies don't mesh with their own), next gen hardware sounds like it'll be easier to develop for, and right now we're in a situation where (mainly) the smaller guys have gone elsewhere and it's mostly the big publishers continuing to bother.

To be honest, I'd much rather have had the generation lengths flipped here: PS2/Xbox 1 continue as long as PS3/360 did, though may as well leave GC/Wii alone. Then again while the GC and Xbox croaked almost immediately the PS2 DID persist for several more years, and it launched a year earlier than GC/Xbox and had its successor a year after Xbox anyway. Still, the PS2 seemed to hit a good middle ground between visual fidelity and ease of development, so we had a lot of bigger, more ambitious games like GTA alongside quirky games like Chulip or Katamari Damacy. But then it is possible a lot of the problem this gen is more with PS3 being really hard to work with and turmoil early on for where audiences would wind up, so I imagine they will do far better next gen with both systems coming at the same time and being easy to develop for.
 
Darklor01

Darklor01

Might need to stop sniffing glue
I am done with this generation of consoles because of how far behind PC it is. I do t mind that it will be behind PC. I do mind continuing to fall farther and farther behind.

What I guess I don't understand is the constant statements about how far behind PC the new generation of consoles may actually be. We get it. PC>console at this point. If I wanted to pay for a PC, I would. I don't want to. I enjoy consoles. I have my reasons.

I personally think Im paying console price, much less than a new PC from scratch, and expect my console built with less expensive parts to play like a console built with much less expensive parts. I'm OK with that.

If the consoles were built with high end rig parts, I expect to pay for high end parts. I would also expect the argument "if your already paying near or at high end PC prices, why not just buy a PC" to come out. There just isn't a way to win if that were the case.

The current gen console needs to come to an end, and a fair priced replacement has to replace it. There is still life in the current gen, and there are reasons to not make the jump, but the generation has been here longer than any we're used to.

I hope we can get passed the PC>next gen console>current gen console conversational loop. It's already very old at this point. Let the people enjoy their purchases and choices.
 
Yoshichan

Yoshichan

And they made him a Lord of Cinder. Not for virtue, but for might. Such is a lord, I suppose. But here I ask. Do we have a sodding chance?
Because I'm sick of 520p and sub 25fps.
 
N

Net_Wrecker

Member
This generation felt "done" by 2011. Sure there's been some good stuff since then, but that's simply great teams making great games which they would've done on a new generation anyway, Likely even better with new tech and less cramming everything onto those ancient consoles.

On the other hand we wouldn't have gotten 8GB G
O
DDR5 RAM.

On the other hand we could've been 1 or 2 years into a new gen already and past the "1st year blues" we're about to experience.

Moral of the story: NO MORE 8 YEAR GENS. IT'S RIDIC.
 
A

Alphahawk

Member
obauma said:
It was to long because game developers were struggling to make larger worlds (see for example Skyrim) or implement more complex physics and other interesting gameplay mechanics.

With the move to x86 and stock graphic architecture for next gen I wouldn't bee surprised if we saw incremental power updates as opposed to 5 to 7 year long cycles. Processors and graphics card architectures have a 2 year cycle and if say Sony decided to stick with x86, a "PS4 S" would be fully backwards compatible and due to near identical architectures games would run on several models with different settings and graphical fidelity. This kind of one to two year cycle can be found on smartphones and other consumer electronics and software usually still (at least with apple devices) runs on 4 or 5 year old devices.

This would even make sense from a business perspective. Selling a 300 bucks console every 2-3 years and being able to sell software to all versions of the same box for arround 5-6 years is a much better deal than selling one box every 6 years. It would also close the gap to the pc more frequently and leave customers the choice if the want the most recent high end model or the cheaper, older model which runs all the same games, but just a little less 60pish.

I'd certainly dig such a system...
Click to expand...

I would absolutely be opposed to that. I do not want to upgrade my console every couple of years and assume that most console gamers feel the same. The great thing about console games is they run the same on all units: it's not a matter of who has the biggest wallets.
 
N

NewGame

Banned
I think that a lot of AAA titles this gen have just been recycling concepts from the past, and poorly. The reason people want next-gen is because they think it will immediately bring them all the happiness they know they can have via huge rams and clouds and social parties.
 
C

Chamber

love on your sleeve
Dragonzord said:
Want to know why it's gone on too long?

Take your console of choice and turn it on. Try to not go insane from how sluggish everything is in the UI.
Click to expand...

I agree on this. The OS/UI improvements in PS4/X1 have done more to sell more on both consoles than any single game revealed thus far. God, I'll be glad to never turn on a PS3 again.
 
T

TheGreyHulk

Member
the best thing about a new gen is that it opens developers up to do better things with games.

i see next gen bringing us much more realistic lighting and physics, especially f/ particles. we should also see worlds open up more, so we're not stuck with corridors due to the current gen's low ram situation.

every new gen, the low bar is lifted for the next wave of games. that's why we hate long generations. it prolongs the current low bar.

right off the bat, we're getting significantly better lighting, physics, the capability for much larger worlds with much less loading thanks to the ram, much more detailed characters and environments, etc, etc, etc.
 
A

abstract alien

Member
Well, I wouldn't' say I was tired of it. The only console I was really looking forward to was the Wii U, but that obviously wasn't for horsepower or graphical reasons. I would be fine with PS3/360 for a few more years, but I'll take a new ps4 just to have a new toy. Not sure how PC gaming fits into this. A ton of the best console games aren't even available on it to begin with. Haven't been impressed with anything on PC in years. I guess if I cared about horsepower that much I would be, but then I couldn't play some of the best stuff ever created so eh. PC has zero pull on me.

Anyone who is more interested in multiplatform released and graphics should probably look at PC though. It may be worth the investment for them and time to them.
 
L

Log4Girlz

Member
mishakoz said:
It hasn't been too long, but I can understand the need to want new...

Everyone always wants a weenie to look forward to. Which is fine, and the new consoles are exciting, but this generation has been the best ever in gaming and it was in part due to its length. Mastery of the hardware is when games begin to shine because you spend less time thinking "damn that's awesome but it would be hard to implement and take forever."

Some fun facts

Naughty dog has released 4 games this generation, all new franchises. Each one was revered for its graphical fidelity. Before the ps3, it was a relavtively unknown developer. Now its AAA+ status

Gears of war released four games also this generation, the first acclaimed as the first game that looked truly "next gen"

Two of the greatest Mario games ever were released.

When you look at what's been accomplished, its staggering.
Click to expand...

Dafuq they were known since Crash
 
M

Moon_frogger

Member
I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, battlefield 3 on console was a shadow of what it's design intended it to be. On the other hand, have you seen the graphics in the last of us? I think the new consoles are a bit overdue but current gen was never really ready for the the hd revolution. They aren't powerful enough. Still, it wasn't so bad that I can't enjoy it even this late in the game.
 
B

Bringer Of Bacon

Member
It lasted much too long. I want better graphics for cod. Cod needs better faster graphics. It needs it. If it doesn't get it, then there is a major, major problem with gaming. That's understated
 
K

kirblar

Member
Global recession basically made a new console impossible just as it would have normally been time for an upgrade. Hence, the palpable relief of the fanbase + a seismic upgrade in FX.
 
L

Lumyst

Member
There are games that are being butchered to get them running on the current gen hardware, what with framerate issues, blurry sub-hd resolutions, etc. Why do the developers want to present their games in such a way? I wouldn't mind current-gen assets but dressed up in nicer textures and rendered in native 1080p. It's the non-native resolutions that really gets to me lol. After running Wii games in Dolphin, after playing Skyrim on PC, I conclude that native resolution is a huge factor in enjoying games, it's like living with or without glasses (well, I wear glasses so the analogy works for me).

Better hardware would at least allow games to be presented in a better way, even with cheaper assets.

Edit: Hmm, but I wonder, would 2010-2011 $400 hardware have been too weak for that? I guess in a way the longer generation allowed for better hardware to be selected.
 
1

1st Course

Member
I didn't hate this gen overall, but around 2010/2011 I felt like developers were just making the same games over and over again.
 
R

Retne

Member
I don't enjoy CoD or third person shooters. This console generation has been pretty abysmal for me. Neither console managed to reach my threshold of games I really want to play that didn't come out on the PC or the Wii.

I miss good arcade racers. I miss third person action/adventure/platforming. I miss turn based JRPGs. I realize that there have been 1 or 2 of each of these released that were good but that hardly holds a candle to the past generations.

I'm hoping the new generation shakes things up and brings us a little more variety so I can go back to owning all the platforms and not worrying about it. Sadly I don't hold too much hope.
 
Dr. Kitty Muffins

Dr. Kitty Muffins

Member
This gen's length was perfect to me and I think it was great to gamers. Some in the industry might have complained but they have needed to reshape how they work for a long time - that isn't the consumers fault. And I'm flat out tired of the consumer being blamed for the industry's ills. It is an elitist cop out and guys like that need a wake up call.
 
K

Kageshinzo

Member
Alphahawk said:
I would absolutely be opposed to that. I do not want to upgrade my console every couple of years and assume that most console gamers feel the same. The great thing about console games is they run the same on all units: it's not a matter of who has the biggest wallets.
Click to expand...

Historically, console generations have always lasted 4-5 years, ever since the 8-bit era. So no, your assumption that most console gamers don't want to upgrade consoles every few years is wrong.
 
olimpia84

olimpia84

Member
I have a huge backlog of PS3 games and I'm still building my Wii/PS3 collection so I wish this gen would last longer :p
 
S

SkyMasterson

Member
I was fine with it, but for selfish reasons as my backlog is huge haha.

It was argubaly 1-2 years late. If anything it gave MS plenty of time to test out those new consoles so we don't have a repeat of the piece of shit that was the 360.
 
M

Moon_frogger

Member
Retne said:
I miss good arcade racers. I miss third person action/adventure/platforming. I miss turn based JRPGs. I realize that there have been 1 or 2 of each of these released that were good but that hardly holds a candle to the past generations.

.
Click to expand...
guess you owned an Xbox but no ps3.
 
G

GameGuru59

Banned
The length of this gen is an indication of diminishing returns, really. With previous consoles, there was a real limitation to what they were physically capable of doing at the hardware level. With the PS3 and 360, there isn't much that can't be actually done, it can only be done better, and faster. That wasn't true of previous consoles. GTA4 was impossible on the PS2/Xbox/GCN. GTA3 was impossible on the PS1/N64. Mario 64 was impossible on the SNES. FZero was impossible on the NES. Mario was impossible on any mainstream console prior to it.

There was no point in new consoles in 2009-2010 because the technology and tools available didn't warrant an new generation. I think we're basically ready now. 8 gigabytes of ANY kind of RAM (be it DDR3 or GDDR5) is an insane upgrade over 512MB. "Megatextures" are more than feasible with that much RAM (and yes, they are the future). GPU/multi CPU core compute operations will also be much faster, opening up the possibility of games having insane physics in the next gen as well. GPU compute and the RAM upgrades we're getting with the new consoles are the biggest deal, but besides that of course we get faster shaders and faster everything else. All that wasn't ready for prime time in 2010; the consoles would have been better for sure, but not drastically.

Graphics will be much improved on the new consoles because of things like megatextures (they only require one to three passes for 90% of the scene to work because multiple textures don't have to be blended together and a megatexture is one texture that can be "batched" unlike having multiple textures). Gameplay will be improved because of better physics and the ability to have many, many more instances in the game because of GPU compute and greater RAM. Plus, the developers now have the tools to take advantage of the hardware unlike 2010. The reason this gen lasted so long was because hardware and tools needed to improve enough to create the generational leap we expected. Also, the consoles were pretty expensive at the start... they had a long way to fall.
 
M

Mr. X

Member
The same reason people habitually upgrade their phones as soon as they can. They've been conditioned to it.
 
S

Sho_Nuff82

Member
No other technology sector moves as slow as console gaming, and this had been the slowest transition ever. Smartphones, tablets, and ultrabooks get updated annually. The PS360 look like dinosaurs, especially since they are still being offered at premium prices ages after their launches. There's a reason sales are down the last two years, generation fatigue will always set in even if something better isn't immediately promised.

Once franchises like CoD and Assassin's Creed entered "Mega Man" territory where the average consumer can't or doesn't care to see the differences in each iteration, it's time to move on. There aren't any more system sellers, everyone who wants these consoles at these ridiculous prices has one.

My only game purchase of 2013 are two 2012 games (AC 3 and FC 3) at discounted prices (coincidentally, both run at sub-30 fps with screen tearing, worse performance than their 2008 iterations. The reality of better graphics on aging hardware). Looking at sales, I'm probably not alone.
 
M

Metfanant

Member
personally for me its just time for a refresh on what the consoles are capable of...im big into shooters and sports games (if that makes me "dude bro" so be it)...and my genres of choice usually only see MAJOR overhauls at the beginning of generations...

I also want to see what some of the great devs out there (ND, GG, Bungie, etc...) are capable of doing with much more powerful consoles...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Xbox going OEM route for next-gen? 3rd party consoles in the making?
Rumor 6 7 8 9 10
493
33K
TheDreadLord replied
Believe me, a new Sega console would repeat all the same mistakes Saturn and Dreamcast.
2 3
132
5K
Geometric-Crusher replied
The arguments and trash talking on Gaf
Social 2 3
124
7K
jufonuk replied
Where is Next Gen Gameplay?
2 3 4
181
8K
ProtoByte replied
Was 8 CPU cores enough for 9th gen consoles? Strix Halo, the prefect console.
Opinion Analysis 2
62
3K
Tertullian replied
Top Bottom