What's your least favorite console generation?

[Takumaji]

for me it's too early to write off this current gen as the worst.

the aaa titles have been rough going for me, but its a paradise of independent game development so far. I am enjoying the freebie downloads from psn+ immensely (more so than the titles i actually own for my ps4). binding of issac, velocity 2x, spelunky, road not taken, dont starve, contrast, and resogun- they have all gotten significant play from me. Knowing i get a couple of "free titles" a month is awesome and for the most part they have been really fun.

I also did not find the last gen particularly interesting but still bought about 30-40 games spread over various consoles while I haven't even bothered to buy a Xbone or PS4 because of a serious lack of want-want-WANT material.

I'm not saying that the current gen sucks per se, I'm fully aware that gaming-wise I'm an old fart who is kinda stuck in his old ways. I know some people who are having big fun with current-gen games so it can't be that bad, there simply aren't enough A+ titles for my taste that make me drool like in the old days.

 

[Gamefan]

I would have to say the least favorite is first and second generation.

While the 2600 is considered a great system, how can you tell what you are playing most of the time??

I feel home consoles really took off beginning with the third generation (NES).

 

[famicommander]

Ignoring the Pong/other dedicated machines generation, best to worst:

1. Fourth generation (SNES, Genesis+CD/32X, TG16/PCE+CD, CD-i, Game Boy, Game Gear, Lynx, etc)
2. Fifth generation (Saturn, PS1, N64, 3DO, Jaguar+CD, CD32, Game Boy Color, Wonderswan, Neo Geo Pocket, etc)
3. Third generation (NES, Master System, Atari 7800, Atari XEGS)
4. tie between second generation (2600, 5200, Colecovision, Intellivision, Odyssey 2, Vectrex, Astrocade, etc) and Sixth generation (Dreamcast, Gamecube, PS2, Xbox, GBA, N-Gage, Wonderswan Color, Neo Geo Pocket Color)
5. Sixth generation (Wii, PS3, Xbox 360, DS, PSP)

Dead last: current generation (Wii U, PS4, Xbox 1, 3DS, Vita)

This will probably be my last set of consoles. I just dislike where the industry is headed in general. I miss old genres like SHMUPs, Beatem ups, JRPGs, character action game, etc. I hate paid DLC, I hate DRM, I hate having to update shit, I hate paid online services, etc.

The developers I like are dying off more and more every year. Hudson Soft, Neverland (creators of Lufia and Rune Factory), Team Andromeda, Psygnosis/Studio Liverpool, SEGA Technical Institute, Eden Games, too many more to list.

I dig local multiplayer much more than online, and Nintendo is the only console maker who still gives two shits about it.

I like arcade style games, and I seem to like the Atari generations more than most here by the looks of it. Something about simple classics like Yars' Revenge, Pitfall, and River Raid always bring me back.

 

[Gamefan]

I like arcade style games, and I seem to like the Atari generations more than most here by the looks of it. Something about simple classics like Yars' Revenge, Pitfall, and River Raid always bring me back.

Those games are the exception for the 2600.

 

[Neorebel]

I think Fammicomander makes a good point about DRM/Paid DLC, etc. Also, the idea of 'licensing to use' electronics in general, the way companies want to control how you use the devices they have manufactured- is an awfully bad direction in an already scummy world of consumerism.

I kind of can still play atari games because I like simple arcade games. Missile Command, Centipede, etc. Of course, i would much rather drive to a retrocade to play these on cabinets rather than the inferior console ports, but there are of course only few and far between instances of actual arcades anymore.

 

[famicommander]

Those games are the exception for the 2600.

Uh, the vast majority of games on the vast majority of platforms suck. That isn't a thing common only to the 2600.

Every market leader, especially, is home to tons of shovelware. The Wii, the PS2, the PS1, the NES.

The good part is you don't have to play those games. You seek out a system for its best games. You don't buy a PS3 to play Sonic '06.

2600 has Adventure, Haunted House, Pitfall, Yars' Revenge, River Raid, Kaboom, Warlords, Pong, Jungle Hunt, Circus Atari, Dodge 'Em, Combat... if you can't have fun playing games like those, I don't know what to tell you. The majority of its arcade ports are far outdated and have better versions on newer machines but there are some games that just click on the 2600.

And the system, to this day, has one of the most thriving homebrew scenes of any retro machine. Atari Age publishes new 2600 games every single year, and they're not the only ones still doing it. You hear about a new Neo game or a new Genesis or Dreamcast game every now and again, but the 2600 fanbase pumps out games by the dozen every year.

Look at what they've got in their store alone:
http://atariage.com/store/index.php?l=product_list&c=21

Hacks, conversions, ports, finished prototypes, demakes, entirely original games.

I even have this, on a cartridge that plays in my real Atari:
http://www.codemystics.com/halo2600/

The limitations of the system itself means that game designers have to me more creative to make an engaging experience. They're not going to wow you with their graphics, there's no social aspect to keep you interested, there's no additional content later (unless it's a sequel), there's no patches, there's no loot grinding or microtransactions or achivements or any other artificial bullshit that keeps people playing trash like WoW, CoD, AssCreed, Madden, etc. You've a joystick and a button (unless you're using some fancy trackball or keypad or paddle controllers), and you've got your concept. If your game isn't fun, it's got no chance.

Luckily we don't have to choose. We can have our simplistic, twitch-reflex Atari games AND we can have modern 100 hour epics with full voice acting and all the fancy jazz that comes with modern games.

 

[andsuchisdeath]

And the system, to this day, has one of the most thriving homebrew scenes of any retro machine. Atari Age publishes new 2600 games every single year, and they're not the only ones still doing it. You hear about a new Neo game or a new Genesis or Dreamcast game every now and again, but the 2600 fanbase pumps out games by the dozen every year.

What better way to masks one's ineptitude than to develop games for a console where the bar is already set as low as can be.

 

[famicommander]

Is it a "low bar" to choose to make games for the Neo Geo or Dreamcast rather than, say the Wii U or PS4? How about choosing consoles over PC? Vita and 3DS over consoles?

How is choosing to make games for the 2600 any different?

 

[aha2940]

For me the last cool generation of consoles was the PS1/N64 one. Every generation after that has been worst than the previous one and all seem boring to me. Games too focused on graphics and appearance but no fun gameplay. While I have an XBOX and a 360 I find they are the consoles I use the least.

Regards.

 

[andsuchisdeath]

Is it a "low bar" to choose to make games for the Neo Geo or Dreamcast rather than, say the Wii U or PS4? How about choosing consoles over PC? Vita and 3DS over consoles?

This is asinine.

How is choosing to make games for the 2600 any different?

A shitty game someone develops looks less shitty when most of the games on the console are shitty to begin with.

 

[HeavyMachineGoob]

To be fair, 2600 programming is insane and a completely different animal compared to any modern platform. Even going from 2600 to NES is huge. The 2600 has no video framebuffer, you have to literally draw and update the screen manually for every scanline. It has 256 bytes of RAM, 2KB ROM space without mapping and ridiculous display limitations.

Although the resulting 2600 game may look horrible and outdated, the programming inside is something to behold.

 

[famicommander]

A shitty game someone develops looks less shitty when most of the games on the console are shitty to begin with.

Most games on EVERY console are shitty. For every Ocarina of Time there's a Superman 64 or Daikatana. For every Super Mario Bros there's a dozen Top Guns.

Luckily the 2600 has a ton of great games too. Some of these homebrew games have even been picked up by Activision and included in anthologies, and some were also included in the Atari Flashback consoles.

Games are about having fun. If someone can make a fun video game, I'm going to play it. Whether it's on a phone, a 30 year old console, or my quad core gaming PC.

I would imagine most people who program for the 2600 these days do so because it was the console they grew up with. It's what they know, it's what they're familiar with. Maybe they couldn't make a great game on a different system, but who cares? Because of Atari homebrewers we've got sequels to Adventure, Yar, Combat, etc. We've got a Halo game. We've got an Atari demake of Sonic 1 coming up.

 

[jeff bogard]

everybody is gonna kill me, but.....

a very unpopular opinion is the SNES/Genesis... mainly because amazing games were coming out for Arcade... amazing ports came out for PS2 (after the American Arcade crash in the late 90s) on PS2.. so technicallly the PS2 in my eyes was a good option for fighters outside the Dreamcast.... The 360 has been good for fighters....technically all game generations have been good for fighters except the SNES... Specially when arcades were abundant....

You would say the N64/PSX didn't have fighters but Nintendo's games released then (and im sure some PSX games for some people) were amazing... Then again i do havea soft spot for the N64...

Also later on, i just found amazing ports of 16 bit classics on GBA

 

[Phyeir]

a very unpopular opinion is the SNES/Genesis... mainly because amazing games were coming out for Arcade... amazing ports came out for PS2 (after the American Arcade crash in the late 90s) on PS2.. so technicallly the PS2 in my eyes was a good option for fighters outside the Dreamcast.... The 360 has been good for fighters....technically all game generations have been good for fighters except the SNES... Specially when arcades were abundant....

Seems a little harsh of a measure against the SNES/Genny era, the lack of arcade quality fighters at home. They may not have had the 100% arcade look or feel down, but considering what you were getting at home available all time, especially compared to what was considered a capable port from the prior gen, those systems had their shit in place.

I know I didn't have AES money then (or now either, really missed the boat on that one)

 

[cdamm]

I also did not find the last gen particularly interesting but still bought about 30-40 games spread over various consoles while I haven't even bothered to buy a Xbone or PS4 because of a serious lack of want-want-WANT material.

I'm not saying that the current gen sucks per se, I'm fully aware that gaming-wise I'm an old fart who is kinda stuck in his old ways. I know some people who are having big fun with current-gen games so it can't be that bad, there simply aren't enough A+ titles for my taste that make me drool like in the old days.

the point i was trying to make was dont look at the standard a+ stuff out there (nearly all of them are dlc traps), look at the 'b' titles and there is a bunch of magic out there.

 

[SNKorSWM]

everybody is gonna kill me, but.....

a very unpopular opinion is the SNES/Genesis... mainly because amazing games were coming out for Arcade... amazing ports came out for PS2 (after the American Arcade crash in the late 90s) on PS2.. so technicallly the PS2 in my eyes was a good option for fighters outside the Dreamcast.... The 360 has been good for fighters....technically all game generations have been good for fighters except the SNES... Specially when arcades were abundant....

You would say the N64/PSX didn't have fighters but Nintendo's games released then (and im sure some PSX games for some people) were amazing... Then again i do havea soft spot for the N64...

Also later on, i just found amazing ports of 16 bit classics on GBA

Neo Geo counts as the SNES/Genesis/TG-16 era. Just because you didn't have the dough to afford it doesn't mean arcade-in-home wasn't available.

 

[Takumaji]

I would imagine most people who program for the 2600 these days do so because it was the console they grew up with. It's what they know, it's what they're familiar with. Maybe they couldn't make a great game on a different system, but who cares? Because of Atari homebrewers we've got sequels to Adventure, Yar, Combat, etc. We've got a Halo game. We've got an Atari demake of Sonic 1 coming up.

A lot of amateur developers who still make games for the 2600 and other old systems do so because they like the challenge of creating something cool on a very limited system. That was and still is the very point of the consoles of yesteryear, dev'ers had to cope with a lot of limitations and therefore had to come up with clever new ideas to make their games worthwhile. The old system had a much longer shelf life so they had all the time in the world to hone their skills and push the machines to the max. That's something I miss in today's world of video games.

Take the C64 for example. The first games that came out for it didn't look much different to your average Atari 2600 games while the stuff that came out in the last phase of the machine's life almost reached 16bit level (well, almost).

Today, machines come and go much quicker than before. As a consequence, APIs and other development stuff becomes more and more uniform over all platforms (read, PC-like) which leads to uniform games (and tons of sequels). The interesting b-titles cdamm mentioned notwithstanding, this leads to more boring games in my opinion, there simply aren't enough system-exclusive games anymore that play well AND show off the unique capabilities of a machine. Making a new game has become so expensive that companies can't afford to release it on one system only, they make them cross-platform from the very beginning which means sacrificing the technical advantages of system A in order to make it playable on system B as well.

 

[Dr Shroom]

The only 2600 game I'd still play today is H.E.R.O.

 

[WoodyXP]

For me its the PS3/360/Wii generation.

Why? I got bored with it. The Wii gimmick was cool at first, but got old. The PS3/360 libraries were bloated with rehashes, "New" games that didn't show me anything I haven't already seen. Getting older probably has something to do with it, too.

 

[munchiaz]

Well the first 2 generations are not applicable for me. I was born in 1988 so i never really played those consoles. So for me it would have to be 6th generation. I did enjoy my PS2, but the main reason why i come back to play that console is DDR, and not much else. I also got a xbox, and i barely played it. I played Halo 2 for a bit, and guilty gear because it had online play (it was pretty awful) I didn't get a gamecube until about a year before the Nintendo Wii was released, and by that time it didn't really serve a purpose. Until much later when i got a GBA player.

There is just not much reason for me to go back to this generation. I was thinking of choosing gen 7, but the Nintendo DS is one of my favorite video game devices, so 6 it is

 

[smokehouse]

everybody is gonna kill me, but.....

a very unpopular opinion is the SNES/Genesis... mainly because amazing games were coming out for Arcade... amazing ports came out for PS2 (after the American Arcade crash in the late 90s) on PS2.. so technicallly the PS2 in my eyes was a good option for fighters outside the Dreamcast.... The 360 has been good for fighters....technically all game generations have been good for fighters except the SNES... Specially when arcades were abundant....

You would say the N64/PSX didn't have fighters but Nintendo's games released then (and im sure some PSX games for some people) were amazing... Then again i do havea soft spot for the N64...

Also later on, i just found amazing ports of 16 bit classics on GBA

Well...I had a nice long response typed up but I hit the wrong button and deleted it.

Long story short...saying the SNES/Gen is weak based on the arcade games of the time is comparing apples to oranges and unfair to just a do-it-all home console to a dedicated arcade machine.

I'll also argue that many "amazing" arcade titles came out much after 1992 or so...the Street Fighter II craze set in hard and took over. Arcades became an ocean of 1-on-1 fighters. The NEO is a prime example of this. It was an arcade machine for the home and featured...wait for it...mostly one-on-one fighters because of that...

I'd argue that the best time for arcade gaming was actually 1986-1992 or so...

 

[norton9478]

First wave of 32 bit/CD/3D consoles.

Load times, Multiple Discs, Extra Ram needed for games, and worst of all: BAD 3D.

 

[andsuchisdeath]

First wave of 32 bit/CD/3D consoles.

Load times, Multiple Discs, Extra Ram needed for games, and worst of all: BAD 3D.

I don't know. That generation was pretty awesome if you ignore the 3D games.

 

[Moon Jump]

16 bit generation for me. The PCE shooters and Castlevania are still the best, Nintendo and Sega going neck and neck in the console wars and you had the arcade guys making some true classics. Even with the pinball, the 90's where the best.

 

[wataru330]

My least favorite generation is now...I just can't relate to hyper realistic Graphx, and series that are popular now.

Arcading is where my heart is at, and even then-it's back to the future for me.

I'd rather play Silhouette Mirage than FarCry, and LA Machineguns than 2Spicy.

I just wasn't made for these times, y'all.