LARUTO
09-28-2005, 02:22 PM
i helped a friend on G4 forums with this post so i wanted to see how it would be seen here...
Until the 360 is released, we are still in the 6th generation of video games, and its 3rd age. The difference between a generation and an age is that a generation is a roughly five-year period with the systems being substantially more powerful than the last, while an age is a roughly ten year period that has almost completely different gameplay than the last age.
The first age of video games is known as the Golden Age. The first generation started in 1975, when Pong was release. The games were the most rudamentary, such as (of course) Pong, Night Racer, and Space Invaders; plus the Atari 2600 was released at this time.
The second generation, in the early 1980s, was not a big change in the gameplay; the games were just bigger and better. The difference in graphics between Pong & Araknoid/Night Racer & Pole Position/Space Invaders & Centipede were quite obvious. And of course, the consoles got better. This was the time we saw the Intellivision, the Colecovision, and the Atari 5800. Those systems could handle games that the 2600 could not (as we saw when Pac-Man was released for it).
But with the beginning of the 3rd generation in the mid 1980s, came the dawn of (what SHOULD be called, but isn't for some reason) the Silver Age. Of course, the graphics were better. The NES and Sega Master System were way ahead of the last generation, and the arcades saw the dawn of 16 bit graphics. Yet in terms of gameplay, it was night and day. Not only did we get a second button and a pause button, there were ways to complete the game, not just clear level afte level, and Zelda showed that you could explore and interact with an entire world.
The 4th generation was the 16 bit era. It was still part of the Silver Age, because the games were still just bigger and better 8 bit games.
Then in about 1995, came the Brinze Age, the 3D Age, and the 5th generation. This was yet another huge leap foreward in the interactivity of gaming. Not only could we see the gaming world in every direction, we had the analog stick to give us better control in those worlds.
In the dawn of the 21st century, came the generation we are in now. In terms of overall gameplay, it is like all the even numbered generations: simply bigger and better than the last one.
Note that this is NOT a bad thing, or else I would not have wrote "better" in that description. Yet I did feel a little disapointed that even though we are entering the 4th age of gaming, what I call the Iron Age, the systems seem to be just bigger and better than the last ones. Nintendo seems to be the one moving foreward and advancing the gameplay.
Now I will say that this is not some ironclad rule that odd generations HAVE to be radically different than the preceeding generations, but it is a way that games keep evolving, and keeps beign fresh and fun. Otherwise, we'd have saturation, stagnation, and another crash.
Anyway, my point is that I'm hoping that the next generation of games provide even more than now, so that games don't get stale. I don't think the PS3 and 360 have to have radically different contollers, just as long as the games aren't more of the same as the last two generations. So far, Nintendo has guaranteed a new for of gameplay with its cotroller, yet the other systems could do the same with their software. From this generation, we have Fable and Dragon Quest VIII, RPGs thave have put the role playing back in that genre. This is what Nintendo is trying to do, and what the games should be doing: putting us in the driver's seat of the WHOLE game, not just the parts we control. This, I think is what the next age of gaming will be.
BTW, sorry if this is rambling. I didn't have time to make a full essay out of this, but comments are welcome.
Until the 360 is released, we are still in the 6th generation of video games, and its 3rd age. The difference between a generation and an age is that a generation is a roughly five-year period with the systems being substantially more powerful than the last, while an age is a roughly ten year period that has almost completely different gameplay than the last age.
The first age of video games is known as the Golden Age. The first generation started in 1975, when Pong was release. The games were the most rudamentary, such as (of course) Pong, Night Racer, and Space Invaders; plus the Atari 2600 was released at this time.
The second generation, in the early 1980s, was not a big change in the gameplay; the games were just bigger and better. The difference in graphics between Pong & Araknoid/Night Racer & Pole Position/Space Invaders & Centipede were quite obvious. And of course, the consoles got better. This was the time we saw the Intellivision, the Colecovision, and the Atari 5800. Those systems could handle games that the 2600 could not (as we saw when Pac-Man was released for it).
But with the beginning of the 3rd generation in the mid 1980s, came the dawn of (what SHOULD be called, but isn't for some reason) the Silver Age. Of course, the graphics were better. The NES and Sega Master System were way ahead of the last generation, and the arcades saw the dawn of 16 bit graphics. Yet in terms of gameplay, it was night and day. Not only did we get a second button and a pause button, there were ways to complete the game, not just clear level afte level, and Zelda showed that you could explore and interact with an entire world.
The 4th generation was the 16 bit era. It was still part of the Silver Age, because the games were still just bigger and better 8 bit games.
Then in about 1995, came the Brinze Age, the 3D Age, and the 5th generation. This was yet another huge leap foreward in the interactivity of gaming. Not only could we see the gaming world in every direction, we had the analog stick to give us better control in those worlds.
In the dawn of the 21st century, came the generation we are in now. In terms of overall gameplay, it is like all the even numbered generations: simply bigger and better than the last one.
Note that this is NOT a bad thing, or else I would not have wrote "better" in that description. Yet I did feel a little disapointed that even though we are entering the 4th age of gaming, what I call the Iron Age, the systems seem to be just bigger and better than the last ones. Nintendo seems to be the one moving foreward and advancing the gameplay.
Now I will say that this is not some ironclad rule that odd generations HAVE to be radically different than the preceeding generations, but it is a way that games keep evolving, and keeps beign fresh and fun. Otherwise, we'd have saturation, stagnation, and another crash.
Anyway, my point is that I'm hoping that the next generation of games provide even more than now, so that games don't get stale. I don't think the PS3 and 360 have to have radically different contollers, just as long as the games aren't more of the same as the last two generations. So far, Nintendo has guaranteed a new for of gameplay with its cotroller, yet the other systems could do the same with their software. From this generation, we have Fable and Dragon Quest VIII, RPGs thave have put the role playing back in that genre. This is what Nintendo is trying to do, and what the games should be doing: putting us in the driver's seat of the WHOLE game, not just the parts we control. This, I think is what the next age of gaming will be.
BTW, sorry if this is rambling. I didn't have time to make a full essay out of this, but comments are welcome.