Which system won this generation to you?

[Deleted_171835]

Nintendo is constantly credited for revolutionizing touch screen and motion controls, when they weren't the originator of either. They just popularized and perfected the concept and made it mainstream, hence "revolutionizing" gaming in that way. The same thing with Xbox live. It popularized and perfected a less-used concept and made it mainstream. That's pretty revolutionary in my book. A revolution means nothing if it doesn't affect that many people.

Touch-screens and motion-controls as we know now were not used in mainstream videogames until Nintendo used it with the Wii and DS. Before that, they were solely relegated to R&D efforts in some companies aside from a few gimmicky peripherals and primitive implementations like the EyeToy (which is more like Kinect than the Wii). That's different from online gaming which was done long before on the PC.

The vast majority of the features (messaging, voice-chat, an account system and more) that Xbox Live has were done before on the PC. And contrary to what you seem to think, the PC was not a dead platform for gaming even back then so it's perfectly okay to compare the two.

Claiming that Xbox Live revolutionized online gaming (in general) is wrong. It did not introduce many significant new features (and even brought limitations with some things like P2P online gaming instead of with servers). While it did bring online-gaming mainstream on the consoles, it did not revolutionize online gaming as a whole.

tl;dr:

 

[TripleSMoon]

Touch-screens and motion-controls as we know now were not used in mainstream videogames until Nintendo used it with the Wii and DS. Before that, they were solely relegated to R&D efforts in some companies aside from a few gimmicky peripherals and primitive implementations like the EyeToy (which is more like Kinect than the Wii). That's different from online gaming which was done long before on the PC.

The vast majority of the features (messaging, voice-chat, an account system and more) that Xbox Live has were done before on the PC. And contrary to what you seem to think, the PC was not a dead platform for gaming even back then so it's perfectly okay to compare the two.

Claiming that Xbox Live revolutionized online gaming (in general) is wrong. It did not introduce many significant new features (and even brought limitations with some things like P2P online gaming instead of with servers). While it did bring online-gaming mainstream on the consoles, it did not revolutionize online gaming as a whole.

I bolded the parts where I think you contradicted yourself. You keep changing your argument: One moment, Nintendo revolutionizes something by making it mainstream, but then Xbox is NOT revolutionizing something by making it mainstream. Which is it? The same rule must apply to both.

And I never said PC was a dead platform, but there's no denying that it was nowhere near as mainstream as console gaming.

But even if you're right, there's no way to deny that Xbox, at the very least, revolutionized online gaming on consoles at least.

Anyway, this is getting off topic, so I'll let you have the last word before letting this go.

Edit: Also, just because motion controls and touchscreen gaming was "less" mainstream than online multiplayer on the PC was doesn't make it any more valid of an argument.

tl;dr:

ROFL

 

[Deleted_171835]

I bolded the parts where I think you contradicted yourself. You keep changing your argument: One moment, Nintendo revolutionizes something by making it mainstream, but then Xbox is NOT revolutionizing something by making it mainstream. Which is it? The same rule must apply to both.

And I never said PC was a dead platform, but there's no denying that it was nowhere near as mainstream as console gaming.

But even if you're right, there's no way to deny that Xbox, at the very least, revolutionized online gaming on consoles at least.

Anyway, this is getting off topic, so I'll let you have the last word before letting this go.

Edit: Also, just because motion controls and touchscreen gaming was "less" mainstream than online multiplayer on the PC was doesn't make it any more valid of an argument.

Comparing motion-controls/touch-screens which were not used before (mainstream was the wrong word to use - aside from a few primitive implementations) in video-games and online gaming (account system, messaging, voice-chat, etc.) which was done before on the PC doesn't work. The only way that argument would work is if online gaming on the PC was primitive and lacked many of the features of Xbox Live. Which it didn't.

And you can't try to argue that the PC wasn't as popular as a platform so the Xbox brought it mainstream. PC gaming was still very relevant, even back then.

But I don't see what the popularity of the platform has to do with all of this. This argument from the beginning was about online gaming in general. While Xbox Live did bring a lot for online gaming on consoles, the PC had all of that long before it. Thus, it didn't "revolutionize" anything in terms of online gaming or bring much new to the table (aside from achievements but that was done on a game-wise basis before). It merely brought what was already done on the PC to home consoles.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

Motion controls are complete horseshit so if Nintendo "popularized them" they get deadlast.

I dunno, all the consoles were pretty solid. I'd say three way tie between Xbox 360, PS3, and PC though. I only really played the Xbox 360 though so I'm not gonna say the others are superior. They just all had good games.

The Wii, I'd say it had the best Nintendo first parties in a long time, definitely better than the GC and N64, but the third party stuff was mostly fizzle and pop and the actual overall library was really quite limited. The issue with Nintendo consoles over the past 15 years or so is that they're REALLY limited in terms of content. Like they have oogles of platformers but jackshit when it comes to RPGs. No, Xenoblade and Last Story don't fill that gap at all. I'm hoping the Wii U changes this a bit since it's not horribly limited like all their other consoles (well, at the moment) but I'm not sold.

 

[emigre]

Xenoblade and Last Story

HI OVERATED RPGS!!!

 

[Guild McCommunist]

HI OVERATED RPGS!!!

Xenoblade was so boring when I tried it. Like I'm not JRPG enthusiast but it was seriously dull. And I was able to play at least 10 hours of FFXIII before getting bored.

And a system isn't saved by two JRPGs anyway, it should have some variety. Like western RPGs. When was the last time Nintendo got a good western RPG? Actually, when was the last time Nintendo got a western RPG?

 

[suppow]

Xenoblade was so boring when I tried it. Like I'm not JRPG enthusiast but it was seriously dull. And I was able to play at least 10 hours of FFXIII before getting bored.

And a system isn't saved by two JRPGs anyway, it should have some variety. Like western RPGs. When was the last time Nintendo got a good western RPG? Actually, when was the last time Nintendo got a western RPG?

(ignoring the graphics issue) Fallout 3, or Oblivion on the Wii would have been awesome.

 

[TripleSMoon]

Motion controls are complete horseshit so if Nintendo "popularized them" they get deadlast.

Did you just not like them, or did you think they didn't work well? A lot of games definitely misused/poorly implemented motion controls, but I think a lot of Wii games proved that motion controls could make an otherwise archaic game feel cutting-edge (Metroid Prime Trilogy), be subtly used to enhance gameplay while being otherwise unused (Super Mario Galaxy), and be seamlessly integrated into gameplay as much as traditional controls (Skyward Sword).

 

[JoostinOnline]

I really liked the motion controls, I don't know why some people complain so much (probably just suck at them). The Conduit, Conduit 2, and MPT are examples.

 

[TripleSMoon]

I really liked the motion controls, I don't know why some people complain so much (probably just suck at them). The Conduit, Conduit 2, and MPT are examples.

The motion controls can take some getting used to. I know I sucked at them at first, so I didn't care for them much. But instead of just whining about how much they sucked and giving up, i just kept at it and eventually got good at it over the course of a week or two. Now I love them. I understand that there's something to be said for intuitive easy controls that don't really need to be "learned," but remember this: All "intuitive" control schemes were unintuitive at one point because they had never been heard of. Give in 5 to 10 years, and I guarantee you motion controls will be seen as much second nature to the general gaming public as traditional controls are.

 

[emigre]

For some games motion controls were used brilliantly. like RE4 for aiming, but there was a number of games which forced it upon the gamer and was just implemented necessarily, for example Sonic Colours where you had to shake the wiimote ti transform; I ended up just using my classic controller to play the game.

 

[Lurker2]

Motion controls are both a blessing and a curse. Sometimes they are added well but sometimes they are used poorly, blame the developer for using them.

• PS3's sixaxis sucked overall. Guiding your glaive in dark sector and your dragon in Lair was difficult.
• PS3 move was good.
• Wii's motion control was a double edge sword, blame the developer.
• 360 had the Kinect which added voice controls to certain games. Though the motion controls for it range from poor to great, it is usually the fault of the developer.
• The PS Vita had moments in Uncharted and Assassin's Creed where it was added foolishly but Fifa implemented the use perfectly.
• The 3DS has had some problems but hopefully people learned from it and the DS.

 

[suppow]

i loved motion controls for FPS and other random games,
but i hated them when they got in the way of the game,
example: Donkey Kong Country Returns
i loved the old SNES DKC and still am pretty good at them,
but DKCR i just cant play it (and i hate that), the motion controls broke it.
IT NEEDS BUTTONS!

The PS Vita had moments in Uncharted and Assassin's Creed where it was added foolishly but Fifa implemented the use perfectly.

i'm not familiar, how did Fifa use them?

 

[RodrigoDavy]

(aside from achievements but that was done on a game-wise basis before).

Am I the only one who fucking hate these achievements? When you're playing they just pop out taking your attention away, and c'mon many of them are just silly "Step in point X", "Do something you've already done in a slightly different way", "Tell a joke to X NPC". Not to count it kind of leave you with the feeling you haven't really aprecciated the game even though you're not planning to play it again.

 

[suppow]

Am I the only one who fucking hate these achievements? When you're playing they just pop out taking your attention away, and c'mon many of them are just silly "Step in point X", "Do something you've already done in a slightly different way", "Tell a joke to X NPC". Not to count it kind of leave you with the feeling you haven't really aprecciated the game even though you're not planning to play it again.

i like them, but
i hate how cheap and easy to get they are (just to make people feel good)
i hate how useless they are (dont unlock anything, cant do anything with the points)
they're just to show ##### points, fuck that, that was for the arcade days, man.
i couldnt care less about score points nowadays

 

[Lurker2]

i like them, but
i hate how cheap and easy to get they are (just to make people feel good)
i hate how useless they are (dont unlock anything, cant do anything with the points)
they're just to show ##### points, fuck that, that was for the arcade days, man.
i couldnt care less about score points nowadays

If you use the 360 you can get points and reward depending on how high your gaming score is.

i'm not familiar, how did Fifa use them?

Selecting a specific spot to shoot a goal and other things.

 

[ForteGospel]

Achievements, integrated chatting and message system regardless of which game is being played, cross-game chat, information on who from your contact list plays what game at any given time to facilitate sending invitations, which mind you, are embedded in the system and all sorts of related functionality perhaps were available, but not in any form of a unified system. XBox Live was the first "Online Gaming Service" of its kind and it taught all the other players how to manage those things - previously such functions belonged in entirely separate applications. The revolution started with the XBox, and since then has been progressing - saying that XBox Live did not shape online gaming as we know it is like saying that the invention of sandwiches did not change much about our daily breakfast habits.

There may have been *similar* systems around, but A) They were not that popular and B) They were worse, plain and simple.

I'm not a big fan of XBox Live's subscription policy and I too think that it should be a free service, but I acknowledge its influence over everything related to online gaming.

didnt steam did this kind of thing long before the xbox?

 

[Foxi4]

didnt steam did this kind of thing long before the xbox?

Not in an in-game basis. XBox Live works somewhat "behind" the games, Steam is just a download platform with a very basic Steam overlay for everything else.

 

[Deleted_171835]

Xenoblade was so boring when I tried it. Like I'm not JRPG enthusiast but it was seriously dull. And I was able to play at least 10 hours of FFXIII before getting bored.

Need I repeat that you can't judge an 100 hour game by only playing about an hour of it. That's like judging Deus Ex: HR to be a shit game by the first 15 minutes of it.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

Need I repeat that you can't judge an 100 hour game by only playing about an hour of it. That's like judging Deus Ex: HR to be a shit game by the first 15 minutes of it.

I shouldn't have to wade through hours of shit to realize it's good. If a game is boring off the bat then I just won't play it. Games are meant to be fun, it shouldn't take more than an hour for me to be interested. If they don't do that then it's poor game design, end of discussion.

The combat was rather bland, story seemed full of interesting characters and plots, art was generic, and I saw no reason to play it over a good game.

EDIT: And Human Revolution is far from the shining pinnacle of WRPGs. The game itself takes way too long to pick up traction and even when it does, it's really half assed in a lot of areas and full of flaws. I had fun with it but to hold it up as a great game among WRPGs is a complete mistake.