I Remember a Time...

I think alot of people would say that the good ol' days of the 90's was the pinnicle of the gaming era. However, sometimes I find that nostalgia plays a big part in what we remember. Sure a game could take you longer to complete, perhaps that's because you weren't as good at gaming back then, or the synthesised music drove you crazy after 2 hours of gameplay (see Wonderboy).

I'm not saying that the 90's weren't the pinnicle of original gaming, lets face it, proper computer games (NES or commodore 64's) had only been around for 10-15 years, still in its infancy, so the ideas were easier to come up with I guess.

As for the cost of the games, I remember paying 60 pounds for Street Fighter 2 Turbo. 60 pounds??!!!! Thats more than a next gen game would cost now and the was no online play back then, multi-player meant your mates coming to your place.

Don't get me wrong, I will always have fond memories of my gaming back in the 80's and 90's, but do we really have it that bad now, wireless controllers (small selling point I know), online multi-player, fantastic graphics that immerse you into a storyline and free stuff to add onto your existing game (Arkham Asylum just recently) and games that we can download for $20 to tide us over til a AAA title comes out which are just as fun.

I know which gaming era I'd like to be in.

If making 1/2 of a game earns you lots of cash and waiting a month before you put the rest out there gets you more, you arent going to care too much about what quality gaming used to be. Hex_Yori

Not sure what games you're playing, I've never seen half a game being released and if they have, I certainly haven't bought it. We have alot of media at our disposal inwhich to check out every single release, so in that regard, games are definitely under alot more scrutiny now than what they were when all we had were magazines to read reviews or word of mouth from mates.

If people are willing to buy anything that comes onto the market, then so be it, but to be honest, there is no excuse anymore for playing a poorly created game.

Dude, just enjoy your gaming.

....when you could play a game by simply putting in the cartridge or CD and press the power button. I also remember when games literally took you weeks because they were large with just enough difficulty to keep you from eating your controller in a fit of rage. But things have really changed. Maybe I am old and not with the times, but things have really been getting worse and worse. Games now cost roughly $90-$125 starting with the money you shell out right from the start and the additional content you usually have to get or you are simply alienated. A good example is Call of Duty: World at War. If you entered a randomly chosen deathmatch with random maps...there was a chance a map would appear that you do not have. Instead of booting you, it literally takes you to the marketplace screen so that you can buy the map packs....every single time. Not to mention next gen systems are filled with more ad banners than my usual websites I lurk on. Games are short, disappointing, and made in a hurry to make a quick buck. I think its time I go dust off my SNES and wait a series or two of systems before I start having hope. What about you guys? Do you remember better times in video game land?Hex_Yori

I've been gaming 32 years and that's nonsense. In the old days people were more accepting of what in modern times would be considered cheapness (extremely limited continues, reliance on pattern memorization, random deaths, etc.). Old games like Axelay, Space Harrier, Sonic, Mario, Castlevania, Ghosts n' Goblins, Revenge of Shinobi, Ninja Gaiden (the old NES and arcade games) were extremely short but (the action games took less than an hour to beat once one had them mastered, the adventure games maybe a couple hours).

Nowadays extending a game's length through vicious difficulty isn't considered acceptable (not that people don't like challenge, but they don't like to hit the type of brick walls people did in the old days) and making someonestart from scratchbecause they ran out of continues or had to turn off the game simply isn't done. In modern times length is derived more from the sheer amount of content than the challenge. :P I'm sure game designers would be thrilled if they could work less and just double the lifebars of enemies, but that's not what gamers want nowadays.

Also, DLC done right is a beautiful thing. Held back DLC (such as in SF4 and most EA games) sucks, but developers having a method to offer people more content without selling them a whole new game is great. I really love the DLC of Warhawk (each bit of DLC offered a new map, revised old maps and gamechanging new vehicles), LBP (the free user created stuff is amazing), Wipeout HD (it not only equalled the original game in size, it offered awesome new modes and skins), Disgaea 3 (for longtime NIS fans the cameos of characters from pretty much all of thepast games is awesome), Valkyria Chronicles (great stuff which offers more opportunities to play as some of the more interesting, less covered characters) and Oblivion (new lands, new dungeons, new classes, new factions). I've heard nothing but good about the DLC of GTA4 and Fallout, though I haven't played their DLC personally.

I've been gaming 32 years and that's nonsense. In the old days people were more accepting of what in modern times would be considered cheapness (extremely limited continues, reliance on pattern memorization, random deaths, etc.). Old games like Axelay, Space Harrier, Sonic, Mario, Castlevania, Ghosts n' Goblins, Revenge of Shinobi, Ninja Gaiden (the old NES and arcade games) were extremely short but (the action games took less than an hour to beat once one had them mastered, the adventure games maybe a couple hours).

CarnageHeart

Don't worry friend, I feel ya. I think some people are more addicted to technology than what actually constitutes a good game.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

I've been gaming 32 years and that's nonsense. In the old days people were more accepting of what in modern times would be considered cheapness (extremely limited continues, reliance on pattern memorization, random deaths, etc.). Old games like Axelay, Space Harrier, Sonic, Mario, Castlevania, Ghosts n' Goblins, Revenge of Shinobi, Ninja Gaiden (the old NES and arcade games) were extremely short but (the action games took less than an hour to beat once one had them mastered, the adventure games maybe a couple hours).

Deus_Ex_Fan

Since the NES/SMS days we've had games like Phantasy Star, Zelda and Romance of the Three Kingdoms. I just didn't mention such games because jrpgs and strategy games aren't really the genres people seem to focus on during discussions about game length.

I remember..

When Playstation had 2 options- CD or Memory Card, but as for your post I agree. Times have changed along with people, so accept it and move on.

Just last weekend I spent all day Sunday playing PS2 while the PS3 collected more dust. I seem to run out of love for every PS3 game within a week. I can't pinpoint why though. I'm guessing it because I've seen it all before and the ps2 games are just that much more enjoyable.All the PS3 has is better graphicsIMO.And back at the end of the 90's you "had to make a good game" for people to buy it. Now all you have to do is add trophies to a pile of **** and the flies come buzzing.

We'll never see the good ol' days ever again. Been there done that, now we have trophies :) joy

The DLCcalamity will probly ruin gaming for all us older gamers for life now. Like you said TC I just wanna push the power button and play. Not start on the PS store Icon and have to scroll over to games just to be back on"ANOTHER" PS Store Icon while reading a ticker about the PS Store.

As long as people keep buying crappy games, they will still be produced.

My largest complaint is the complete lack of imagination or inspiration at the development level.

Its sad when i can sit around and think up a hypothetical game i would rather play than the one i just went and bought.

Its all about maximizing profit and not maximizing our enjoyment.

....when you could play a game by simply putting in the cartridge or CD and press the power button. I also remember when games literally took you weeks because they were large with just enough difficulty to keep you from eating your controller in a fit of rage. But things have really changed. Maybe I am old and not with the times, but things have really been getting worse and worse. Games now cost roughly $90-$125 starting with the money you shell out right from the start and the additional content you usually have to get or you are simply alienated. A good example is Call of Duty: World at War. If you entered a randomly chosen deathmatch with random maps...there was a chance a map would appear that you do not have. Instead of booting you, it literally takes you to the marketplace screen so that you can buy the map packs....every single time. Not to mention next gen systems are filled with more ad banners than my usual websites I lurk on. Games are short, disappointing, and made in a hurry to make a quick buck. I think its time I go dust off my SNES and wait a series or two of systems before I start having hope. What about you guys? Do you remember better times in video game land?Hex_Yori

LOL I have been gaming since the NES and I do not remember it like that. Most games back then only "lasted" a handful of hours it just took you forever because the difficulty level on most of those games were insane...not to mention the fact that you couldn't save it and a lot of times there would be certain parts of some games that there was a trick to getting past it, except the game would offer up no hints WHATSOEVER about what you had to do, it was purely trial and error. All that combined to make a lot of games back then incredibly frustrating.

Don't get me wrong some of the best games ever were from that era, but there was also no internet or reviews around so you knew what to buy. You didn't know if a game sucked until you played it yourself and by then it was too late because you couldn't get your money back outside of selling it at a garage sale. I still cherish those times I had with my NES, but it would do you good to take off your rose tinted nostalgia goggles.

And about DLC, not all of it is bad. You can get 100 hours out of Fallout 3 without even considering getting any of its DLC. But with the possible exception of Operation: Anchorage, all of the Fallout 3 DLC was worth the money and added even more fun to an already outstanding game.

[QUOTE="Hex_Yori"]....when you could play a game by simply putting in the cartridge or CD and press the power button. I also remember when games literally took you weeks because they were large with just enough difficulty to keep you from eating your controller in a fit of rage. But things have really changed. Maybe I am old and not with the times, but things have really been getting worse and worse. Games now cost roughly $90-$125 starting with the money you shell out right from the start and the additional content you usually have to get or you are simply alienated. A good example is Call of Duty: World at War. If you entered a randomly chosen deathmatch with random maps...there was a chance a map would appear that you do not have. Instead of booting you, it literally takes you to the marketplace screen so that you can buy the map packs....every single time. Not to mention next gen systems are filled with more ad banners than my usual websites I lurk on. Games are short, disappointing, and made in a hurry to make a quick buck. I think its time I go dust off my SNES and wait a series or two of systems before I start having hope. What about you guys? Do you remember better times in video game land?Gamefan1986

LOL I have been gaming since the NES and I do not remember it like that. Most games back then only "lasted" a handful of hours it just took you forever because the difficulty level on most of those games were insane...not to mention the fact that you couldn't save it and a lot of times there would be certain parts of some games that there was a trick to getting past it, except the game would offer up no hints WHATSOEVER about what you had to do, it was purely trial and error. All that combined to make a lot of games back then incredibly frustrating.

Don't get me wrong some of the best games ever were from that era, but there was also no internet or reviews around so you knew what to buy. You didn't know if a game sucked until you played it yourself and by then it was too late because you couldn't get your money back outside of selling it at a garage sale. I still cherish those times I had with my NES, but it would do you good to take off your rose tinted nostalgia goggles.

And about DLC, not all of it is bad. You can get 100 hours out of Fallout 3 without even considering getting any of its DLC. But with the possible exception of Operation: Anchorage, all of the Fallout 3 DLC was worth the money and added even more fun to an already outstanding game.

I remember those times too. Hell I just have a ps2 myself.

But honestly I feel that there are good games and bad games in every era of gaming.

And whoever said that creativity is gone is spot on. There doesn't seem to be anything out there right now with a style and flair all it's own.

meh...I'm 28 myself, and I think that most games on todays current gen systems are far better than the games from yester year. Sure there are a few titles that will go down as being the best from other generations, but that's not to say that some from this gen will be held in the same light a few generations from now. I don't believe that the current games on the PS3 and 360 are too short or not developed well. Sometimes with the amount of detail in a game you may only get 12 hours or so of great gameplay, but if you would dust off your SNES or Genesis you will find that some of the games that took you a few weeks to complete may now only take you a long weekend. We are very spoiled with the systems of today, and I hope that this continues until my hands are so full of arthritis that I am not able to play any more. So, in conclusion, I disagree with your statement tc. Games are getting better, but some of the old mascots of older gens aren't getting the treatment they deserve. With that said some new game faces are in the for-front with wonderful worlds to explore.

The 16 bit era was the time of pioneering and discovery, while today we are in the era of exploitation. Nintendo and Sega discovered and colonized videogame land, while Sony and Microsoft are drilling it for oil.Black_Knight_00

Let's be real. In the 16 bit days one couldn't turn around without tripping over a half-dozen animals with attitude.

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]The 16 bit era was the time of pioneering and discovery, while today we are in the era of exploitation. Nintendo and Sega discovered and colonized videogame land, while Sony and Microsoft are drilling it for oil.CarnageHeart

Let's be real. In the 16 bit days one couldn't turn around without tripping over a half-dozen animals with attitude.

The 16 bit era was the time of pioneering and discovery, while today we are in the era of exploitation. Nintendo and Sega discovered and colonized videogame land, while Sony and Microsoft are drilling it for oil.Black_Knight_00

Meh. I've been gaming ever since the Atari 2600 days and I've pretty much seen it all and played most of it. Do I like do go back and play some of the cIassic games? Sure. The majority of them that I like to revisit are from the SNES and '90's era arcade games. However I still feel that gaming has always gotten better each new generation and right now I'm definitely enjoying it more then I ever have. This generation of games has been absolutely fantastic with more quality games then I could ever find time to play.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]The 16 bit era was the time of pioneering and discovery, while today we are in the era of exploitation. Nintendo and Sega discovered and colonized videogame land, while Sony and Microsoft are drilling it for oil.Black_Knight_00

Let's be real. In the 16 bit days one couldn't turn around without tripping over a half-dozen animals with attitude.

They weren't experiments, they were ripoffs, motivated by the same me-tooism that led to has led to a wave of first person shooters in modern times.

While the 'I'm here because here is the fashionable place to be' developers are gone from the platforming space, the Mario games still offer quality traditional platforming, the Ratchet games still offer their unique mix of action and platforming and perhaps most importantly, Littlebigplanet, Braid, Splosion Man, Loco Roco and Pixeljunk Eden have all showed despite all the years sidescrollers have been in existence, there is still room for innovation.

*Shrugs* Of course, few of the people who claim they want originality actually want it, most just want a different type of sameness.

there's room enough for all genre's in gaming. i'm a platformer at heart, and i will be the first to admit that most (if not all) platformers are just repackaged classics with better graphics. still, that doesn't change the fact that i thoroughly enjoy playing them. i will never stick my nose up to a platforming title.

while Sony and Microsoft may be milking this cow for all it's worth atleast they are giving us the games that we are asking for. do not think for a second that the big N isn't right next to them drilling away. if fact i think that Nintendo may be hurting the gaming industry more than any other company out there. their casual gimmick trend is going to be the downfall of gaming if the other two names decide to go the same route. let's hope this doesn't happen.

The 16 bit era was the time of pioneering and discovery, while today we are in the era of exploitation. Nintendo and Sega discovered and colonized videogame land, while Sony and Microsoft are drilling it for oil.Black_Knight_00

Actually that's not true at all. It wasn't Nintendo or Sega that began it all; that credit goes to Atari.

As for drilling for oil, well, you also can throw Nintendo right into the mix. They're just as guilty of it as Sony and MS are.

What are you talking about? The old-school games made me want to eat my controller even more! Have you even played the original Ninja Gaiden, the old Castlevania games, or Contra? What about Super R-Type? Have you played that torturous, unforgiving, game? There are no checkpoints and when you die, you have to start all over again! The only games that lasted long were the RPGs like Chrono Trigger and Final Fantasy. But other than that, games were only like 2-3 hours long, tough as hell, and costs more than the games cost today! It's nostalgia. That's what it really is. It's also because most of us played these when we were little kids and since it's part of our childhood, of course things will never be the same! I feel the same way. I miss the old days but I realize they're just memories. ASK_Story

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]The 16 bit era was the time of pioneering and discovery, while today we are in the era of exploitation. Nintendo and Sega discovered and colonized videogame land, while Sony and Microsoft are drilling it for oil.BladesOfAthena

Actually that's not true at all. It wasn't Nintendo or Sega that began it all; that credit goes to Atari.

As for drilling for oil, well, you also can throw Nintendo right into the mix. They're just as guilty of it as Sony and MS are.

What I miss from the older days of gaming was the simple fun of games, games had to be fun since graphical ability wasn't exactly state of the art. These days games are all graphics, but very little in the way of game play and don't say online play, that's been taken over by wannabe gangsta kids who think themselves mature and 'hard men' by playing a game with guns in it.

While technology's improved, video games have stumbled due to the stupid obsession with making a game look amazing, but forgetting to actually add a game in. Sticking guns, gore, violence and big muscle men in it doesn't make it a good game, not if ther's nothing to the game that really makes you enjoy it. A beautiful masterpiece is nothing without something truly special about it, without feeling and thought behind it.

Outer beauty is only skin deep, that's how games are these days, the true beauty lies within and that's something that's being ignored by so many development companies. Great beauty, but as hollow as the hole of a doughnut.

[QUOTE="BladesOfAthena"]

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]The 16 bit era was the time of pioneering and discovery, while today we are in the era of exploitation. Nintendo and Sega discovered and colonized videogame land, while Sony and Microsoft are drilling it for oil.Black_Knight_00

Actually that's not true at all. It wasn't Nintendo or Sega that began it all; that credit goes to Atari.

As for drilling for oil, well, you also can throw Nintendo right into the mix. They're just as guilty of it as Sony and MS are.

But we're not talking about who revived the industry and whatnot, we're talking about who laid the groundwork for other companies to follow (which is what 'pioneering' means anyways). I won't deny Nintendo's own contributions towards the industry, but it was Atari that made it all possible, and I think that's much more praiseworthy than anything that Nintendo's ever done. Even if Atari isn't the same company it used to be 20+ years ago, still, that doesn't mitigate the fact that they gave birth to the industry as we know it today. You wouldn't accredit your existence to your doctor now, would you? No, you would give that to your mother.

Sony may not have been as prolific in hardware innovation as Nintendo was, but they did output some of the industry's most creative ideas on the software front.

And what exactly has the Wii done that is truly out of this world? Motion sensors are nothing new, and games like Wii Sports are basically nothing more than the same types of games we used to play several years ago, the only difference being that button inputs are being replaced by subtle hand gestures.

What I miss from the older days of gaming was the simple fun of games, games had to be fun since graphical ability wasn't exactly state of the art. These days games are all graphics, but very little in the way of game play and don't say online play, that's been taken over by wannabe gangsta kids who think themselves mature and 'hard men' by playing a game with guns in it.

While technology's improved, video games have stumbled due to the stupid obsession with making a game look amazing, but forgetting to actually add a game in. Sticking guns, gore, violence and big muscle men in it doesn't make it a good game, not if ther's nothing to the game that really makes you enjoy it. A beautiful masterpiece is nothing without something truly special about it, without feeling and thought behind it.

Outer beauty is only skin deep, that's how games are these days, the true beauty lies within and that's something that's being ignored by so many development companies. Great beauty, but as hollow as the hole of a doughnut.

Smokescreened84

*Shakes head*You are engaging in selective amnesia.There's never been a time when videogame systems didn't contain the best technology that could be offered for a couple hundred bucks.

Throughout the history of gaming there has been talk about the number of sprites onscreen, the number of bits a system had, the number of layers of parallax scrolling, number of sound channels, number of stereo sound channels and stereo output. TV ads boasted about Mode 7 and Blast Processing. Heck, there is less pure tech talk now than ever before (I credit the Jaguar, which taught the world that more bits doesn't make for a better system).

What I miss from the older days of gaming was the simple fun of games, games had to be fun since graphical ability wasn't exactly state of the art. These days games are all graphics, but very little in the way of game play and don't say online play, that's been taken over by wannabe gangsta kids who think themselves mature and 'hard men' by playing a game with guns in it.

While technology's improved, video games have stumbled due to the stupid obsession with making a game look amazing, but forgetting to actually add a game in. Sticking guns, gore, violence and big muscle men in it doesn't make it a good game, not if ther's nothing to the game that really makes you enjoy it. A beautiful masterpiece is nothing without something truly special about it, without feeling and thought behind it.

Outer beauty is only skin deep, that's how games are these days, the true beauty lies within and that's something that's being ignored by so many development companies. Great beauty, but as hollow as the hole of a doughnut.

That's because the casuals are taking over the industry.

And my last post disappeared :( "What sorcery is this?" says the Conan in me.Black_Knight_00

Really? Perhaps it got modded?

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]And my last post disappeared :( "What sorcery is this?" says the Conan in me.BladesOfAthena

Really? Perhaps it got modded?

[QUOTE="BladesOfAthena"]

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]And my last post disappeared :( "What sorcery is this?" says the Conan in me.Black_Knight_00

Really? Perhaps it got modded?

Oh, that sucks.

So does this mean that I get the last word? :P

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"][QUOTE="BladesOfAthena"]

Really? Perhaps it got modded?

BladesOfAthena

Oh, that sucks.

So does this mean that I get the last word? :P

How about you dust off that gray box and put in Skate or Die, Super Mario Bros. 3, or even Clash at Demonhead. Those were the wonder years, walking into a store with fifty dollars and looking through all of the colorful boxes and deciding which one to choose.

Will I pick the one with a blond Arnold Schwartezenegger ( Contra ), the sequel to my favorite NES game ( Super Mario Bros. ), or go to the Gameboy section and pick out a new game like Golf or The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening?

That's a perfect reenactment of a day with my father and brother on the road during the long nostalgic days of Summer vacation in 1991. I wish it was that time again. It makes me sad.

....when you could play a game by simply putting in the cartridge or CD and press the power button. I also remember when games literally took you weeks because they were large with just enough difficulty to keep you from eating your controller in a fit of rage. But things have really changed. Maybe I am old and not with the times, but things have really been getting worse and worse. Games now cost roughly $90-$125 starting with the money you shell out right from the start and the additional content you usually have to get or you are simply alienated. A good example is Call of Duty: World at War. If you entered a randomly chosen deathmatch with random maps...there was a chance a map would appear that you do not have. Instead of booting you, it literally takes you to the marketplace screen so that you can buy the map packs....every single time. Not to mention next gen systems are filled with more ad banners than my usual websites I lurk on. Games are short, disappointing, and made in a hurry to make a quick buck. I think its time I go dust off my SNES and wait a series or two of systems before I start having hope. What about you guys? Do you remember better times in video game land?Hex_Yori

I agree that Atari were the precursors of precursors, but if it wasn't for Nintendo and their NES, games would have died in the 1983 crack. It feels like, after a brilliant start, Atari have been wandering around in videogame land like a crazy drunk prophet, muttering their empty prophecies of the year 5200 and the Holy Jaguar descended from heaven and never really recovered from the hangover, while Nintendo went and established a prosperous colony that lasted two decades and only recently fell in the drillers' hands. Yes, they used to be commercial even back then, but at least they were constantly innovating, while Sony and Micros.o.b. are basically just serving us warmed soup. It's a tasty soup, but we've been eating it for 20 years now and it doesn't taste quite as good anymore. Yuck

Black_Knight_00

Nintendo was instrumental in bringing back the console but to assert that the medium would have perished had they not released the NES is nonsense. PC gaming was still going strong, essentially preserving the medium even while the fad of gaming waned,and it's flatly ridiculous to think that at some point another company wouldn't have released a gaming console. Hell, Nintendo didn't even want to distribute the NES in the States and tried to get Atari to do it for them. The success of the NES was as much about timing and the gaming industry being a vacuum as it was about Nintendo's pioneering spirit.

And while we are on the subject of that "prosperous colony" you allude to, bear in mind that Nintendo, when they held dominant market share in the 80's and 90's, displayed some of the most deliberate and myopic policies in an effort to squash anyone who challenged their bottom line, including attempts to eliminate game rentals by suing video store chains and knocking out smaller developers who potentially encroached on their own software sales. (See Tengen) Nintendo was downright Draconian in their heyday; they were also bullies when it came to what was published on their consoles, forcing developers to edit and censor content they found objectionable. (See Shadowrun, Mortal Kombatand Street Fighter II)

As for Sony and MS serving us "warm soup" for 20 years, that doesn't even begin to make sense. Firstly, neither company has even been focused on gaming for that long. (And by the way, the reason Sony made the original Playstation was because Nintendo flat out screwed them in regards to making a CD Rom add on to the SNES, yet another classy move by your "prosperous colony".)

Secondly, both companies have and continue to make vast strides in this industry. Sony's own contributions to the medium easily equal if not surpass what Nintendo has done; they literally took gaming out of the adolescent construct it had for so long occupied and made it a viable form of entertainment for a much broader demographic. As for MS, they have been innovating since the beginning, even while Nintendo couldn't be bothered to step into the 21st century. MS took some of the best things about PC gaming, namely online and the addition of a hard drive, and made them standard fare while also pushing for HD graphics that make this current generation of games look incredible. Both companies have also facilitated some truly incredible software, including Little Big Planet, which is more innovative and expansive than anything Nintendo has done in over a decade.

I've been playing games since the Atari 2600 and anybody who claims that there was ever a true golden age of gaming either wasn't there or they are currently suffering from selective memory loss. That 16-bit era you seem so eager to venerate was literally rife with mediocre games, including an endless torrent of worthless licensed drivel and derivative platformers. People tend to forget the crap as the years pass and they fondly remember the great games but in reality the output of this current generation and last far exceed the 16 and 32 bit eras respectively in terms of quality.

Lastly, as to the notion of "warm soup and twenty years of the same stuff", I'd love for you to point out where in this timeline of yours could I play a Batman game like Arkham Asylum? Or a game like Dead Rising? How about Little Big Planet, Uncharted or InFamous?" Truth be told, most of the games from the 16-bit era are nearly unplayable today. It's only the classics that stand the test of time and its only these classics that people like you seem to remember, even though I distinctly remember being awash in a sea of Acclaim licensed games and generic mascot rip-offs.

The golden age of gaming is a pretty thought but unfortunately it's also nothing more than a delusion propagated by nostalgia.

No offense, but you are a fountain of misinformation in this thread. Nintendo was instrumental in bringing back the console but to assert that the medium would have perished had they not released the NES is nonsense. PC gaming was still going strong, essentially preserving the medium even while the fad of gaming waned,and it's flatly ridiculous to think that at some point another company wouldn't have released a gaming console. Hell, Nintendo didn't even want to distribute the NES in the States and tried to get Atari to do it for them. The success of the NES was as much about timing and the gaming industry being a vacuum as it was about Nintendo's pioneering spirit.

And while we are on the subject of that "prosperous colony" you allude to, bear in mind that Nintendo, when they held dominant market share in the 80's and 90's, displayed some of the most deliberate and myopic policies in an effort to squash anyone who challenged their bottom line, including attempts to eliminate game rentals by suing video store chains and knocking out smaller developers who potentially encroached on their own software sales. (See Tengen) Nintendo was downright Draconian in their heyday; they were also bullies when it came to what was published on their consoles, forcing developers to edit and censor content they found objectionable. (See Shadowrun, Mortal Kombatand Street Fighter II)

As for Sony and MS serving us "warm soup" for 20 years, that doesn't even begin to make sense. Firstly, neither company has even been focused on gaming for that long. (And by the way, the reason Sony made the original Playstation was because Nintendo flat out screwed them in regards to making a CD Rom add on to the SNES, yet another **** move by your "prosperous colony".)

Secondly, both companies have and continue to make vast strides in this industry. Sony's own contributions to the medium easily equal if not surpass what Nintendo has done; they literally took gaming out of the adolescent construct it had for so long occupied and made it a viable form of entertainment for a much broader demographic. As for MS, they have been innovating since the beginning, even while Nintendo couldn't be bothered to step into the 21st century. MS took some of the best things about PC gaming, namely online and the addition of a hard drive, and made them standard fare while also pushing for HD graphics that make this current generation of games look incredible. Both companies have also facilitated some truly incredible software, including Little Big Planet, which is more innovative and expansive than anything Nintendo has done in over a decade.

I've been playing games since the Atari 2600 and anybody who claims that there was ever a true golden age of gaming either wasn't there or they are currently suffering from selective memory loss. That 16-bit era you seem so eager to venerate was literally rife with mediocre games, including an endless torrent of worthless licensed drivel and derivative platformers. People tend to forget the crap as the years pass and they fondly remember the great games but in reality the output of this current generation and last far exceed the 16 and 32 bit eras respectively in terms of quality.

Lastly, as to the notion of "warm soup and twenty years of the same stuff", I'd love for you to point out where in this timeline of yours could I play a Batman game like Arkham Asylum? Or a game like Dead Rising? How about Little Big Planet, Uncharted or InFamous?" Truth be told, most of the games from the 16-bit era are nearly unplayable today. It's only thegood and great gamesthat stand the test of time and its only thesetitles that people like you seem to remember, even though I distinctly remember being awash in a sea of Acclaim licensed games and generic mascot rip-offs.

The golden age of gaming is a pretty thought but unfortunately it's also nothing more than a delusion propagated by nostalgia.