If you want something really cheap that's still fun, I recommend Downwell and Broforce. The former is just really wonderful, very creative and challenging. It also feels great - the controls are spot-on. The latter is hilarious, and has a nice multiplayer component to it. Similar to Downwell, it kind of goes for a retro pixel style, but it really looks great and handles well. Importantly too, there's a ton of variety in Broforce.

Why would "Major" change anything?

If I re-phrase my comment, you'll see it doesn't:

I don't know why anyone would have a major focus on performance if the games aren't there. We buy consoles to play games, not to stare at consoles.

Yes, you should. I've posted my thoughts in this article, if you're interested. Enjoy. :-)

I haven't seen that hate, but maybe I haven't looked hard enough.

I honestly can't imagine any sane person suggesting that backwards compatibility is, in any sense, a bad thing. There are really no good arguments to support that, as far as I can tell.

I haven't bought it yet, primarily because I have too many games to play already and I can't get through them all. :-\

I don't know why anyone would focus on performance if the games aren't there. We buy consoles to play games, not to stare at consoles.

There's stuff to complain about, sure. But honestly, I look at where we are now and I think we're exceptionally lucky. We're seeing a flourishing and diversification of indie titles (that term itself is broadening, which is awesome). And we're seeing a maturation of tools for game development which is enabling significant experimentation with game design.

Yes, we still get our annual AAA titles but that "problem" has been around for years; it's not exclusive to this generation by any means.

With the rise of digital distribution, we're seeing more unique games actually being published for the major platforms. We're also seeing an unprecedented rise in game fans having a direct influence on and participation in game development. It's awesome, and very new.

And then there's the rise of community-based elements like Twitch and stuff - none of this existed only a few short years ago. Now, you can really experience a game world in so much more detail and richness than before.

As nostalgic as I am for old video game magazines (I used to write for some of them!), I must admit that I'd much rather dive into an awesome Twitch stream or watch a developer commentary rather than flip through a few pages of a game magazine with limited information and static screenshots.

So, overall, I think gaming is going in a great direction and it's generally getting better and better. I'm very optimistic about the future of gaming. :-)

I see comments like "this mess" and "fooled us gamers" and I just shake my head. It's not remotely reflective of my experience.

In fact, I think game offerings have been improving but gamers have gotten worse. I see a hell of a lot more salt going around these days - much of it needless and entirely wasteful of time and energy - than I ever did only a few years ago.

Oof. That's a bit of a clickbait title right there. Kimishima pointed out that one sales representative expected the console to sell 100 million - and then Kimishima pointed out the difficulties associated with that.

Watch those titles, folks. :-)

Well, that's a rather uncharitable interpretation of a fairly benign comment. One might say you're adding significant preconceptions to it. :-)

If you actually read the entire article and think about where Miyamoto is coming from, it makes sense. For the record, I ended up buying Star Fox Zero (largely because I had some store credit at EB Games).

And I would say that Miyamoto is pretty right with his comments. What I'm finding is that Star Fox Zero doesn't lend itself to a quick dabble or to preconceptions. These two points alone make it a tough sell.

But if you come at it with a fresh attitude (i.e. don't come in expecting Star Fox 64), and if you commit some time to it, you'll find quite a polished and clever game there - at the very least, one that is worthy of consideration.

Tough question to answer. I liked all three of these consoles.

I'd say that, ultimately, the Nintendo 64 and the PlayStation both had a greater overall influence on games than the Saturn did. The Saturn had some great games, and there were some good ideas executed there, but it really didn't have the volume of heavy-hitters and straight-up revolutionary games that Nintendo 64 and PlayStation had.

In terms of Nintendo 64, the innovations (and their influence on the video game industry) are almost too many to name. Everything from the first mainstream force feedback in gaming (N64 Rumble Pak), to the N64 Control Stick (first mainstream 360 degree analogue stick), to games like Super Mario 64 (which revolutionised 3D game design in general) and The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (which really set new standards in terms of world and interaction design) - it's hard to argue with the Nintendo 64's pedigree.

But the PlayStation was a remarkable console for other reasons. With the PlayStation, I think we really witnessed the birth of the "triple A game" - that is, games with really huge production values, where game and film concepts come together. Final Fantasy VII is the obvious example of where this really began, but there are many great games that dramatically expanded video game presentation and production value.

I also think that with the PlayStation, we saw an increasing sophistication in games - an acknowledgement that games could be made for older players, and could appeal to a more sophisticated audience. Take something like Silent Hill 2, which I think is a masterpiece, and which (for me) really sits at the pinnacle of survival horror game design.

There was also a ton of experimentation on PlayStation, especially later in its lifecycle. Early on with PlayStation and Saturn, there was a big emphasis on translating arcade experiences to the living room - that had been kind of the big argument in favour of the next-gen consoles for a long time. It had been a big reason for them to exist.

But we started to see crazy stuff like Point Blank and PaRappa the Rapper, which were really inventive games in their own right.

I would say that I don't think there's much competition here in terms of the Saturn - as great as it is, and as much as I love it and have nostalgia for it, it just doesn't hold a candle to the Nintendo 64 and PlayStation.

But between N64 and PS? It's impossible for me to choose a "winner", in all honesty. I love both, and both have been really important to the video game industry as a whole. The entire industry would have been a lot poorer without either one of these great platforms.