Don't you sometimes feel that this generation is kinda...lacking?.

[Calmy]

I've been researching videogames for nearly 3 years, and i did my best job in order to obtain the best information i could hold from each generation, for example, Generation 3 was composed mostly on the NES popularity, and in the new appearance of the Sega Master System, both had really good games, but the NES was the winner (At least in Japan and USA) while the SMS was the winner in some regions of Europe and Brazil.

I'm not gonna try to go all deep with this, because i could go on, and on, and on, i'm just gonna take the most basic aspects of each generation, and if my logic and research doesn't fail, this is what I've recollected in the most nutshell way i could possible describe each generation:

Generation 1: Magnabox Odyssey, the beginning of the videogames, the first iterations of a machine called "Pong".

Generation 2: Atari 2600, Intellivision, Collecovision, the beginning of the "cartridges" for the videogames format.

Generation 3: NES, SMS, Super Mario Bros revolutionized the way videogames could change.

Generation 4: 16 bit era, SNES, Sega Genesis, the 90's in all of it's glory, the era with some of the best RPG's.

Generation 5: PS1, Sega Saturn, N64, the new use of "3D" properly implemented on videogames, the first Company (Sony) that could take over Nintendo after their two generations dominance.

Generation 6: PS2, Xbox, Dreamcast, Gamecube, the era where 3D models started to look with a much, much significant change compared to the fifth, the era where Sega couldn't hold more on the market, and then they decide to go "Third Party".

Generation 7: PS3, Xbox 360, Wii, the Wii incorporates a new way to experience videogames, consoles started to get more in touch with online capabilities, the indie scene was just getting bigger at this point.

Now, this is the most simplest way i could describe each generation, of course i skipped things like the handheld consoles, the computers of each era, or even more videogame facts, but that's just the way i could describe it, sorry if i didn't put enough information, but i didn't wanted this topic to go on and on as i said before, it was only shown to put an example i'm going to give, the main thing i was thinking is, is the Eight Generation lacking compared to previous generations?.

This is a topic that has been brought in many parts, but i wanted to discuss the technical aspect of it, rather than the "This console "x" sold more than "y"" examples, okay, now let's begin with this, the Eight Generation started with the Nintendo 3DS, a Nintendo Handheld released in 2011, followed up by another Nintendo console, which is the Wii U, now, by the end of 2012, both consoles showed lack of interest by both consumers and the press, simply because it didn't have too many games to offer.

In 2013, the XONE and the PS4 were announced almost simultaneously, where one console (XONE) explained that in order to play games you needed internet on your house, and also it was only available in certain parts of the world, by one of the first graphs Microsoft showed to the world, only most first world countries, and some third world could only obtain access in both obtaining the console and playing it.

The PS4 on the other hand, laughed at XBOX by denying the use of obligatory internet to run games, and also showed future third party support for the console, which attracted more people on the long run, now, after the release of the PS4 and the XONE, most if not every game released for that at the point we are talking about were only ports from PS3/360 games, with only some scaled graphics here and there.

Right now, we are in 2015, two years passed after the console release, and when you see the games for those two consoles, you notice that only some selected (Like Bloodborne or the Witcher 3) are new games made for this generation, but when you look at other pages featuring "Best rated games of each console" at least 90% of the results are just games ported from previous generations, that's just counting triple AAA games.

Going back to Nintendo, 3DS was getting better as time goes on, and now, it's the console with the most quantity of exclusives and new titles of this generation, while the Wii U sorta faded and shined once with the announce and release of Sm4sh, which was good for the console, but not enough to save it as the "failure" in sold consoles many gamers label as today, so once we reunite all of this information, we see that the triple AAA games are sorta, lacking in the department of creating games.

Only some old companies try to do something new once in a while, but it seems that this age is getting dominated by something more powerful, which is the indie scene, the best news videogames received as today (Such as the announcement of Bloodstained, Yooka-Laylee and Shenmue 3 Kickstarters), were considered the best things we have received in a long time, with the first two being Indie at it's core!.

And let's not forget that Undertale is being considered (and is now, by some) the game of the year, with praises in all over the world, and you guessed it, is an indie game too, we do also have to count the great popularity that Shantae and Shovel Knight are getting lastly, which points to a great direction for the indie scene, but now, if we take out the Indie games from the online stores of the new consoles, how much do we have?.

I mean, this generation isn't lacking with indie games, but is lacking with dev. supports for the new consoles when it comes to triple AAA companies, i do sometimes feel that less companies are risking to create a new intellectual property. of course it's understand - able since making new games at this age is a costly thing to do, but when we look at the charts, we are seeing that videogames are getting popular as time goes on, probably more so than movies one day, so, if we have all of the capabilities, and the potential to bring something good, why are we lacking in this department that should be (in opposite) bringing more games for the masses?.

I also see that this generation isn't innovating too much with games, most companies are looking to play safe with the same old mechanics from previous games while inserting some new tweaks and features here and there, which is kinda sad since previous generations had always something new up their sleeves, in order to change something from an already existent genre, or just create something new altogether, which is the thing game developers should be doing.

But we still have some time until everything gets better, who knows, but as time goes on, if this kind of things keep up at this rate, we may see the end of this generation with only remasters, remakes, and few new IP's, and most probably those IPS will have zero chances to bring something new to the table, i hope that doesn't happen though, because innovation is one of the things most needed for videogames right now.

[kingddd]

The video game industry in general does innovate the question is whether the consumer is willing accept those new inventions. Because new IPs are risky and the budget has increased so much nowadays that the demand for higher quality software and entertainment games have made the cost too high. It is also why many people are turning to mobile gaming because the cost is not as huge to develop the games then it is on console considering the compatibility is much easier to deal with than console gaming nowadays.

I also see that this generation isn't innovating too much with games, most companies are looking to play safe with the same old mechanics from previous games while inserting some new tweaks and features here and there, which is kinda sad since previous generations had always something new up their sleeves, in order to change something from an already existent genre, or just create something new altogether, which is the thing game developers should be doing.

The reason you don't see a lot of changes is because changing the software engines to have a lot of new features and changes cost a lot more then reusing the same engine that just works. There is a reason Fire Emblem 6, 7 and 8 have been using the same engine for the GBA with small tweaks is because the cost is not worth it to completely change the engine completely and the developers were very familiar with how it works and it didn't require them to have to relearn and program tons of new things and constantly test these new changes. At the same time, it allowed them to fast track and develop the games to the speed that allowed them to put it on market immediately and fulfill the demands of the consumers. After all these companies are here to make money and if they constantly create new engines but without gaining any money back from the development cost then it was all for nothing. As games get more complex, all these difficulty of programming and testing becomes much more apparent and the costs and human resources for these get even higher.

It is easier for the developers to use something they are familiar with as it is much more cost effective then to have to completely relearn and 100% revamp the entire thing. I have worked and interned with software companies and they have been using the same engines for the last 30 years and it is not cost effective to just start from a completely new project without there being some kind of compromise.

[Tangerine]

The new consoles are only two years old, and each generation has taken longer to get started because of the amount of time and money it takes to create a big game as advancements are made and expectations are raised. There have been a ton of fantastic looking titles announced, it's just a matter of waiting for them to be completed. Indie games are being embraced because of their much shorter development process and cost, they fill out the time between AAA releases; this is how things should be. You want AAA games, you put up with the time it takes to develop them.

You seem to be discounting games like MGS5 because they were also released on previous gen consoles, in which case your stance is even more confusing. The 360/PS3/Wii shared games with the PS2 for a very long time before they started getting titles that weren't feasible to release on older platforms. It's smart to release new titles concurrently on established platforms that are still going strong, the only reason not to would be if you wanted to push sales of the new platform, in which case only the companies with legitimate stakes in those platforms are likely to be seen making games exclusive to them.

As for the 3DS, it has no competition and has been out nearly 5 years. That's not exactly comparable to the current home console situation. Compare the PS2's library to the Xbox and Gamecube's, that is the type of library that a console with no competition will inevitably amass. If the PS4 continues to sell the way it is in relation to the competition, you're going to see it get that type of library.

On the front of innovation, gamers complain when companies do something different and they complain when they don't, this generation won't be any more or less innovative than the last.

[Zera]

I believe there are less groundbreaking games nowadays simply because the ground has already been broken, so to speak. Unlike creating a new movie, which at minimum requires little more than a story to tell, creating a new game requires thinking up a set of systems that create interesting decisions for the player, which is very difficult. In order for a game to be truly innovative, it has to differentiate itself from games that already exist, and this requires an immense amount of creativity. Indies have no creative limitations, which is why they're gaining prominence.

BTW, if you're going to mention indie innovation, you should also mention Treasure, who are more or less the grandfather of the modern indie. They have a policy to never make games that play quite the same, so getting a game from them guarantees an experience you won't find anywhere else, even from Treasure themselves.

[Myke]

tl;dr: "the console industry has been dying for decades and I haven't played any good handheld or PC games lately"

(if you can't tell I disagree with your sentiment wholeheartedly. this generation has some of the best games in history, without question)

[Excellen Browning]

And for all this time, all of this arguing, for over 25 years now, PC has been going strong and has been going stronger over the last 5 or so years.

[Emeraldfox]

Lul, Zera you silly. Talking about Treasure again

I disagree, largely because there are games out there being release that has my interest.

[deleted35362]

um no wii u didnt just "shine" with sm4sh, it had mario kart 8 and mario 3d world which were big hits (and are actually good games unlike sm4sh)

theyre probably staying safe more now because videogames are so big, and its like so much easier for fans complaints to get to those companies. nintendo announced federation force and a new mario tennis and everyone bashes them for it. theres probably more pressure for the big companies but maybe not so much for indie people. no one is gonna yell at indie companies to make sonic adventure 3 lol

[Calmy]

The new consoles are only two years old, and each generation has taken longer to get started because of the amount of time and money it takes to create a big game as advancements are made and expectations are raised. There have been a ton of fantastic looking titles announced, it's just a matter of waiting for them to be completed. Indie games are being embraced because of their much shorter development process and cost, they fill out the time between AAA releases; this is how things should be. You want AAA games, you put up with the time it takes to develop them.

You seem to be discounting games like MGS5 because they were also released on previous gen consoles, in which case your stance is even more confusing. The 360/PS3/Wii shared games with the PS2 for a very long time before they started getting titles that weren't feasible to release on older platforms. It's smart to release new titles concurrently on established platforms that are still going strong, the only reason not to would be if you wanted to push sales of the new platform, in which case only the companies with legitimate stakes in those platforms are likely to be seen making games exclusive to them.

As for the 3DS, it has no competition and has been out nearly 5 years. That's not exactly comparable to the current home console situation. Compare the PS2's library to the Xbox and Gamecube's, that is the type of library that a console with no competition will inevitably amass. If the PS4 continues to sell the way it is in relation to the competition, you're going to see it get that type of library.

On the front of innovation, gamers complain when companies do something different and they complain when they don't, this generation won't be any more or less innovative than the last.

On the first point, it's understand - able that the new generation of consoles only has two years old, and therefore the quantity of games can be sort of lacking, but just try to compare the debut of each generation compared with the previous iterations, to put you an example, Generation 4 had the SNES and Sega Genesis, while the latter mainly focused (initially) on having all of the arcades put on a game console, Sega quickly realized that they couldn't maintain a console with short arcade games, that's why Sonic the Hedgehog was born.

And the SNES it's a complete different story, by 1990 titles such as Super Castlevania IV, F-Zero, Actraiser and Super Mario World were released at that time, shortly after the debut of the console, so, as a point to start, this is the way companies should attract consumers for game consoles, by announcing exclusives that (in some sort of way) experiments with the capabilities of the console, giving things that in no other console you could see.

Your second point states that the 360/PS3/Wii shared games with the PS2 during their start, but this is understand - able again since the latter is the most selling console of all time, and even as today is still selling units worldwide, the main thing is, both started with complete different systems, and the initial catalog didn't started exclusively with PS2 games, for example:

A. PS3: It was announced and released in 2006, with the reception of it mostly being negative, for both part of the developers and consumers interested for it, for the developers since the system was hard to program something on it, and consumers for the staggering initial price and lack of the rumble feature, the debut titles for system weren't something particularly hot for consumers, but they were attracted with later games such as the first Uncharted released for 2007, and the announcement of the Mass Effect games.

B. X360: It was released in 2005, this console had the uppercut of having a simpler way to run games, and the hardware wasn't as difficult to program as the PS3 one, the debut titles for system were mostly Rare things, with some minor titles from part of Microsoft, one of the best selling points this console had was Dead Rising, a game released in 2006 exclusively for this console (With an inferior port for the Wii released in 2009) and other titles such as Blue Dragon.

C: Wii: The most successful of the three, it was released in 2006, and it was the first Nintendo console where the controllers were wireless, the debut titles were mostly supported with things done by third party developers, and some support of Sega during the initial release (Like the announcement of Sonic and the Secret Rings), it brought attention to all kinds of consumers, including the ones who weren't particularly interested on videogames, which is also known as the casual market.

We can't put "selling points" on the PS2 games shared with others, and while the PS2 was and is still popular by gamers, each console offered something new on the table, and their debut titles and promises were one of the selling points the three consoles mainly had, something the PS4 and XONE failed to promote, and compared to previous generations, it failed to provide new promises if not until later, with decent results.

The third point is something debatable, the Dreamcast was released before the PS2, but given the success of the later, and also the generated hype, the first one quickly faded in the span of only 2 years after the console was released, with a worse fate than the Sega Saturn, that was also released before the PS1, and if Nintendo hadn't released the Nintendo 64 with cartridges, it could have hold much more with the Sony competition (PS1) than it did in the past.

So, having a console released earlier doesn't mean it's automatically going to have more games on the shelves, the debut of the 3DS was easily the best of any console of this generation, and that's not saying much considering that the major selling debut titles were Starfox 64 3D and Super Street Fighter IV for the 3DS, the 3DS won because it was easier to develop games for that console, it did a good job trying to live the legacy of the NDS (The second best selling console of all time, only behind the PS2), and given the amount of tools necessary to make things for it, it was easier for developers to publish quality games in a quicker time.

The PS2 won because it was one of the easiest, if not the easiest console to program and design something between the Xbox and the Gamecube, and also because it did a good job in following the legacy of the PS1, with much better results, that's why the PS2 could hold itself even during the 7th generation, with titles such as Persona 3 and Persona 4, also some Atelier games, and Ar Tonelico series.

I see the last point in saying "gamers complain when they do something different, and also do that too when they don't", it's totally understand - able, and i don't have arguments to refute this sentence, the only thing i can say is, it doesn't matter if gamers want something new or not, when a company announces something, that doesn't get made, that is when a person lose the faith with the company, to put an example, before XONE, Microsoft announced a way to play videogames without using controls, like, virtual reality with cameras creating the illusion that you were inside the game, months later, when the console was released, the project never came across again, and it quickly faded into obscurity, so i ask you, what was the point on announcing something that it is not going to be released?, last thing to say is, i still sustain my point that debut titles and a fair amount of promises and new future features it's what make a console shines, not a fast lackluster thing with ports everywhere of this generation, if i want old videogames, i play them on their original consoles.

[kingddd]

The PS2 won because it was one of the easiest, if not the easiest console to program and design something between the Xbox and the Gamecube.

This is blatantly false. The PS2 was actually the hardest to program for the console compared to the Xbox and the Gamecube. The xbox was the easiest to program and to debug as it had a very similar architecture to most modern PCs at the time and it was intuitive and fast. The Gamecube was slightly more complicated but it was a very flexible system and still based their hardware on the PowerPC which many apple computers used so it wasn't difficult to program.

The PS2 had a customized hardware CPU and lots of weird hooks and dinks and the design was nothing like most modern PCs at the time and this caused a lot of headaches for most programmers, designers and developers in general. It is one of many reasons why many games run really horrible unoptimized and did not look as good as the Xbox or Gamecube titles and many cuts and corners had to be made to make it actually run well on the system.

What made PS2 succeed was its marketing and the DVD feature which allowed it to expand its userbase farther than the other consoles and it was the cheapest dvd available on the market. This allowed movie nuts to also get a PS2 and play games at the same time, something that has never been done for most consoles at the time.

[Calmy]

This is blatantly false. The PS2 was actually the hardest to program for the console compared to the Xbox and the Gamecube. The xbox was the easiest to program and to debug as it had a very similar architecture to most modern PCs at the time and it was intuitive and fast. The Gamecube was slightly more complicated but it was a very flexible system and still based their hardware on the PowerPC which many apple computers used so it wasn't difficult to program.

The PS2 had a customized hardware CPU and lots of weird hooks and dinks and the design was nothing like most modern PCs at the time and this caused a lot of headaches for most programmers, designers and developers in general. It is one of many reasons why many games run really horrible unoptimized and did not look as good as the Xbox or Gamecube titles and many cuts and corners had to be made to make it actually run well on the system.

You're comparing the processor of the PS2 with the architecture of modern PC's, remember that developers of that era were different than modern developers, and it did also have different guides to create games, as many points (videos, and documents) stated, the architecture of the PS1 was intended to be easy to develop, that's why things like Net Yaroze and programs for the PS1 were made, because of how easy was the console to make programs for it.

The PS2 was basically, a glorified PS1 with more power when it comes to graphics and music, and by the time the PS2 was released, Sony also released guides to configure the games, and to instruct developers in how to create games for the system, that's why things like Final Fantasy X or Dynasty Warriors 2 were released pretty early, because old developers knew how to use the console in their favor, you could say that it was hard to use for newcomer developers team, but for the third party companies who knew how to work with the console (Which were a vast majority, compared to new developers), they didn't have a really hard time configuring the console in order to produce the results they wanted.

[Elieson]

I'm more concerned with the slew of games featuring FPS survival situations and graphics of real people looking super realistic and all

Like

among the continuation of even more Madden and NBA games where you're given the same stuff + neater graphics and updated statistics to reflect current names, you've got like

Assassins Creed

Watch_Dogs (modern time setting Assassins Creed)

Shadow of Mordor (Lord of the Rings-ified Assassins Creed

Call of Duty Ghosts (CoD BO:2 without the fun)

Splatoon (CoD with Paint)

Battlefield 4 (bigger maps CoD Ghosts)

Titanfall (CoD Ghosts with giant robots)

CoD Advanced Warfare (CoD Ghosts with Jetpacks)

Borderlands 3 (Borderlands...3)

Mad Max (Borderlands...Solo?)

The Last of Us (Borderlands without vehicle management)

Bayonetta (DmC with Guns)

Dragon Age: Inquisition (aka Skyrim for XBONE)

I dunno, maybe it's just the fact that I've been gaming for so long, but I feel like so few ideas and games are ingenious and unique. Minecraft and Ori's Blind Forest and Tembo seem unique enough to pique my interest enough to try them out but so much of today's games just look like other games. Maybe they're not and I'm being harsh on my judgment, but I can't look at game previews and covers like The Witcher 3 and Skyrim and feel like I'm getting something different.

[kingddd]

You're comparing the processor of the PS2 with the architecture of modern PC's, remember that developers of that era were different than modern developers, and it did also have different guides to create games, as many points (videos, and documents) stated, the architecture of the PS1 was intended to be easy to develop, that's why things like Net Yaroze and programs for the PS1 were made, because of how easy was the console to make programs for it.

The PS2 was basically, a glorified PS1 with more power when it comes to graphics and music, and by the time the PS2 was released, Sony also released guides to configure the games, and to instruct developers in how to create games for the system, that's why things like Final Fantasy X or Dynasty Warriors 2 were released pretty early, because old developers knew how to use the console in their favor, you could say that it was hard to use for newcomer developers team, but for the third party companies who knew how to work with the console (Which were a vast majority, compared to new developers), they didn't have a really hard time configuring the console in order to produce the results they wanted.

That was the main problem. It required Sony developers to actually have to go to the gaming studios to actually help them in order to setup the engines and get the kinks working whereas the Xbox and Gamecube did not need as much support in order to get the compatibility working for the games. PS1 is definitely easiest to program at the time but it was an astronomical difference compared to the PS2 and this gave a lot of developers problems and caused many early PS2 games to not look great at all compared to the launch titles of other consoles.

[Refa]

Devil May Cry already had guns!

I'm less bothered by the lack of variety and moreso bothered because the few genres that are being perpetuated I couldn't care less about.

[Calmy]

That was the main problem. It required Sony developers to actually have to go to the gaming studios to actually help them in order to setup the engines and get the kinks working whereas the Xbox and Gamecube did not need as much support in order to get the compatibility working for the games. PS1 is definitely easiest to program at the time but it was an astronomical difference compared to the PS2 and this gave a lot of developers problems and caused many early PS2 games to not look great at all compared to the launch titles of other consoles.

They didn't looked as great because of a point you stated before, the PS2 was vastly inferior than the Nintendo Gamecube and the XBOX, also, while the architecture from the three consoles were kinda similar, the Nintendo Gamecube had the upperhand on stylish games (Such as Super Mario Sunshine, Pikmin 3, Luigi's Mansion 3, Billy Hatcher, Viewtiful Joe, etc.) while the Xbox was focused more on more or less realistic games with fantasy settings (Like Fable, or the Halo games), hell, the PS2 had problems during the debut because of a shortage in units (When it was first released in Japan) and lack of interesting debut titles.

It wasn't until a year later that other games for the PS2 started to get better, for example, just take a look at Final Fantasy X, it's one of the smoothest and solid games for the PS2, and it was released a year after the console was released, with an announcement (also) the previous year, and it looks damn great, while as you said, Sony themselves had to go to other companies, give them the necessary typos and all the stuff, those companies quickly adapted to the environment of the PS2, because as i said, most developers had experience with the PS1, and some of them (sorta) predicted how to work properly with the PS2, that's why the OS Linux was released for the PS2 in 2002! (Yes, that was real) because the news about "How to create things for the PS2" was quickly spread around the world, specially if we consider that the Internet was quickly rising in that era, and things could get faster to note, write, and etc.

[Radiant head]

um no wii u didnt just "shine" with sm4sh, it had mario kart 8 and mario 3d world which were big hits (and are actually good games unlike sm4sh)

While those games have helped, I don't think the Wii U had ever actually became a hit.

[kingddd]

They didn't looked as great because of a point you stated before, the PS2 was vastly inferior than the Nintendo Gamecube and the XBOX, also, while the architecture from the three consoles were kinda similar, the Nintendo Gamecube had the upperhand on stylish games (Such as Super Mario Sunshine, Pikmin 3, Luigi's Mansion 3, Billy Hatcher, Viewtiful Joe, etc.) while the Xbox was focused more on more or less realistic games with fantasy settings (Like Fable, or the Halo games), hell, the PS2 had problems during the debut because of a shortage in units (When it was first released in Japan) and lack of interesting debut titles.

It wasn't until a year later that other games for the PS2 started to get better, for example, just take a look at Final Fantasy X, it's one of the smoothest and solid games for the PS2, and it was released a year after the console was released, with an announcement (also) the previous year, and it looks damn great, while as you said, Sony themselves had to go to other companies, give them the necessary typos and all the stuff, those companies quickly adapted to the environment of the PS2, because as i said, most developers had experience with the PS1, and some of them (sorta) predicted how to work properly with the PS2, that's why the OS Linux was released for the PS2 in 2002! (Yes, that was real) because the news about "How to create things for the PS2" was quickly spread around the world, specially if we consider that the Internet was quickly rising in that era, and things could get faster to note, write, and etc.

And if it didn't have the internet what then? Most developers would have been struggling with developing for the PS2 systems without the help of Sony. A couple of my friends who interned at EA have gotten to talk with the developers who worked on PS2 and they all said very similar things. The PS2 was the most difficult to program, learn and required a lot more effort to get the games working on the system then all the other systems and this doesn't include the graphics. Their struggles required them to spend extra costs to get them to work the way they wanted to.

[Calmy]

And if it didn't have the internet what then? Most developers would have been struggling with developing for the PS2 systems without the help of Sony. A couple of my friends who interned at EA have gotten to talk with the developers who worked on PS2 and they all said very similar things. The PS2 was the most difficult to program, learn and required a lot more effort to get the games working on the system then all the other systems and this doesn't include the graphics. Their struggles required them to spend extra costs to get them to work the way they wanted to.

Because most developers were from Japan, the ones you're talking about are from USA, they obviously had more problems because the Sony departments weren't exactly distributed well during that point, and most videogame creators from USA were mostly focused on PC gaming, that's why a lot of gems were created during the 90's and mid 2000's, remember that Japan was practically dominating the market of the videogames at that point, that's why most expert developers from that company didn't have as many troubles as other companies, because they had Sony Closer, and also because they knew more about the capabilities of the PS1 and somewhat predicted the ones from the PS2.

It wasn't until later, when more Western Developers started to create more games for the console, and it reached to a point where the 7th generation was flooded with videogames from that country.

[Dark Sage]

Yeah video games suck more these days, but that's because the developers seem more interested in robbing consumers blind with scummy DLC practices and advertising that blatantly lies to you.

[kingddd]

Because most developers were from Japan, the ones you're talking about are from USA, they obviously had more problems because the Sony departments weren't exactly distributed well during that point, and most videogame creators from USA were mostly focused on PC gaming, that's why a lot of gems were created during the 90's and mid 2000's, remember that Japan was practically dominating the market of the videogames at that point, that's why most expert developers from that company didn't have as many troubles as other companies, because they had Sony Closer, and also because they knew more about the capabilities of the PS1 and somewhat predicted the ones from the PS2.

It wasn't until later, when more Western Developers started to create more games for the console, and it reached to a point where the 7th generation was flooded with videogames from that country.

So in the end, it was still difficult to develop without the the distribution and help from Sony themselves. Most american developers did not have as much issues developing on the Gamecube and that was a Japanese company.

Buncher continued, “They [sony] went public with what the PS2 was going to be spec-wise and architecture-wise about a year before the product launched, which is a long time. When we saw their design, it really validated to us that we had made the right choice and done something different and efficient. They [sony] made some mistakes in the architecture, and it made us feel good about what we had created.” He later adds, “From a very high level, going from the PlayStation to the PS2, they made it harder to develop for. With the GameCube [Dolphin], we made it much easier to work with than the Nintendo 64. From a development point of view, it looks like they went in the opposite direction we went, and that isn’t good.”

https://dromble.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/dolphin-tale-story-of-gamecube/

[Tryhard]

You complain about a lack of variety, but what publisher is going to take a leap of faith based on something that they have no idea if it even gets off the ground, much less releases and does well? Development costs are a lot more than what they used to be.

But it's much easier to make indie games like that.

[EricaofRenais]

Yeah I do feel like this gen is lacking in the new games department, while I never have the money for more then one console and hand held (which end up being Nintendo because I love FE and Zelda) I pay attention to all the games coming out for PS and XBOX and other then the latest FF I have not seen that many games that make me want to spend around $70 on it. And I am rather sad about there not being hardly any kid friendly games for PS4, because my friend's husband bought their 6 year old a PS4 and the he buys him all these M rated games that he does not like and has a very hard time playing ( my friend said her husband did this out of the blue and even though I have repeatedly told both of them about game ratings my friend does not have the time right now to check the ratings on the games and her husband just buys the games that are advertised the most in the store). I just love babysitting a kid I have taken care of since he was a baby and seeing him sad and unhappy because he can't play the games his dad buys him well and the content is horrible for him because the games he has are CoD and Assassins Creed( yes they are the kid's games because he tells me his dad never plays them) he gets me to try and help him beat his games when I'm there, but I don't play shooters much and other then playing one time on a PS2 I don't have much knowledge of using a PS controller which make my friend's son laugh at me for hitting the wrong button. I just wish I could find a good kid friendly game for PS4 that he would like, because the way things are looking right now I don't think this kid will end up liking video games which makes me very sad.

[Loki Laufeyson]

I feel like consumer mindsets are changing too, which is leading to a "plateau" of sorts when it comes to video games. Im seeing less and less attention placed on AAA titles, and more people trying things out of the comfort zone. This is likely why indie games are doing so well lately.

And for all this time, all of this arguing, for over 25 years now, PC has been going strong and has been going stronger over the last 5 or so years.

This is something i discovered only in the last year. PC gaming has become stronger. Steam is actually releasing machines dedicated to running it and the games. (Steam Machines) A kind of weird PC/Console hybrid. The actual impact on this wont be seen until these all drop in November. But im hella curious to see how this sells. If it sells well, my theory will have some confirmation. What that theory is? People being rather bored with the same old same old, and want more versatility in gaming and titles overall. Consoles can be incredibly restricting. If you buy one console, you kinda lock yourself out to a number of titles that may not be released on that console. (and lets face it, we aint made of cash monies, so the owning of multiple consoles for a single gen is...rare to say the least.) If you choose Nintendo, welp. Sure, the 3DS has loads of amazing games on it, but you still miss out on Assassin's Creed and Dragon Age.

The majority of these really interesting indie games like Undertale and such, are only really being released on the PC/Steam. And for those who strictly console game, they are gonna miss out on that stuff. So the real alternative is just going PC.

While those games have helped, I don't think the Wii U had ever actually became a hit.

Yeah. Wii U has some great titles, but really....im afraid those arent enough to bolster sales to the point of saving the machine from being last place. I think this is precisely why Nintendo is plugging on with a new console concept. (and the continued riding of the success of the 3DS)

You complain about a lack of variety, but what publisher is going to take a leap of faith based on something that they have no idea if it even gets off the ground, much less releases and does well? Development costs are a lot more than what they used to be.

But it's much easier to make indie games like that.

Yep. Big Devs have the "if it aint broke, dont fix it" mentality. People keep buying Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, etc so they are gonna keep making those games. Nintendo does the same thing with Mario and the like. New ideas are just too bloody risky in the big market. But at the same time, this is precisely why the indies are doing so well. Theres not a lot in production costs for simpler titles like that, so they can try new things, fail, and try again. (hopefully) It didnt take much to make something like Goat Simulator. But it takes millions to make something like The Witcher.

[Tangerine]

I feel like consumer mindsets are changing too, which is leading to a "plateau" of sorts when it comes to video games. Im seeing less and less attention placed on AAA titles, and more people trying things out of the comfort zone. This is likely why indie games are doing so well lately.

This is something i discovered only in the last year. PC gaming has become stronger. Steam is actually releasing machines dedicated to running it and the games. (Steam Machines) A kind of weird PC/Console hybrid. The actual impact on this wont be seen until these all drop in November. But im hella curious to see how this sells. If it sells well, my theory will have some confirmation. What that theory is? People being rather bored with the same old same old, and want more versatility in gaming and titles overall. Consoles can be incredibly restricting. If you buy one console, you kinda lock yourself out to a number of titles that may not be released on that console. (and lets face it, we aint made of cash monies, so the owning of multiple consoles for a single gen is...rare to say the least.) If you choose Nintendo, welp. Sure, the 3DS has loads of amazing games on it, but you still miss out on Assassin's Creed and Dragon Age.

The majority of these really interesting indie games like Undertale and such, are only really being released on the PC/Steam. And for those who strictly console game, they are gonna miss out on that stuff. So the real alternative is just going PC.

Yeah. Wii U has some great titles, but really....im afraid those arent enough to bolster sales to the point of saving the machine from being last place. I think this is precisely why Nintendo is plugging on with a new console concept. (and the continued riding of the success of the 3DS)

Yep. Big Devs have the "if it aint broke, dont fix it" mentality. People keep buying Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, etc so they are gonna keep making those games. Nintendo does the same thing with Mario and the like. New ideas are just too bloody risky in the big market. But at the same time, this is precisely why the indies are doing so well. Theres not a lot in production costs for simpler titles like that, so they can try new things, fail, and try again. (hopefully) It didnt take much to make something like Goat Simulator. But it takes millions to make something like The Witcher.

You run into the same issues with PC. Consoles still get a lot of amazing exclusives and almost all of them are AAA titles. The only acceptable reason as a gamer to not game on both is if it's not in your budget or the titles don't interest you. "PC master race" people are dumb as heck, and so are people who play only consoles, if their goal is to play the best games.

[Loki Laufeyson]

You run into the same issues with PC. Consoles still get a lot of amazing exclusives and almost all of them are AAA titles. The only acceptable reason as a gamer to not game on both is if it's not in your budget or the titles don't interest you. "PC master race" people are dumb as heck, and so are people who play only consoles, if their goal is to play the best games.

My post really had nothing at all to do with PC Master Race mentality. If you pick Nintendo, you'll be getting good games but very few of them. If you pick Sony or Microsoft, you may be getting some of the same games that are on PC (and a few exclusives) but not much else. If you pick PC, the only things you are really missing out on are those unique titles Nintendo offers. (cuz come on, are Sony and Microsoft exclusives really much to write home about? Obviously not since i never hear about them.)