So what makes a game suitable for This Generation?

[ElArabDeMagnifico]

Well even though people still call this gen "next-gen" - it seems like this generation is up and running, and that less devs. are resisting it.

-but hell, even popular games like CoD4 were running on 4 year old tech, and pretty much only had a graphical update and was in a new setting, but they were incredibly successful, so it brings up the question:

"What makes a game suitable for this gen?"

Is it something like lots of bright bloom lighting? Motion Sensing Controls? Unreal Engine 3 graphics on everything? Destructable Environments? Etc.


So post what makes a game suitable for this generation for you, whether it be lots of technical things or simply it being on the current 3 systems (and some Higher-End PC titles) - just post what you think and we'll have a big list of "What makes games suitable for this-gen". I'll post some of mine too.

(I'll Edit this post with "So far we have these as 'this-gen game qualities'")

So far we have:

Better use of game engines and graphics, make games look realistic when they have to (Crysis) and make them Artisticly designed when you have to (No More Heroes, SMG). Dynamic lighting is also good, but we know when that is abused... >_>

Destructable Environments

Larger Scale

Much more interactive world (Things like AC, Mirrors Edge, and the city of GTA IV)

Better AI, if not completely realistic.

Better Movement and Animations (Like the Euphoria engine does, and Altairs animations in AC, and the really good facial animation like Crysis and Valve games.)

 

[sirdanrhodes]

NOT BUGGY ENGINE!

 

[cleverlymadeup]

i'd have to say good dynamic lighting from a certain source (doom 3), less distinction between cut scene and game play (ala uncharted), more realistic graphics and reactions by the npc's to things

not sure what else would make something else next gen, tho a different control scheme, such as the sixaxxis or wii controller

and the sixaxxis isn't that bad, it just takes some getting used to

 

[propertyofcobra]

I can honestly say I have NO idea. I suppose interactive enviroments?

This is one of those things pretentions game reviewers throw around. "This game hasn't made the jump to the next generation/doesn't feel like a next-generation game". Graphics don't matter. Gameplay doesn't matter. Story doesn't matter. But if some sort of shadowy X-factor isn't checked, then the game "didn't make the jump" or "doesn't have the next-gen feel".

I think it's just a way for them to mark a game down while at the same time sounding like they know what next-gen is, but that's just me.

My wife has a wonderful definition of a next-generation game, though.
"If it has high-definition support, and can't run on last generation hardware, it's next-gen." (This of course disqualifies Wii as a next gen console, and probably rightly so, since it's got about the same hardware as a gamecube. Look at Twilight Princess and Resident Evil 4 for example.)

 

[sammyfreak]

Next-Gen is overhyped imo. The technology moves to fast for it to be classifiable in that way. There is newer technology and older technology.

But if that is what we are discussing i will say: Better facial/character animations, biggest tech improvement for me.

 

[Cousin_IT]

Id like to say the graphics dont matter. But damned be the developer/publisher that tries to make me pay £40-50 for bland-generic-game-10 without doping my up on the flashy lights

 

[Mstrswrd]

This gen games should use what is presented to them technologically (this goes fo all generations of games). Simply put, If a system can pull something off, and it fits that type of game, do it. If the game can control a bit better by taking an month, then do it. I don't much care for graphics, however, if you can do good graphics, then do it. If you can't, but you can make an amazing gaming experience, then do this instead (prefer this).

 

[GoldenShadow]

Theres very distinct generations of gaming from the Pong, through Atari, NES/SEGA, SNES/Genesis, N64/PSX, Gamecube/PS2/Xbox/Dreamcast, and now the current generation of Wii/PS3/Xbox 360.

Theres a a bit of time when some games are still being developed from the last generation of hardware. For example Right now PS2 is still selling games even though PS3 is out. So you call PS3 games next gen until the PS2 is phased out of retail space. Thats my opinion anyway

 

[ElArabDeMagnifico]

Theres very distinct generations of gaming from the Pong, through Atari, NES/SEGA, SNES/Genesis, N64/PSX, Gamecube/PS2/Xbox/Dreamcast, and now the current generation of Wii/PS3/Xbox 360.

Theres a a bit of time when some games are still being developed from the last generation of hardware. For example Right now PS2 is still selling games even though PS3 is out. So you call PS3 games next gen until the PS2 is phased out of retail space. Thats my opinion anyway

I still think that's flawed logic though, Game Boy Advanced and DS still sell games, no need to call things 'next-gen' when we've had these newer systems for three years.

If Al Capone was still alive, would the year be 1920? No.

 

[defcon 1]

I believe it's any game that can push today's technological limits and realism.

 

[Benju]

we've had a lot of these things for a while, i'd say what pushes the level to next gen is the combination of all of them, and no games so far are QUITE there in my opinion. if you look at some of the Force Unleashed Tech demos though, you get what i mean. Graphics are nice, physics are nice, and AI is nice, but when you combine them all into a stormtrooper flailing his legs while trying to hold himself up with one hand in a completely unscripted cicrumstance.... that's next gen