SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Joined: Apr 17 2011 Location: US Posts: 58

So the other day, because of the usual nostalgic part of my brain, I began thinking about past generations of gaming and what each one meant to me. The NES was 90% platformers and other side-scrolling affairs, with a few unique gems thrown in here and there such as the Dragon Warriors, Zelda and Punch-Out!!. Because platformers were quick to make and sold just as well as any other type of game, companies began to churn them out one after the other.

I think we can all agree that even with the many platformers in the next generation, it was mostly known for the SNES RPGs. So we have the Platformer Theme, which then leads into the RPG Theme. Then we get to the N64/PS1 generation and what you begin seeing are 3d action/adventure games like Mario, Spyro, Jet Force Gemini, etc. Everyone wanted to capitalize on the power of the new generation so we saw most companies go that route. A secondary theme, you could claim, would be a Party Theme with such games as Smash Bros. and Mario Party.

Now this is where it begins to get tricky, because with the next generation I can't put a theme to it. The Gamecube/Xbox/PS2/Dreamcast generation is a mish-mash collection with no discernible theme (unless you have a suggestion). And then of course you have the Shooter Theme of the current generation (with, I suppose, a Multiplayer Theme as well).

So I brought this up for a couple of reasons; first of all I was curious what everyone's thoughts were on these themes, or if I have them wrong. And then also, what might be the next generational theme? You could argue that it would be Motion gaming (or even that this generation had a motion gaming theme), or maybe it'll just remain a mish-mash from here on out. I'm not completely fed up with shooters, however I really wish companies would stop pumping them out just because they're what sell. And I personally would love to see an RPG theme come back, though that might be too expensive for most developers to handle. Thoughts?

Posted: Sep 10 2011 07:45 pm

I think each system had its own theme.

The SNES was an RPG system.

The Genesis was a sports system.

The N64 was a multiplayer system.

The PSX was an FMV system.

The XBox was a Halo system.

The PS2 was an everything system.

The GCN was a Nintendo/Sega system.

Posted: Sep 11 2011 12:24 am

The 3DO was a Terrible System

Posted: Sep 11 2011 12:30 am

Syd Lexia wrote:

The PSX was an FMV system.

I would disagree with this one. I'd call it a late bloomer, if anything Sega CD was pretty much an FMV system and the PSX was more of mixed bag, a little bit for everybody.

Posted: Sep 11 2011 06:47 am

Sega CD wasn't a system. It was a peripheral.

Posted: Sep 12 2011 12:46 pm

Agree on the Sega CD, not a system, neither was the 32X, not that that was referenced

I would say though that the SNES for me was the first Tournament Fighting game system, though I suppose the NEO GEO exemplfies that even more so

Posted: Sep 12 2011 12:56 pm

Thats one though question. I would not call the SNES an RPG Console, there were plenty of platformers on it, probably more than RPG's. If you wanna know it, look for listings of all the Games for the consoles, though that would be a lot of work.

Joined: Jun 29 2010 Posts: 1818

It was a platformer system in the US, but definitely a RPG system in Japan.
Also, even though "arcade" is not a system, I'd have to say it would be either the Beat 'em Up system or the Shmup system.

Posted: Sep 12 2011 01:39 pm

Arcade has had like 4 or 5 major generations, each with its own dominant commercial themes.

Posted: Sep 12 2011 02:05 pm

The MSX was a Konami system.
The Game Boy Advance was an SNES system.

That's all I have right now.

Posted: Sep 12 2011 04:14 pm

Syd Lexia wrote:

I think each system had its own theme.

The SNES was an RPG/Platformer system.

The Genesis was a sports system.

The N64 was a multiplayer system.

The PSX was an FMV/RPG system.

The XBox was a Halo system.

The PS2 was an everything system.

The DC was a fighter/shmup system.

The GCN was a Nintendo/Sega system.

I'll agree with that now.

Posted: Sep 12 2011 04:15 pm

We need a "i agree with everything syd says" emoticon.

Posted: Sep 13 2011 03:04 am

Sehkmaenzo wrote:

It was a platformer system in the US, but definitely a RPG system in Japan.
Also, even though "arcade" is not a system, I'd have to say it would be either the Beat 'em Up system or the Shmup system.

I believe twice as many RPGs were released on the Japanese Famicom as were the SNES. Or so it seems. The SNES was pretty much a good all-around system.

Joined: Apr 09 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 3112

As far as the future goes, I have no idea. Unless shooters really try to break free from Call of Duty-style military settings or at least try to do something different with multiplayer, I think the torch will be passed onto either action-RPG's (a la Mass Effect and Elder Scrolls) or, as a trend instead of a genre, open-world games in general.

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

I'll agree with Syd's list except for one.

The N64 was a "Nintendo Game" system.

While the NES and SNES had great Nintendo games, my memories of the systems span a wide array of titles from various publishers and developers.

On the other hand the N64 has fewer memorable titles, and almost all of them involved Nintendo's guiding hand. Now mind you, Nintendo didn't develop all of the games, in some cases they contracted the development and then published, however it was their direct involvement that made this system memorable.

Sure, multiplayer was a bigger deal than in the past, however if I were to define the system, I would list the following games and simply qualify them together as "Nintendo":

The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask
Super Mario 64
Mario Kart 64
GoldenEye

Posted: Sep 13 2011 11:14 am

GoldenEye, strictly speaking, isn't a Nintendo game.

Also Turok was also a pretty big deal back in the day. As was Bomberman 64. The fact that the N64 had 4 controller ports was a HUGE deal, and it became the system's main draw.

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

Syd Lexia wrote:

GoldenEye, strictly speaking, isn't a Nintendo game.

Also Turok was also a pretty big deal back in the day. As was Bomberman 64. The fact that the N64 had 4 controller ports was a HUGE deal, and it became the system's main draw.

GoldenEye was published by Nintendo. A company like Nintendo doesn't publish without having a say in the final product's look and feel. That game was polished and I refuse to believe that the quality of it was not due to Nintendo's demands.

Also, now in 2011 as we look back at a system and judge its overall feeling, I feel like the N64 screamed "I was made by Nintendo for Nintendo and you shall bow down to Nintendo". Everything from the odd controllers, to the games, to the cartridges begged the world to derive the conclusion that Nintendo makes whatever the fuck they want and people will love it.

Posted: Sep 13 2011 02:19 pm

I think you're looking at the N64 through Wii-colored glasses and seeing what you want to see.

Posted: Sep 13 2011 02:37 pm

GPFontaine wrote:

Also, now in 2011 as we look back at a system and judge its overall feeling, I feel like the N64 screamed "I was made by Nintendo for Nintendo and you shall bow down to Nintendo".

The systems before didn't?

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

The-Excel wrote:

GPFontaine wrote:

Also, now in 2011 as we look back at a system and judge its overall feeling, I feel like the N64 screamed "I was made by Nintendo for Nintendo and you shall bow down to Nintendo".

The systems before didn't?

When I think of the NES I think about so much more than Nintendo.

Sure, Metroid, Mario and Zelda were all there, but Mega Man, Contra, Castlevania, Ninja Gaiden, etc... there were so many great games for the NES that had nothing to do with Nintendo being the boss.

Super Nintendo had the usual suspects as well, however, just like the NES, there were so many other offerings.

N64 felt like Nintendo went in a direction that many couldn't follow without their guidance. Honestly, I think that the shift to 3D mixed with an odd controller made it harder to work with external of Nintendo itself.

The GameCube was only slightly better in this regard.

Posted: Sep 13 2011 04:17 pm

Nintendo built the N64 with the expectation that its low loading times and multiplayer-friendly set up would attract consumers and that, having won the previous two generations, its past success would engender strong support from third party developers.

Unfortunately, developers were more enamored by the lower product costs of CD-based games, and Nintendo was left largely without third party support.

It was not a case of Nintendo deciding "We can do whatever we want". Nintendo did, more or less, what had always worked for them and it failed to work. The N64 hardware was designed to be a safe bet in many regards, and ironically was not the case. The Gamecube was also designed to be a safe bet, even more so than the N64, and also failed to win back developers. The Wii/DS era was the start of Nintendo's "Fuck it, we'll do whatever we want strategy".

Having recently obtained an N64 for my sister after perusing console/game lots on eBay for 8 days, I can tell you the N64 was definitely a multiplayer system. The people selling these systems are the average game consumers, the people who buy whatever looks cool without reading reviews and who find their old game systems 10 years later and put them on eBay. And these people were buying primarily multiplayer games. It was not unusual to find a collection where Mario 64 was the only game in the collection without a multiplayer aspect.

Joined: Sep 17 2007 Location: The Opium Trail Posts: 3475

Syd Lexia wrote:

The GCN was a Nintendo/Sega system.

This * 1,000