Sometimes i feel like we could have waited a couple more years longer for next gen consoles to come out. On twitter and through some youtubers i hear the "these consoles arent truly next gen" then they go on to use examples such as the small graphical enhancement and how the consoles struggle to reach 1080p 60fps. What do you guys think?

I think it was long overdue, because this last generation was one of the longest lasting console generations in a very long time. As for the complaining fanboys on social media, they're just about worthless. Who are they to define what "next gen" is? Graphics can only get so good. Personally I think we're nearing the tip of the iceberg, graphically.

I agree with taterii. When gamers of today thinks that today's Gen is the best? That's actually quite sad to hear as do they actually know of the old school gens that were the best. And still is. Not everything has to be about graphics.

taterii : now that i look at it that way i have a different outlook remembering how short other console gen lifespans were nowhere near as long as prev gen was and you are right we are nearing the graphical iceberg

Eniitan : Yes exactly. Graphics are just a piece of the puzzle in what makes a video game. They don't make a game good or bad. I do like new gen games, but there is indeed something special about older gen titles that makes me favor them more.

TristanTehGamer1 : Yes exactly, it lasted nearly a decade. Which is awesome, but yeah, I think we were all ready for a new console. I think now that graphics aren't making as much drastic progress as they used to, the gaming world is now going to focus more on new ways to play, such as virtual reality.

taterii : hopefully virtual reality becomes a success and back to the graphics i find it ridiculous seeing people on twitter saying a game sucks and refuses to play it due to its graphics not being "next gen" and not going to older consoles saying "those old graphics make those games unplayable"

Graphics are definitely are definitely an important piece of the puzzle as taterii aptly put it, albeit an important piece. While they are nice to have, you shouldn't base your decision to like or dislike the game on something as arbitrary as graphics alone. If that were the case, then games like super mario world and ocarina of time wouldn't be nearly as popular as they are now in the modern era of gaming. 

The reason that old games like that have an old charm is because of the nostalgia. Ocarina of time is still considered a masterpiece for its time because of the graphics. Games have come a long way since then as far as graphics and visuals go, and they will continue to do so. You shouldn't put so much power into what other people say regarding what is next gen and what isn't. Who cares? Being able to play online matches and connect with friends is a feat that would've been considered impossible during the era of old gen consoles. We can only push the quality of graphics and the amount of features a console has so far before it starts to become the standard for every other console. 

As of right now, the next thing in gaming will be virtual reality, and I personally can't wait until it comes to full fruition. 

Too early? Never too early, but always too late. The hardware constraints of a console always hold back the potential of PC (Just because it is cross platform doesn't mean PC has to be held back by the consoles! They weren't ten years ago, so why are they now?). Now as I am a console gamer, that fact still holds, console hardware is consistent all generation and always hold back the potential of games with the hardware you got on the worst console spec-wise. That and that this has been a long generation, it is time for a new generation, its still that do any of use care? I don't care to upgrade because there are only six next-gen games I want and two I can get on PS3 anyway, and the others can wait (need to play previous entries or not absolutely important I get that game).

And because we can't talk next-gen without directly mentioning graphics, I'll say this: Retro games are great because the games are great from everything from nostalgia to being a ground-breaking game of innovation to just straight up being good. This is more important than graphics, game play and story (order based on preference) is always more important than the graphics. A game can have good graphics, but its not the high quality of them that is important, it is that they serve the game well to better the game as a whole. Proof? TAKE THAT! To give an example (and it is totally not Phoenix Wright): Phoenix Wrights graphics very well conveys the story of the game as well as the actually story does (the music does too, but that is another thing), and is completely fitting of the game, enhancing the game as a whole. But if it was all high-qal 1080 60fps Gmod style graphics? It would seem to cinematic and feel to much of a movie than a game, ruining the game play and making the story seem rather boring (IMO, anyway). Graphics play their part, but not to look like Battlefield 4 glorious (or whatever game is beautiful these days), but to make the game the best damn game ever made.

I don't think that Gen 8 came in too early, normally on average, a video game generation lasts 5-7 years, so, it is the right amount of time, and after the NX's announcement by Nintendo, I don't think we'll going to enter the 9th generation for another few years.

And about what you said about people complain about the graphics are not at "next-gen" level, the graphics has nothing to do with the generation of gaming, there is a lot more expectations than just the graphic port of the games. With that said, you see PS3, 360, and Wii have new games that looks like that the game should be made in the 5th Generation, that is why you don't look at just the graphics.

Razor987 : EXCELLENT point. Games from back in the day were not better or worse, it seems that way to people because of nostalgia. Had OoT been released today, it wouldn't be nearly as popular because it wouldn't be a game from their childhood. Give it twenty years and people will rave about many PS4 games the way they rave about OoT, FF VII, SMW, and many other classics. Why? Because they will have grown up with it. Just like the classic complaints about the new generation of kids: every generation says theirs was better. lol



Eniitan : Like I said to Razor, what's best is entirely a matter of opinion. I personally think the new generation is the best yet, and I've been gaming since the Atari VCS/2600. This is what old school games were shooting for, and they got as close as they could with their limited hardware. I am forever grateful to them for their contribution and those games will always have their place. I mean, Toejam & Earl and Harvest Moon: Back To Nature could never be replaced. But yeah, I LOVE the way gaming is going. We have great new games with highly modernized approaches to gaming, but we also have 2D games with sprite art, and they're all accepted. THAT is a beautiful thing to me. Modern gaming has a place for all.
As for the games themselves? A game can be one of the best ever, regardless of when it was released I think.


Now for the main question here: No, I don't think the new generation came too early. I think the spacing is just about right now (every five years was too much. Nintendo still does this).

As for the changes: everyone wants to focus on graphics updates, and that's understandable because that's been the most obvious change with each generation until this one. Why is the difference smaller this time? Because there was less room for improvement, as PS3/XBox 360 graphics were already really sharp, unlike the upgrade from SNES to PSX and N64, there's not much to be changed. But the graphics difference is definitely noticeable, don't get me wrong. We'll see that more and more as we move away from multigen releases to new gen only.

No, the system capabilities is what really matters here. For a great example, look at Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor. That game used mechanics and features that simply were not possible on the last generation's technology. I think we as gamers have failed to see that gameplay possibilities are so much greater on the new generation of hardware because we haven't seen a change that revolutionary since the jump from 2D to 3D probably, but hopefully we'll see more developers utilizing that power.

So yeah, I think the timing was just about right. Any release would be criticized two years later because the hardware becomes outdated within a year these days.

Eirinn : That's only from my point of view. The graphics of today is amazing, but I do still stand with what I said. So many people have opinions to this, and I am just expressing my own. Games of today have to focus on upgrading their graphics and more. That is how it is now I have come to terms with some games as it is. So I already understand.

IgorBird122 : Unfortunately today many gamers seem to wanna play graphics instead of video games i see it on twitter all the time people talking down on older games and certain games of this gen being "unplayable" because of the graphics

TristanTehGamer1 : Exactly. Whoever says that better graphics makes a better game is an idiot, because having better graphics doesn't make the game GotY material, like for an example, it might be 10/10 for graphics, but the sounds, the depth, and the gameplay can be like 4/10, and that can just wreck the entire game. So, the gamer can't just focus on graphics alone.

Like look what happened to Sega's Genesis, they only focused and bragged about the graphic part with the whole "Blast Process" mumbo jumbo (because their fps is higher than the SNES) and they never focused on the other aspects and that is what made the SNES out did the Genesis.

#pcmasterrace
#alwaysnextgen
#wegotsmoreexclusives

OK I joke.  But it makes a serious point.  PC is progressing at a near continuous rate.  While consoles are held back by their hardware, PC hardware continues to improve frequently.  Of course, certain games favor certain graphics cards.  There are drawbacks.  But the thought of the variety, performance, and number of exclusives on PC pushes it ahead of its console cousins in many minds.  It's also often so much cheaper to get a game on PC than consoles.  For example, the Humble Tom Clancy Bundle has 6 games in it's $1 tier.  For $1, you can get Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory and 5 other games.  It certainly would be difficult to find such a deal for consoles.  Not only do bundles give games for cheap, but sales are often steeper than on consoles.  The drawback is that the sales are largely digital, limiting you to downloaded games.  Performance or features could also be hampered by flawed ports.  However, over some time, you could potentially build up a library of hundreds of games for less than $100.

IgorBird122 : exactly, and another example look at The Order 1886, beautiful graphics but they focused on graphics more than gameplay so there is little gameplay and depth