What has modern gaming done right?

[Ivo]

The only reasonable exception that I can think of, is if that feature somehow gives you a possibility to get advantage in scoring

Apparently, the reason why many games don't let you save everywhere is that Japanese developers see fiaxed saves as a feature, or a stylistic choice more than a convenience. I know many have chimed on this but I don't remember much beyond the obvious examples of Resident Evil and Metal Gear Solid.

It is a valid stylistic choice for the actual "save system" that lets you restart if you get killed etc., or if you want to go back and try different options.

I am talking about "I need to go something else and need to stop right now", so stylistic choice doesn't apply there.
It is like disabling the DS function to suspend by closing the lid, or disabling the PSP suspend function, for no good reason (there were a few games that had a good reason to use the closing the lid of the DS for other stuff, but I think those actually did let you save mostly everywhere anyway).
It is like not having a pause button at all (which admittedly, some games don't, and few games have those during cutscenes - which is another issue).

Real life is more important than games (no matter how serious, scary and so on the game is). There is no real issue with breaking immersion by having these features. Those that don't want to use them are not forced to, but if there is an emergency or whatever your immersion is gone anyway and you're not going to continue playing anyway, so why not let you not lose progress due to such external factors?

Ivo.

[Zing]

It would be interesting if future consoles were iOS style, where you could "quit" a game at any time, and the game state would be saved.

[ZeroAX]

I dont see how that fact goes against what I said. Yes, by 1992 the SNES was already out, and yet still there were good NES games coming out. In fact doesn't that show how awesome the NES was? I mean at the moment there is no Xbox 720 or PS4 so of course the good games are coming out on the 360 and PS3, the developers have no new console to publish them on so they dont have a choiche. But back in 1992 there were plenty of more powerful computers around (first models of Commodore Amiga came out in 1985!) and the SNES was already out by then, but yet still C64 and NES got some good new games.

The question was what this gen did right. I said that because it lasted this long the consoles are still getting new unique game experiences made for them (Last of Us, The Last Guardian (if it doesn't get canceled), Watch Dogs). That wouldn't have happened if the new consoles were released last year like they usually do.

Those games you mentioned are all sequels, and while I am not debating their quality, they were hardly ground breaking. Simply put, Nintendo wouldn't have released Super Mario Bros 3 in 1993 on the NES. It would have released it on the SNES.

I am also not comparing consoles and releases which you seem to be doing. I just said that this generation was helped by lasting longer. A better comparison would have been the original Xbox and Gamecube which died right away the second their successors were even announced.

[Menegrothx]

Those games you mentioned are all sequels, and while I am not debating their quality, they were hardly ground breaking. Simply put, Nintendo wouldn't have released Super Mario Bros 3 in 1993 on the NES. It would have released it on the SNES.

How is Bucky O Hare or Mr Gimmick a sequel? Both of those games are very well designed and complex when compared to majority of NES platformers. Watch Pat the NES Punk's review of MR Gimmick if you haven't realized how amazing game it is. The review starts at 4:22.
Cream of the crop as far as NES platformers go, both of them.

[Erik_Twice]

I have no idea what you are talking about, but Gimmick! is a pretty cool game. In fact, a good chunk of the best NES games were released post mortem.

[Erik_Twice]

I am talking about "I need to go something else and need to stop right now", so stylistic choice doesn't apply there.

I agree with you, it's just what the Japanese argue.

[AppleQueso]

Simply put, Nintendo wouldn't have released Super Mario Bros 3 in 1993 on the NES. It would have released it on the SNES..

I generally am agreeing with you here, but...

...Nintendo may not have put out a Mario game on NES instead of SNES in 1993, but they did put a Kirby game on there.

[ZeroAX]

Simply put, Nintendo wouldn't have released Super Mario Bros 3 in 1993 on the NES. It would have released it on the SNES..

I generally am agreeing with you here, but...

...Nintendo may not have put out a Mario game on NES instead of SNES in 1993, but they did put a Kirby game on there.

Yes that's true, but still it wasn't one of their heavy hitters.


And let us be honest here, things are totally different from a financial point of view. Making an NES game in 1993 didn't cost much from a development point of view. It was the cartridges that were expensive. Now days? Who would invest 10-50 million $ on a big budget current gen game if the next consoles are already out?

[isiolia]

Simply put, Nintendo wouldn't have released Super Mario Bros 3 in 1993 on the NES. It would have released it on the SNES..

I generally am agreeing with you here, but...

...Nintendo may not have put out a Mario game on NES instead of SNES in 1993, but they did put a Kirby game on there.

They also released the NES 2 that year, in the U.S. The system as a whole wasn't completely dead, it was just relegated to being a budget product.

Where the 360 and PS3 differ is that they're still the flagship products with full release calendars despite being close to 7 or 6 years old (respectively). Most consoles, historically, would have had a successor either on the market or impending by this point.

[demizz30]

One word: handhelds.

In contrast to the handhelds of old, the ones we have today are:

- Backlit
- Can be put to sleep
- Have long-lasting rechargeable batteries
- Graphics that have finally "caught up" and don't look vastly inferior to home consoles

The DS and PSP are two of the greatest systems of all time, in my opinion.

weren't they always almost on par with their home console counterparts?

Gameboy was sort of a black and white nes quality esp. in later releases
Gamegear was a portable master system, more of less
nec had its own portable version
gameboy advance was lagging behind-that's true

but so does nowadays
ds vs wii- wii much better
3ds vs wii u- wii u way better
psvita vs ps3- ps3 slightly better