Ever since the Dreamcast, I don't really enjoy games anymore

[Hazerd]

Im not very Nostalgic for the DC, i was only 14 when it came out and didnt have the money for it, im sure i would of bought one, but the N64 was still pretty killer in '99.

The GCN and DC have always been rivals in my mind though, they both had PSO as one of their major online games especially for the GCN, and lets not forget Skies of Arcadia. Also 2 years apart, but i just see them as very similar even if the CPU of the GCN runs x2 as fast, the graphics are very on par.

[AppleQueso]

Hard to see DC and GCN as rivals when the DC was pulled off of shelves before the GCN launched.

[BoringSupreez]

Hard to see DC and GCN as rivals when the DC was pulled off of shelves before the GCN launched.

I guess you could say the impending release of the GCN could have harmed DC sales in the same way people held off from buying a DC so they could get a PS2 later, but I doubt that had a very large impact. TBH GCN feels more like a continuation of the DC than a rival.

[AppleQueso]

TBH GCN feels more like a continuation of the DC than a rival.

You could say that about the Xbox too. They even had the same button layout!

[pierrot]

Hold up now. It's not as if Nintendo released their own version of PSO on the Gamecube. They didn't 'both focus on PSO for online gaming.' Sega released ports with some extra features, and as I recall, the Gamecube's online capabilities were laughably under supported. SegaNet for the the Saturn probably had more support. Also, 90% of the ports to other 6th gen consoles from the Dreamcast are technically inferior to the originals. Aside from bonus content and accessibility, there's not much reason to play them on something other than the Dreamcast. Especially when you consider that they all run in native 640x480 VGA mode on the Dreamcast.

Simply put, the Dreamcast has a far more eclectic library than the Gamecube, that goes well beyond the first-party titles. I like the Gamecube, but it doesn't compare; and the Gamecube controller is arguably better than the Dreamcast's. I prefer the Dreamcast controller; the GC controller's button layout is a jumbled mess. I also prefer the way the DC controller sits in my hands, and its trigger button response.

[Violent By Design]

I find DC vs GC to be an interesting debate in terms of what console is "better".

A few of DC's titles were obviously thrown over to GC, and DC games are less exclusive since they were ported to the other 3 consoles of its generation. As a fighting game fan, I always leaned toward DC though, GC had terrible fighting game ports, outside of Melee and Soul Calibur 2, there wasn't much for me there in that genre (and DC had Soul Calibur 1 which is just as good as 2).

DC's library is pretty dynamic though, but because of its lack of commercial success it seems like it didn't have many all time great games. There are still some DC games that you can't find on consoles today.

[Original_Name]

The title of this thread caught my eye, 'cause I've gone through basically the exact same thing. I don't think that interesting, off-the-wall games were born or died out with the Dreamcast, it's more that the Dreamcast was the last time that a first-party developer attempted to promote a progressive culture of such games around a core gaming audience. If you're like me, the problem is that most modern games you do find that appeal to you are buried under piles of redundant dreck, and finally finding something that speaks to you is more alienating than empowering.

On top of that, when I finally do find games that appeal to me (Child of Eden, Aquanaut's Holiday, Valkyria Chronicles, Tokyo Jungle, Echochrome, Deadly Premonition...), there's the issue of actually supporting the first-party in charge of the console. I'm in a strange place, because while I think that Sony's console offers far and beyond the most interesting library of games this generation, I just can't get over the feeling that I'd be selling myself out if I supported them.

Sony's entrance into the console race began a type of corporate culture (not that games weren't always corporate! A type of corporate culture) that has never gelled with me. Microsoft came along and evolved this into the current state of the industry, which as a creative culture is pretty dismal. Sony and Microsoft aren't video game companies to me any more than the Apple corporation is a musical artist -- Sony has at least begun to support some interesting titles through funding or purchasing experimental developers, but it seems to me more an act of philanthropy than a legitimate act of participation in the types of games that I believe in. Hell, the original PlayStation might have more games that appeal to me than any other system, but that has nothing to do with Sony's creativity and everything to do with their dominance.

Nintendo, on the other hand, while I wholly disapprove of their underhandedly anti-free market mentality in earlier years, seem to be the paradigm of integrity these days. The only trouble is that I... just don't care enough to buy one of their systems. I like them politically, but I've never been very moved by them creatively -- and since all the interesting third parties are elsewhere, I'm sort of at an impasse. Nintendo is the Disney of video games -- sure, there's your "Fantasia", "Lion King", or "Finding Nemo" here and there, but I wouldn't buy a Disney-exclusive VCR to play the handful of Disney movies I care about. Meanwhile, Sony is the Sony of video games. Microsoft is the Microsoft of video games. Take that as you will. At this point, I'm just having a hard time caring.

Sega was like the guys who made those Mind's Eye animations of video games. Or maybe Sega was like Osamu Tezuka and Kazuo Umezu rolled into one. John and Yoko, without The Beatles. Sure, they worked in a pop culture space, so there was a corporate presence, but they all operated under unified values that favored progression through divergent expressions of a singular artistic philosophy. Everything they put out seemed entirely new, exciting, and gave you a sense that you were participating in something revolutionary through supporting them.

That is to say (at long last), that while there have been plenty of great games released since the Dreamcast, that was the last time I feel one of the major players was committed to something that I could call a "major artistic movement" within the medium without pretense. And that was fuckin' exciting. Everything else has just been games to me. Great games, sometimes, but nothing I could really get excited about and "believe in", as ridiculous as that sounds.

[sonikjesus]

I've played some of the games mentioned in this thread. I remember playing the trials of Limbo and Braid and enjoying them but I never got around to purchasing them so I'd like to play those. I also wanna try Journey. Played Mega Man 9 and 10. They were all right I got through 9 and couldnt get myself to play through ten, partly cause the ps3 controller had input lag. Far Cry 3 I didnt get into either. I played Ninja Gaiden Black and also 2 back in the day and enjoyed them. I also really wanna play The games by Team Ico.

I mean I've played and enjoyed games since the dreamcast but my enjoyment has been slowly going down since playing that console. Right now I hardly enjoy any of the games I try. Like I tried Vanquish and RE6 and it was pretty underwhelming. Like someone else said I do think games lack soul nowadays.

edit: The only recent games I've loved are the Portal Games and the first Dead Space. Those games were amazing to me.

[Hazerd]

Crazy thing is, im on this Hidden gems oxBox and DC kick.

[Nyukki]

Plenty of new school games that have an old school feel. I don't own any current gen consoles so I do all new school gaming, if any, on the PC. Recently picked up Super Meat Boy and played it with an NES controller and USB adapter, really fast and twitchy platforming action with a strong emphasis on wall-jumping. Kept me entertained all weekend.