Saw this over on the gamefaqs board and kind of got a laugh out it:

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/691088-xbox-one/70128927

People really expected something "revolutionary" out of the current gen consoles...? Seriously...?

I mean personally I more-or-less expected it to mirror last gen with the law of diminishing returns in full effect, the cost of hardware (and economy) holding the console makers back significantly (which I fully understand), slightly better looking games and Sony and Microsoft playing it as safe as they could given Nintendo's issues with the whole "gimmick" thing.

I guess we'll have to keep dreaming about that uber console that makes us breakfast in the morning... <sigh>

But seriously... did anyone here really expect that much of a damn leap...?

Not at all.  In fact I'm expecting this generation to be one of my least favorite ever because the quirky, creative B-tier games that I tend to prefer have all but dried up.  I feel like I'm left with Nintendo, indies, and.... well, that's pretty much it.  I have a PS4 (since my PS3 died and I wanted to continue to play FFXIV), but there's almost nothing coming out for it that isn't an up-port of a Vita or PS3 game for me to be excited about.

I've said it before, I think the VR technology that is right around the corner will be the key to immersiveness for this and the next generation. I think the last two generations have pushed the boundaries for how far you can be involved by looking at a flat screen and trying to feel immersed in it. All I've seen from this generation is prettier graphics. Which is what I felt about the last generation (minus the motion control attempts and non-gaming stuff like console Youtube). I think most of us can accept that game consoles nowadays resemble stripped down gaming computers even moreso than in the past.

Those of us that got to experience the jump from 8bit to 16bit and even 16bit to well-done 32bit are fortunate to see such huge leaps being made at the time.

I know this was stated in a similar thread and it was shot down by many people for many reasons... but yeah... kind of miss all those quirky titles that were so off-the-wall that it was insanely surprising that they worked. Man, the PS1 was full of that stuff.

I mean could you imagine them green-lighting half of those games now? No way in hell....

Well to their credit, there is stuff like Xbox Live Arcade, which always has a couple interesting things floating around. Other than some of the fighters, that was probably my highlight from last gen. But as far as physical, full releases, I get what you mean.

Sure. While it is very early in this generation and despite my grand annoyance with the industry, I don't think it is unrealistic to think that someone will accomplish a highly influential game within its genre using the advances of supreme hardware to make unprecedented levels of aesthetic mayhem.

The new FF game running on PS4 hardware is massively more impressive than prior FF games with that huge monster and immense gorgeous environments. It doesn't look mechanically impressive, but compared to past FF titles it certainly looks revolutionary. Seeing that stuff as a child will certainly have a tremendous impact that will indeed call for revolutionary game mechanic changes as graphics have reached the law of diminishing returns for everyone playing modern videogames.

It is right now that everyone has thrown their hats into the open-world ring and no one has figured out how to pull off incorporating superior narrow vision of older titles to this large vision of open world gaming. Rockstar hasn't. Ubisoft hasn't. Nintendo hasn't. I will see that Nintendo will be the first to achieve it. Their controls are vastly superior to Rockstar's. Their style of games are vastly more stylish than Ubisoft's and Rockstar's. They have more resources to draw from than Konami and Capcom which have seen most their talent disappear. Nintendo won't accomplish it this gen with Zelda. The only problem Nintendo has is that Western developers have larger pools of money to then copy this perfect game formula onto rival systems. They need to acquire Mikami and Itagaki into their studios instead of letting them be forced to make the same games as always in Western/Hollywood-style creative bankrupt rival companies.

It will be interesting to see how well Metal Gear Solid V pulls off the open-world formula. (It's too bad that series puts so much effort into god awful cutscenes.) Far Cry 4 as well. Once this type of game is pulled off it will be extremely addicting and will completely dominate the attention of gamers, especially children that it will achieve the most severe outcry a videogame has ever had from parents and politicians. This game will also have a serious impact on sales of non-open world games. Game libraries of gamers will probably shrink as these open-world games will require far more investment than ever. Everything that is not an open-world game will be considered "casual gaming". Revolution will not happen this generation.

Something revolutionary is coming from Japan next generation. Not America. It will be the bloodiest console war.

Eh... I don't see the next big revolutionary thing in gaming being an actual game. In a certain sense I think a vast majority of gamers are kind of jaded because we've become so use to small increments of advancement apposed to the past leaps Goldfish was talking about. Until there's another leap like 2D to 3D I can't see people getting PSYCHOTICALLY excited again.

Like Goldfish I think something like VR is going to be the thing that changes everything... only I don't think it going to be VR. I don't really have any faith in VR to be honest.

Your first sentence doesn't make sense. Games are software+hardware. Don't separate them and there is no confusion.

I suppose the question is did people find the 3D in Avatar to be vastly superior to the non-3D version where it is not possible to go back. That's the only dimensional jump that can really impress people left. Nintendo is testing the market out with the handheld version of that. (Being a handheld the impressiveness of 3D on a small screen is diminished to what can be seen on a tv and the smaller, seemingly inconsequential benefits shouldn't be written off on that account.) Who will be the first to seriously bankroll the console version of that?

VR is going to push everything into first-person games. I've seen this video of F-Zero GX with people talking about how it is breath-taking in VR: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jtyi2kdAgdU

While first-person games are more immersive I think there is a certain pleasure of distance that is superior when one sees out of the body (third-person). First-person games established a revolution. Another question I have is if a seamless first-person view's immersion is more pleasurable than the play of multiple views (including first-person).

Actually, I think it makes sense - see below. But if it will placate your tender sensibilities:

"The next big thing in gaming is not going to be a specific piece of software."

Happy?

What the hell are you smoking? Games and hardware are separate. Yes you need the hardware to play the software... hence in my sentence "the next big thing in games" is referring to the industry while "game" is referring to a piece of software. Not an elequent sentence but it would get the job done for those not looking to over analyze what they're reading.

It's obvious you just wanted to be a pill here.

Okay, I can play that game.

You typed a double negative. So I should separate them and there will be confusion...?

To me it still seems unclear. Sorry, but can you expand on that sentence more? What is your idea of this next big thing in gaming? The way games are played (i.e. hardware changes)? I am not hoping to seem petty. Please see that I am simply curious than antagonistic.

It really is a minor quibble, but you just admitted that they are inseparable in the last sentence.

You can't run software without a computer, one is worthless without the other.

For those of us that remember the NES... do you remember the leap from NES to SNES? It was mind-blowing! Then SNES to PSX, and PSX to PS2... look, anyone with a little sense knows that you don't make the same leaps and bounds in technology every single iteration. Of course you get diminishing returns, at least on first glance. Truth is, at the rate we're going, it's possible that in a few generations games will look like movies/real life with such realism that you may not know the difference. That said, I still think there's this "fun" factor which is most important, and I will take a "fun" game over "the graphics are totally awesome" any day. As I said before, thank goodness for indy games and kickstarter.

I dunno, in terms of graphics, the leap from PSX to PS2, and the leap from PS2 to PS3 were a lot more impressive than what I've seen of PS4 and XB1 so far. I'm sure we'll get to see some really impressive stuff in due time, but so far it seems like a relatively minor jump.

Why don't you go hang out in your "Conversational Sins" topic with all your friends... oh wait...

To be honest, your posts aren't much better than his in terms of general tone and attitude.  If you don't like what he has to say or what he's saying, just ignore it.

I don't know what you're trying to say here. If you're trying to say I am an ass or can be an ass then I don't disagree... so you're not really telling me - or anyone - anything I/they don't already know. I think it's obvious somewhere along the line I stopped caring about certain things regarding my standing on this site and/or the internet.

I could go on, but I'm sure that would be considered pandering.

What I'm trying to say is that if you don't have anything productive to add to the conversation, perhaps don't? Not everyone on the Internet and this forum have to agree on everything but resorting to name calling and snide off topic remarks doesn't really make a conducive environment for discussion of any sorts.

I also realize the irony in me calling you out for the irony in calling him out in a discussion about current gen consoles but I felt it needed to be said anyway.

I expected to see little to no variation between the 360 and the One, and I was right. One of my friends got the One on launch day and I didn't notice any improvement in graphics; everything still looks very, very clean.

If games can be immersive as dreams, then we'd get a real wallop for the money. Last night I dreamed about a game world in which the levels were separated by difficult to negotiate physical barriers. We (myself and unidentified others) were there, actually there. It was a hyper-realistic VR game I was dreaming about. I was in level 6 when the dream started, in a plain bordering a steep drop-off which led to level 7. We knew that tyrannosaurs were the main enemy in level 7 and that we would be provided with no weapons; we had to be quick like little rodents and planned to scamper through the level, hoping not to get eaten.

There IS a difference but it's more with stuff like shadows, draw distance, and things that may need calculations -- for instance N1 talked about how in Disgaea 5 they are able to fit a lot more characters on screen than on PS3  (this is similar to talk about how in Disgaea 3 there are levels so tall they are just too big for PS2's memory despite it being basically graphically capable)

Actually, as long as you realize this... I'm actually pretty damn happy.