Ky-Guy wrote:

Douche McCallister wrote: Ky-Guy wrote: If only I had a time machine; Sega falling out of the console business is part of the reason I think the sixth generation, overall, was a big, fat joke. Playstation 2, Xbox, GC, DC...how is/was that a big fat joke. Record number of sales, one of the greatest eras to be into gaming (a system for everyone) as a consumer and retailer. I guess it's a personal thing for me that started growing inside of me as of late. For starters, it was the generation that Sega, once one of the greatest and most-respected console makers, fell out of the console business after only a few years with the Dreamcast. After that, Sega started producing games for other consoles, some of which got some really negative reviews. Secondly, I didn't see it as too revolutionary. What I really saw most of is another boost in graphics capabilities. I know some people may say that online capabilities were the revolutionary concepts in the sixth generation, but I find that argument flawed for two reasons: 1.) Online capabilities were given to consoles in previous generations, including downloadable content (Sega Channel), broadcasts (Nintendo's Japan-exclusive Satellaview), and leader boards (Tiger's Game.com). 2.) At least in my personal opinion, online gameplay didn't get into full swing until the seventh generation, what with the advent of Wi-Fi and all. Finally, the immaturity of the console wars got into full bloom when more and more people started hitting internet forums. Somehow, I felt that the Console Wars were more mature during the days of SNES and Genesis. I know there are a number of wonderful franchises that debuted in the sixth generation (Pikmin, Kingdom Hearts, and Devil May Cry, to name a few), I Still felt that the sixth generation had nowhere near as much revolutionary gaming to offer as previous generations.

I don't really know what to think when people speak on "revolutionary" changes between game systems and their generations.

I guess my question is.....what defines "revolutionary?" You often hear people claim that they want something revolutionary, but in my mind, I care more about whether something is fun. I don't care if it's conceptually similar to the things I've played in the past. If it's fun, then I'm satisfied.

Elder Scrolls: Oblivion on XBox360 or PS3 (or PC) isn't so far removed from Dragon Warrior 1 on the NES. They're both RPG's, you play them with controllers, you level up, enter dungeons, etc. But the more powerful system enables Oblivion to be so much larger and more complex. Would I define this as "revolutionary?" Probably not. But the size and scope of it surpasses anything I've ever played before, and thus it's more fun for me.

Not that I think innovation is a bad thing, far from it. But sometimes it seems like people just want to change things for the sake of changing things, and I don't feel that's always necessary. Forks and spoons haven't changed much in the last 2,000 years, but they work well enough as is.

GPFontaine wrote:

When I look at Oblivion vs Dragon Warrior there is much more there than just the core dice rolling D&D element of medieval RPGs. That is what binds them to the same genre, but if you can't see the difference in graphics, sounds, story, game control, and mechanics then I think you are blind to a huge revolution in gaming.

But you see, that's kind of my point......the graphical differences and overall size of the games between then and now IS the revolution by certain definitions.

The Wiimote may be a more obvious revolution in regards to how you physically play a game, but you could just as well argue that the increased complexity of modern games is a revolution in its own right, even if they use the same old controller concept as the Atari 2600.