Topic: PS4 games have reached a new incredible level

I’ve always been behind on buying AAA titles or just amazing games in general. The reason being I’m so busy with work/general life that I’m in no rush to buy the latest games. I’ve bought absolute classic like some of the COD’s, the Batman games, the Bioshock games, TLOU etc etc for like £5 each. I actually got all 3 Bioshocks for £10 and loved them. I was just in a cycle of having so many older games that were still amazing that I hadnt played and was in no rush for newer ones that I got them cheap. Fast forward and i’ve Just bought Spider-Man and BO4 for full price. So from like £5 a game to £50. Am I bothered? Not at all. The quality of games now is mind blowing. I’ve not played the Witcher 3 and already I want to buy RDR2 as it looks insanely good. I’ve got a PS4 pro and a 4K TV and everything looks unreal. I was playing Uncharted 4 a few months back and my mate said “what film are you watching?” When she walked in. With Cyberpunk2077 coming and Days Gone etc - what a great time to be a PS4 owner. These devs deserve all the money they make and all the credit they get. The bar is also raised for upcoming games. Love it 👍

@Kidfried It's good but I wouldn't call it a golden age that was the 16 bit era.

@Kidfried nah not while modern games are bogged down with things like Microtransactions, day one patches and cut content released as DLC

yeah games today look great but that's all a lot of games don't have the soul many games had in previous generations

remember just because something looks nice it doesn't mean it is nice

All good points but I do think it’s still an immense leap. 16 bit games were a massive advancement and definitive but now if devs make an open world game the standard has been set SO high. Same with any other genre - FPS’s, Adventure games etc. You have to be at least as good as COD, RDR2, Witcher 3, Spider-Man, Uncharted, TLOU, GOW etc as these are the games you will be measured against. Who wins overall? Us as the player. Again I’m loving being part of it. PSVR too...

Can you not post pics here? Anyway Techradar stated of RDR2 - “when the credits roll you’ll have created enough incredible memories to fill 10 lesser games.” This is what I’m getting at. It’s not just finishing a game now. It’s like you take something away from it, tell your friends about it etc. That’s pretty special.

@KratosMD but unfortunately, it is going to stop soon. For the next year you have days gone and all the rest of major exclusives will be cross gen. Even if they aren't it's still three games more and adios muchacos. Note that I'm talking about first party games, as there are plenty of third party heavy hitters.

Anyway, it's a pretty good generation which I'm enjoying immensely. I've played most if not all of the major exclusives on both PlayStation 4 and Xbox One and I'm very satisfied with all of them.

Personally, I don't think this generation is the 'golden age'. Visually we are at the 'best' point we have ever been but then that's not surprising as we have much more powerful hardware to draw much more complex visuals. As for what is the golden age, I think that really will depend on the person. The 16bit era for me certainly wasn't but I can understand why some may feel that way as the devs were focussed on game-play within the constraints of the hardware. The 32bit/64bit era gave us proper 3D environments and proper audio, not beeps and synthesised sounds. This is where we started to get more depth in games in my opinion and the arrival of the Playstation was the start of making gaming more sociably acceptable for adults. Until then, if you played games as an adult, you were a 'big kid' or a socially awkward 'nerd'.

This generation in general hasn't 'evolved' gaming. In a lot of ways its an iterative upgrade like a Pro/X to last generation. In other words, the visuals have improved but the games are not that 'different' at their core, not evolved on. I know that the improved RAM and streaming has allowed open world games to be much more open and much less loading areas/screens. Sony's big games haven't pushed beyond the level we expected last gen (obviously they have visually), but Spider-Man could well be a sequel to Spider-Man 2 for PS3 and then remastered for PS4. The open world, as great as it looks doesn't offer anything you wouldn't find in open world games on last gen. God of War too - even the more hub like open 'Lake of Nine' could have been done on last gen hardware - not as pretty looking. Its not a criticism as there was nothing wrong with last gen games either and they are still great to play today. Apart from the obvious limitations in visuals compared with today's games, the actual games still hold up today and can stand alongside these on merit - not in a retro/nostalgic way either.

Maybe we have reached the point where whatever 'game' you want to make, can be made so the only real evolution is in visuals - the quest to reach total realism that is indistinguishable from a movie - not a CGi movie but a real life one. We have massive 3D worlds, fully acted characters with proper dialogue, fully surround and spatial audio etc. There isn't really any where to go. You can refine image, AI etc but its never going to be as 'game changing' as the jump from 2D to 3D or the first time we had speech and then fully realistic, high quality audio. VR could drop you directly into these worlds more so than being a bit more of an observer watching things play out on a TV I guess but whether that leads to something we haven't fundamentality seen in gaming before or not, I don't know - more a different way to experience but at the game level, will they be something radically 'new' if you were to play on a TV for example instead?

Golden Age is defined by an idyllic, often imaginary past time of peace, prosperity, and happiness (so maybe a time when you were a child and discovered gaming without the hassles of real life) or the period when a specified art or activity is at its peak - which to me would probably be around the Wii's launch as even 'non-gamers' could suddenly play games - whether socially or has part of their 'fitness' routine - so you had a massive age range and more females too started gaming. You also had a LOT of 360/PS3 gamers, PC gaming also had a big increase and mobile gaming too became more common thanks to Smartphones and tablets as well as the increase in popularity of Facebook and their 'games' too. In terms of gaming being at its 'peak', that's probably when it was at its highest...

2017 is as close to a peak gaming year as I've ever experienced. The full, glorious rebirth of Japanese console gaming, the revival of Nintendo and the launch of the first successful hybrid system, a return to form for Resident Evil and Capcom in general, and many, many, many amazing games that'll be in my top 50 games of all time probably forever.

Regarding the whole "golden age" thing, can you really judge this generation while still in the middle of it? I would think that to really get a true perspective of a particular period you'd have to look at it after the fact.

Anyhoo, there sure are a lot of good games being released these days. That's all I care about.

@Kidfried Some may argue that this generation hasn't seen that much diversity - with a LOT of Sequels and remasters. Arguably last gen had the most diverse collection of games and in quantity too. You would think that with the fact that we now have the ability to play games that were not possible on 16bit or even 32/64bit era, we should have more diversity because modern consoles can (and do offer) old-school 2D platformers that wouldn't be out of place on a SNES as well as the 3D platformers we had in the 32/64bit era, story focussed 3D games etc etc Virtually every genre and style is available. I do think though that this generation has seen less variety compared to last gen - arcade racers for example are few and far between, Horror isn't as prevalent as it was - Dead Space, Silent Hill, Bioshock, Condemned, F.E.A.R etc.

As good as the 'new' games are this gen, I can't think of any that doesn't have 'something' you can get from last gen games - apart from Battle Royale because last gen was a bit limited and couldn't offer 100player lobbies or maps on that scale. The closest was probably Free For All modes in FPS games - although they were slightly different in that you didn't need to find weapons and had more than 1 life - as well as not having a shrinking map. Minecraft offered 'Hunger Games' although that was created by users rather than being part of the package.

All of the 'biggest' sellers this gen have their roots on Last Gen (or before) although in most cases, it was last gen that propelled them to the top. CoD, Fifa, GTA...

Anyway my point is, I think last gen had more diversity and more options in each genre too.

@BAMozzy You might have a point there. When I read your post, I initially disagreed with the statement that this gen has less diversity of games than last gen, but when I think of the large ground breaking new genres, all I can think of is VR. Battle Royale is, as you say, kind of an innovation of gameplay but not really. I would call it maybe a half-step forward from what shooters had been doing already.
The major evolution of gameplay this gen has been taking the existing game ideas and making them bigger, deeper, more complex, and of course prettier. RDR2 would be an example. I’ve yet to start it but I’m seeing posts like, “it’s pretty much like the first game but more in depth.” Apparently it’s not groundbreaking as far as creating a new type of game, it just does it better by adding and fine tuning features and appearance. It is however an example of one of the defining gaming trends this gen — the melding of genres into the same game (open world sandbox + simulator + third [or first] person cover shooter + RPG ...) which would not be possible on previous gen hardware.
Even the apparently creative innovative game Dreams has its roots born out of Little Big Planet, just amped up to the nth degree.
So perhaps you’re right, this generation has less ‘diversity’ or ‘variety’ of games, with the loss of racers, platformers, horror, etc. But the games are overall better at what they do, speaking in general terms and not individually.

@Kidfried Yep agree. Diversity and originality of titles available does not equate to them being any good. Just because it is a sequel doesn't make it immediately inferior of what came before it. It is usually the opposite with sequels improving on the previous games greatly. Not saying every game needs to be a sequel to be any good, or that diversity and originality are bad, just that it is not the holy grail of gaming.

@Kidfried Each to their own of course - but I couldn't disagree with you more...

Companies like EA and Activision are releasing fewer games a year and all but Battle Royale games started last gen (or before). As for Souls games - they have been around since Demon Souls and just because Bloodborne was a success, its routes go back to 2009 PS3's Demon Souls. Dark Souls 1 and 2 were also last gen games. There were a LOT of true Indie games on XB360 - not just the 'Arcade' like games but Indies costing less than £1 on XB360 with as much diversity, probably more so than today - which tends to be a lot of 16bit era games - not always 16bit era visuals but game-play. Card games were around - Magic the gathering for example. Metroid games were around too - maybe you really didn't bother with the indie/arcade market but there was hundreds of games and they had their roots in games like Metroid, 2D platforming, tower defence, Physics based, walking sims, narrative story games - basically if you wanted to play it, there is a game on last gen - apart from Battle Royale as that was not really possible - at least not on this scale. Games like Guitar Hero, Skylanders, Dance/fitness/Party games and a lot of other games that utilised motion controls etc have disappeared too although some did release on this gen - while they maybe are not missed, they added to the diversity. That of course helped because of the Wii and then both the 360 and PS3 followed.

Activision released 3 games in 2018 - two of which are remasters (Spyro and Crash), the other being CoD - and an expansion to Destiny 2 of course. in 2012, they released more than 15 (although 15 were on XB360). All you have to do is look at the games EA or Activision released in the five years before this gen and the five years after and you will see LOTS of big name games that have disappeared - as well as numerous other one offs, licenced games (007, Harry Potter, X-Men etc).

This gen may have taken some games to new levels but the core is still not new. The Witcher 3 is one of the best games this gen and better than last gen games but its still not entirely new to have an open world RPG with sword combat. Its set apart because of the writing and the quality of its side quests. I love the game and its definitely in my top games of all time but its more 'evolutionary' than revolutionary - after all we had Skyrim, Dragon Age etc last gen... Point is, you could play the equivalent on last gen and more - just maybe not as evolved as they are today. Just because the Witcher changed more than most, doesn't mean that the game was revolutionary in its game-play but proved that Side Quests didn't have to be yet another filler and could have more significance.

I could go on but the point is, more new games and genres sprung up last gen and you could play a lot more varied games too - whilst this gen has really only had Battle Royale and seen less variety in genres too.

@JohnnyShoulder Diversity is a good thing - just because you may not enjoy playing a certain genre, desn't mean everyone else should go without too. Sequels aren't necessarily a bad thing either and I never said they were but sometimes 'change' or evolution doesn't work - Dead Space 3 for example or the CoD games with Advanced Movement . There are some people that want more of the same - Fifa sells with minor tweaks every year but you also want new games, new IP's etc too. If you are happy getting old games remastered and sequels with minor improvements year after year, then so be it but I also want to have the next Uncharted, the next Dead Space, the next BioShock, the next Mass Effect, the next Dragon Age, the next Assassins Creed, the next Borderlands, the next Lost Planet, the next Left 4 Dead etc etc etc - not just sequels to these. All these launched last gen alongside sequels too don't forget! I want to expand my gaming, not limit it to the same few games year in, year out supplemented by playing a few prettier versions of games I played 5yrs or more ago. I know this gen isn't over and we still have games like Days Gone, Ghost of Tsushima or Death Stranding that will add to the new IP's but I don't want gaming to become like MS's exclusives - yet another Halo, Forza or Gears with maybe some minor evolution year in year out...

@BAMozzy I suggest you read my post again, I never said diversity wasn't good or that you said that all sequels are bad, or all sequels are better? I didn't even quote you..

It shouldn't matter if a game is a sequel or an original IP, AAA, indie, if it's a good game does it really matter? Yes diversity and originality are important, but imo no more so than sequels and reboots. All the money that EA's sports titles bring allow them to fund more 'riskier' games such as Anthem or A Way Out. You may not like those games but they are original titles.

@JohnnyShoulder Of course Anthem and No Way Out are 'original' games and I gave no issue with sequels in general but what I don't want is 'just' sequels and remasters. EA in general and Activision in particular though are releasing 'fewer' games and a lot of the games that are releasing from these are games that offer relatively easy ways to monetise additional content - even if it is 'cosmetic only' and that plays into their design.

Arguably Anthem is EA's Destiny - different enough maybe not to be too similar but you wouldn't be surprised if the Execs said they wanted a Destiny type game - a game that is predominantly online with options to add MTX as people will want to look different when playing with others. Something that can rake in billions on MTX's and expansions... Not complaining if its enjoyable and it is a game I want.

Sequels themselves can be good - the games generally get sequels because they sell and are popular. There is a reason that gamers get excited at the announcement of a game based on just a title because its a recognised franchise. I know that new IP's can be a hard sell because people don't know what to expect, whether they will like the game, the story, the characters etc. I know this generation has had quite a few new IP's too - Destiny being one - even if that also released on last gen too. It seems though that they are fewer are further between than we had last gen. Sony seem to be the ones that are more willing to push new IP's than any other - I know that a lot of Devs made 'sequels' at the start but, seem to be diversifying now - H:ZD instead of another Killzone, Ghost of Tsushima instead of another Infamous. I am sure that both GG and SP could have made another game in those franchises, may yet do in the future, but at least are adding to their diversity, their portfolio. If CoD collapses, Activsion would be in a bad way - most of their studios are involved with CoD, whether its that game or the next 2 in various development phases. Their share-price dropped when BO4 only made £500m because that was down on BO3. They don't have a plethora of other games in development that could become the 'next' big thing or even to keep bringing in money because they are relying on just a 1 or 2 games to do that This year, the only 'new' game they released was CoD:BO4 with two remasters (Crash & Spyro) - as well as the expansion to last years D2 which cost as much as a game but both Destiny and CoD are bringing in over £2bn in MTX a year so if they 'collapse', Activision could well be screwed.

My point though was about the fact that we have sequels and remasters with fewer and fewer new IP's and that leads to less diversity. That wasn't saying that sequels and remasters aren't good games but that we had more range of choice. Some of that may well be down to motion controls too which allowed for more diversity. As someone else said, this gen has been more 'iterative' improvements rather than a revolution but I also feel its more 'streamlined' because those genres that were perhaps not as popular as others have tended to disappear from the mainstream market. FPS games were popular last gen and to a degree are this too, but we had more competition in this sector.

I am not complaining about the games this gen - there is more than enough releases that I want to and can play in the time I have. I just think that the range of games available is not as broad as it was last gen. The point of my original post was more to say that if we were to consider what era had the most diverse range of games, last gen beats this gen at this point in time. As for popularity, with the Wii selling over 100m and both the 360 and PS3 selling 80m each - albeit over a longer time than this gen, then it seems that consoles were also very popular... Again not to say that this gen won't reach those figures - PS4 is certainly doing well and should surpass the PS3 but Xbox isn't and as U said, the Wii was incredibly popular.

There isn't anything fundamentally wrong with the games we have this gen, that wasn't the point - but when you look at the plethora of original titles, diversity of genres and range of games within those, at this point in time, the options were much more vast. In terms of FPS games, it seems the strong survived and the less popular vanished and its not as if all of these were 'clones' of CoD with each having its own unique mechanic or USP. We had games like Bulletstorm, Vanquish, Crysis, BioShock, Left 4 Dead, Resistance, Borderlands, Spec-Ops: the Line, MoH, Brothers in Arms, FEAR, Singularity, Mirrors Edge, Metro etc as well as games like CoD, BF, Halo and Killzone. There was more diversity within the genres too as everyone of these had their own identity and quirk - maybe less with games like MoH which almost became EA's CoD. BF as we know is 'different' to CoD in a lot of ways despite being a military FPS game. There was more choice in Arcade racers - whether you liked games like Burnout, wipeout, Motorstorm, blur or PGR. We also had more RTS, more RPGs, just more diverse games in general - Enslaved, Brutal Legend, Shadows of the Damned, Lost Odyssey... I could go on and I am sure you could think of games that are no longer with us or genres as fully represented as they were before. Maybe the card and walking sim games are more prolific now which may have been limited to magic the gathering or some poker/pontoon indie game but so many of todays big releases are evolved last gen games and by evolved, I mean in the way that they would have evolved whether this gen was here or not - the sequel that had to do a bit more than the last game type evolution rather than something that the hardware itself suddenly enabled that wasn't done before - which is where Battle Royale comes in because they couldn't give you 100 people on a server with maps that vast either. Battlefield's big leap was the fact that they could now give you the 64player battles that PC gamers had been able to enjoy.

The Witcher 3 maybe a big jump up from 2 in terms of scale and design, going open world like Elder Scrolls, but not falling into the trap of side quests for filler purposes but more thought and better writing - the same writing that main stories were afforded.The main difference between last gen and this though is the better streaming which allowed more data to load in ready for when you moved across the map - far less narrow pathways or door openings that hid the next sections loading - now they can be much more 'open' with much less dead areas and loading every time you enter a building. Whilst this is related to the hardware - its led to more quality of life improvements than 'new' revolutionary games - although Destiny could be classed as revolutionary - but that also was possible on last gen hardware as proven by its simultaneous 360/PS3 release - as that also put real players into your game on their own path way rather than being their because you invited them and opened up the 'games as a service' market where these games can be expanded and change over time rather than just add new maps to the MP pool.

Anyway, that's my thoughts and opinion - I appreciate that others may not agree and whilst there isn't as many games (yet) released on current gen, I feel there is a higher percentage of remasters and sequels than new games as well as more indie/arcade games that also help push the number of games released up - not that there is anything wrong with that but the last gen had more diversity and more new franchises born that gave us more variety within genres too as well as creating something we hadn't yet had or really adding something 'new' to the mix that separated it from anything else before it that transformed it from say an FPS into more of a horror survival (like Bioshock) or RPG MP (like CoD4).

This gen has been a watershed. My old games look like relics and most if not all genres of games have been improved and new genres have emerged. There are new issues I don't like at all - this is predominantly the always connected nature of our society and how capitalists want to make money from it.

That aside Rocket League is a better multiplayer game than SF2 or Super Bomberman. I never ever thought I would write that. Pro Evo 2019 is a better game than Pes 4 again I would never have thought that possible last gen. God of War beats up Ocarina of Time. Wipeout Omega collection is the best future racing game. I've been sat in a chair my hands stuck in a contraption in statik. I've been a wanted man by the Japanese mafia in Yakuza. I've had a sex change and hunted robot dinosaurs in HZD and Ive fultoned thousands of soldiers and gave them a slap in mgs5. They even thanked me for it.

Everything has come together. The acting, graphics, sound, artistry and immersion.