Is there a bias against the 360/PS3 era?

[CosmicMonkey]

Something I've noticed on this site is that the average score for games from PS3/360, in particular, scores for games that were commercial and critical successes at the time, seem to be noticeably lower than those of the generations of consoles on either side of them.

I understand why more recent games would likely be scored higher - the increase in technology, plus iterative refinement of mechanics and experience means many players would likely prefer more recent games. But why do the most popular, best-selling, most critically acclaimed generation of the 7th generation seem to be scored lower than those of the PS2/Xbox/GameCube era? Or even the PS1/N64 era? And this isn't even a phenomenon only on this site, I've noticed it on Glitchwave, as well, where it's probably even more pronounced.

Is the seventh generation in the awkward spot where the games are old enough to feel dated, but not old enough to provide nostalgic appeal for many users? Or is there something in particular about that era of gaming that has caused many of those games to age more poorly?

[Alsweider]

Is the seventh generation in the awkward spot where the games are old enough to feel dated, but not old enough to provide nostalgic appeal for many users?

It would be interesting to know the age distribution of the members of the respective sites. The nostalgia factor (or retro gamers) could definitely play a role. If so, the ratings for 360/PS3 games should level up with the newer and older games in some years.

[morphinapg]

The game content of that era was fantastic. However, it was an awkward time in terms of technology. Weird resolutions, poor frame rates, bad jaggy edges, and some weird graphical choices before physically correct shaders and lighting became more popular.

But some of my favorite games come from that generation regardless. Glad most of them have been remastered for newer machines.

[Velvet Crowe]

The game content of that era was fantastic. However, it was an awkward time in terms of technology. Weird resolutions, poor frame rates, bad jaggy edges, and some weird graphical choices before physically correct shaders and lighting became more popular.

But some of my favorite games come from that generation regardless. Glad most of them have been remastered for newer machines.

To be frank, I could bring up a ton of titles in the PS2 era that have technical issues. Games like True Crime, Soul Calibur 3, Star Ocean 3, etc had pretty notorious technical issues that utterly broke the game. If anything the gen after was a lot better about it because at least technical issues could be patched and I'd argue plenty of games in that gen came out less broken than the gen after.


As for the main topic, this just reminds me of why I hate the "dated" argument for video games because it's very funny to think about that in perspective of actually having lived in that era. For example, the FPS titles that came out in that gen were absolute garbage and yet if we're to take that narrative at face value I'm supposed to think that the genre in that period was better than the absolute gangbusters from the 90's and early 00's? I'm supposed to think the boring ass shit from that period is significantly better than Quake, Timesplitters, Doom, or even Max Payne? Other genres saw a low point too. While fighting games prospered in playerbase with the advent of online play (in spite of how illegitimated that is in the competitive sense) there's A LOT of arguments to be made about how much worse most fighting games were in this period and in some ways still are.

The reason why the gen is hated is because it was a time when AAA were simultaneously embracing AWFUL trends while in the same breath also being a dominant force in terms of cultural and financial impact. It was also a time when consoles had lost the variety we saw the previous gen and titles were designed to be more safe and generic than the many quirky ways games were taking unique avenues to do gameplay. We also saw a lot of major franchises flat out die or transition to newer consoles in the worst way possible. The way this played out that gen is similar to how it is now with AAA games but with far more egregious practices. The only difference is that lower budget titles are far more prevalent and often times more successful so we get to see more variety in what is actually being made now since there's no longer an expectation for a title to have a certain budget to be successful or be seen as meritable.

I could shit on SO many things about the PS3 era even if there are certain things I'll grant it credit for in terms of some specific innovations on the technical front, but the actual quality of games dipped pretty hard during this period and I am certainly not alone in thinking this.

[CosmicMonkey]

I've been thinking about this a lot, and I'd like to add this:

I think the biggest issue with that era is simply the lack of variety in scale of games.

The Late '90s/Early '00s was the Golden Era for mid-budget games. Technology was at the point the developers could generally do most of what they wanted, but still simple enough that a team of 30 or 40 could make a full and complete game. Many of the most acclaimed games from that period (eg. Katamari, Silent Hill, Shadow of the Colossus, Okami, Thief, Deus Ex etc.) were made with development teams of 40 or less. Once the jump to HD happened, production costs soared and "AAA" games now needed teams of 100 or more. The higher production costs meant that studios were forced to play it safer, and couldn't make the same creative risks that the smaller-budget games the generation before could.

At the same time, indie games were only just starting to develop commercially, and while there were a few stand-out successes from this period, it wasn't really until the next generation that the indie scene exploded. This meant that the PS3/360 era was mostly only large-budget games, with few riskier, smaller-budget games.