Console and Graphic Generation just how to define it?

[Mako]

Apologize for the wall of text just walking you through my thought process...

Recently I've made a serious attempt to try and play all of my backlog I've accumulated over the years. I initially thought of a pretty cool experiment. Play all the titles from that generation, not venturing out as to remain in that aesthetic so that way when I play games from a newer generation I feel the "upgrade" as intended. At first, it was very smooth. That is until I hit modern ports, not remakes. After some mental gymnastics, I concluded that I should play modern ports, as aside from graphics still adhere (for the most part) to the limitations of the times. A perfectly reasonable approach at the time, but led me into more murky waters...

The first blow came from Pier Solar, I actually have a Genesis copy, and works within the limitations of a Genesis but pushed it beyond the conventions of the era. So I decided to include it...

The second blow came from the Sega CD itself, despite technically "in the era" it overlapped quite a bit with PSX. A console that shares many of its games (Lunar Series) but the Lunar series was entirely developed on the SEGA CD. Lunar 1&2 though a port, is almost entirely a Sega CD game at its core. Plus, I didn't see anything that was out of bounds that the Sega CD couldn't do. With Pier Solar, they showed the Genesis could have been pushed much harder.

The Final Blow, I again ran into this issue which was starting to become a reoccurring theme, Albert Odyssey was entirely developed on the Sega CD, last-second the ported it to the Saturn with all of the limitations that implies. Again another Sega CD game at the core, that really should have stayed one.

There are literally thousands of examples, where does a Generation of graphics and games start, and ultimately end? What counts and what doesn't?

It seems to be, the common saying "good game at the time" is very subjective. We now know with the Genesis they didn't nearly push its limits so good game for its time reduces a bit knowing they could have gone so much further.

 

[Morpheus]

I think the reason why some games that were even 'good for their time' don't hold up anymore because the way we play games are different now.
There are some mechanics that are just plain annoying and those mechanics got dropped as time went on, so when you go back to play older games, they're going to have annoying mechanics, grindy-ness and be time consuming so they seem not as good.

 

[Mako]

I think the reason why some games that were even 'good for their time' don't hold up anymore because the way we play games are different now.
There are some mechanics that are just plain annoying and those mechanics got dropped as time went on, so when you go back to play older games, they're going to have annoying mechanics, grindy-ness and be time consuming so they seem not as good.

Yes, like an acknowledgment from the developer that they knew [insert mechanic here] sucked.

 

[Poryg]

like an acknowledgment from the developer that they knew [insert mechanic here] sucked

No, it's not that the mechanics sucked. It's the game industry that has evolved. Games are much more abundant now and spending a lot of time playing just a few is no longer viable.
Nowadays games are much more inclined to holding the player's hand. For example Instead of 100hp and medkit you have regenerating hp. 100 hp was not bad, it's just that regenerating hp makes the game easier and hence more accessible for people without skill. Perfect for the current consumerist business model when you make a game that's meant to be played once and then thrown away for a sequel.
One genre that has really been hurt by this are strategy games. The AI is more often than not a complete joke. In past you've had hardware limitations. But these aren't there anymore... Yet no company wants to make an effort to make a good strategy game AI since after warcraft 3.

 

[Mako]

No, it's not that the mechanics sucked.

I don't think in a vacuum you can say that all mechanics that were omitted don't suck, just as I can't say that they do, except I did. So... maybe suck isn't the right word, but the end result is the same. I can't say that making your game more accessible is a bad thing, and is wildly off-topic, what I can say is catering to the hardcore skill-based has not shown in the past to be a viable business solution. It's a fact, casual "mainstream" players spend more money. Hardcore, skill-based niche games (generally RPGs) don't.

On to the topic at hand, I think there was a clear line, but I'm coming to terms with it being eroded away. I don't think I can tackle my backlog in this manner.

 

[Poryg]

Well, in all honesty, I don't even recommend you to try and tackle your entire backlog. Some games will still be good because of nostalgia. But some will not, because you find out how bad they actually were or because you're older now than when you played it.
So I would check reviews of games from your backlog to see if it's even worth playing the game... Otherwise you might end up ruining your memory of it.