Within three years all these consoles had their own exclusive titles and got into their groove… except for the PS5. This is looking more and more like a lost console generation.
When it comes to system architecture, I have this vision that you could quiz gamers with a “Name that console” test, based only on a screenshot or footage or even sounds and music from an extremely obscure game. The point being older consoles can often be identified instantly based on their look and sound, even if you have no idea what game you’re looking at. But there would be no way to do this with newer consoles.
Good stuff! I'll look forward to the rest. I've never played a Vita or PSP. In my mind, they sort of blend together, just as the DS and 3DS do.
I imagine if I had been in the portable market at the time of the PSP, I would have been drawn to it more than the strange DS form factor. But it seems the DS had the games! Hard to argue with the games.
Let me comment on this:
>Consoles used to have identities, and those identities were often shaped by their exclusive titles.
I agree that it's hard to give a good rating in a list like this to a console that lacks identity, even if, technically, that console fulfills the checklist of what you would want in a console in the Current Year. So one question is, is the lack of exclusives better for gamers? Or do we miss something as a result of it?
There's a whole conversation we could have about console identity. I'd even add that DOS had a very, very strong identity. On those rare occasions that games were ported between 8/16-bit consoles and DOS, it was like the game had been transmitted between two different realities.
You called out the importance of strong exclusives in identity. I'll call out two others, which feed into the differences in exclusives but also result in differences even in ports:
1. Input - I.e., what's the standard way of controlling games. Does your system have: d-pad, joystick(s), mouse, keyboard, touch screen? How many controller ports does it have?
2. Hardware capabilities - Do its games have similar graphics/sound to other consoles of its time, or does it stand out? Even if it's generally outclassed by a competing console, does it still have some unique strengths? (I'd put the CD-ROM vs. cartridge debate in this category).
You can dislike the N64's decision to have cartridges. But to me, the thing has a very strong identity, based on all of these categories. The Saturn lacks a strong identity, even though it did technically have a lot of exclusives, far more than the PS5.
I also think that in the absence of major hardware differences, exclusives seem to be acts of artificial gatekeeping. Sonic wouldn't have been the same on SNES, just as Super Mario World wouldn't have been the same on Genesis. But God of War on Xbox would be basically the same, even if there would inevitably be 100 videos on YouTube nitpicking the differences with a magnifying glass.
Thanks! Yeah, the PSP and DS both had pretty solid libraries, honestly. The DS stomps on the PSP a little bit, but the latter is no slouch.
Exclusives are definitely a part of a console's identity, but also system architecture. Nowadays, there just isn't that much difference between a PS5 and an Xbox Series X. As you say, putting God of War on Xbox would be basically the same. Interestingly, the Switch's identity is in its novel concept of a handheld/home console hybrid, not its architecture, which was inferior upon its release seven years ago.
The Genesis and SNES are very different consoles. And the TurboGrafx16 is different from both of them. I don't like the N64, but I do admit it has a solid identity what with the cartridges, abundance of kid-friendly titles, and blurry 3D graphics.
There's a lot to discuss here for sure! Perhaps worth writing an article about, eh?
Within three years all these consoles had their own exclusive titles and got into their groove… except for the PS5. This is looking more and more like a lost console generation.
Maybe the new Sony president can liven things up a bit... I hope so.
All agree. There’s a lot to say here!
When it comes to system architecture, I have this vision that you could quiz gamers with a “Name that console” test, based only on a screenshot or footage or even sounds and music from an extremely obscure game. The point being older consoles can often be identified instantly based on their look and sound, even if you have no idea what game you’re looking at. But there would be no way to do this with newer consoles.
Agree 100%
Good stuff! I'll look forward to the rest. I've never played a Vita or PSP. In my mind, they sort of blend together, just as the DS and 3DS do.
I imagine if I had been in the portable market at the time of the PSP, I would have been drawn to it more than the strange DS form factor. But it seems the DS had the games! Hard to argue with the games.
Let me comment on this:
>Consoles used to have identities, and those identities were often shaped by their exclusive titles.
I agree that it's hard to give a good rating in a list like this to a console that lacks identity, even if, technically, that console fulfills the checklist of what you would want in a console in the Current Year. So one question is, is the lack of exclusives better for gamers? Or do we miss something as a result of it?
There's a whole conversation we could have about console identity. I'd even add that DOS had a very, very strong identity. On those rare occasions that games were ported between 8/16-bit consoles and DOS, it was like the game had been transmitted between two different realities.
You called out the importance of strong exclusives in identity. I'll call out two others, which feed into the differences in exclusives but also result in differences even in ports:
1. Input - I.e., what's the standard way of controlling games. Does your system have: d-pad, joystick(s), mouse, keyboard, touch screen? How many controller ports does it have?
2. Hardware capabilities - Do its games have similar graphics/sound to other consoles of its time, or does it stand out? Even if it's generally outclassed by a competing console, does it still have some unique strengths? (I'd put the CD-ROM vs. cartridge debate in this category).
You can dislike the N64's decision to have cartridges. But to me, the thing has a very strong identity, based on all of these categories. The Saturn lacks a strong identity, even though it did technically have a lot of exclusives, far more than the PS5.
I also think that in the absence of major hardware differences, exclusives seem to be acts of artificial gatekeeping. Sonic wouldn't have been the same on SNES, just as Super Mario World wouldn't have been the same on Genesis. But God of War on Xbox would be basically the same, even if there would inevitably be 100 videos on YouTube nitpicking the differences with a magnifying glass.
Thanks! Yeah, the PSP and DS both had pretty solid libraries, honestly. The DS stomps on the PSP a little bit, but the latter is no slouch.
Exclusives are definitely a part of a console's identity, but also system architecture. Nowadays, there just isn't that much difference between a PS5 and an Xbox Series X. As you say, putting God of War on Xbox would be basically the same. Interestingly, the Switch's identity is in its novel concept of a handheld/home console hybrid, not its architecture, which was inferior upon its release seven years ago.
The Genesis and SNES are very different consoles. And the TurboGrafx16 is different from both of them. I don't like the N64, but I do admit it has a solid identity what with the cartridges, abundance of kid-friendly titles, and blurry 3D graphics.
There's a lot to discuss here for sure! Perhaps worth writing an article about, eh?