The Instigator
firestorm
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mikal
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

new generation video games give a better experience, opposed to older games

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/25/2013 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,664 times Debate No: 37022
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

firestorm

Pro

the newer generation of games produce a better story and experience because of the new ways that they can tell the story and develop the characters involved in the game. I'm not debating the graphics or the consoles just the rich story and experience.
Mikal

Con

I had to take this, and I await my adversaries opening argument.
Debate Round No. 1
firestorm

Pro

I'm starting off with what would have to be the best part about a games development; the music, it enriches and enhances the games experience. as you can see over the years the gaming industry has gone from 6 bit music for background, then the digital sounds of the 90s to the large orchestras and array of bands that feature in the games of today. take on of the biggest of today, Bethesda. Bethesda has created such things as fallout and elder scrolls. There most recent skyrim game, the atmosphere that is created through the use of the music.
The composer Jeremy Soule said that "The orchestra is the ultimate instrument. I find it has the ability to define nearly every human emotion in existence". http://www.imdb.com...
this is clearly not defined when playing games for the previous era, the digital music and light orchestral sounds give little to the story and don't pose the same ability as the full orchestra does.

second point
The character development is crucial to any game, this does not just revolve around the back story that he/she is given or the dialogue that is written. Some of the most important features of the character is the actual look. Developments in technology enable developers to create more realistic looking and sounding characters.

http://www.facewaretech.com...

humans respond to immersion in a video game even more when they feel like they are playing what seems to be a real human and almost as if they themselves are in the universe.

another part is the actual affects that a player can make on a universe and the way the character and the whole universe changes and adapts but also reacts and interacts with the game itself. Take another iconic game such as mass effect. The players are able to create a character to their liking adapt it to their preferred play style, and not only do they have the ability to create, they have the ability to affect the environment. With full dialogue control and the choice of being good or evil can have a major affect on how we see the game but also how we feel about it.

http://www.psychologytoday.com...

http://au.ign.com...


Mikal

Con

My adversary is making a huge error in this argument.

Let's look at what we are debating.

"new generation video games give a better experience, opposed to older games"


Now this can be true to some people but not to all. I will offer up some reasons as to why this is the truth in my following contentions. Remember he has the BOP to show that new generation games offer a better experience than older ones, and this must be true across the board, not just to him. So first lets take a look at some of the definitions of what we will be discussing.

New Generation - These are the ones according to my adversaries remark in the comments that are extremely recent. Like up to a few years at most

Older Generation - He labels this as games that are even as new as the early 2,000s. I would disagree and say older generation games are even way older than this, but for the sake of his definition I will use early 2,000s games to prove my point as well.

Better - What is better is completely subjective to the person whom is playing the game. Remember he has to show that newer games offer a better experience than older ones, and must offer it to all types and generations of gamer's.

Experience - practical contact with and observation of facts or events. With this it is referring to your time and how much you enjoyed playing the game. Even as to how you remember playing it. It can invoke thoughts and emotions.

So Now I will offer up some contentions



Contention 1

Age

This is true in so many cases. If we try to take a gamer whom is 40 years old and get him to play some of the new games, it won't offer the same experience that some of the older games gave him. He would remember the glory days of snes, super nintendo, and atari.

If you take a new gamer and get him to play the older games. He would most likely not enjoy it. He is being introduced into new graphics and voice capabilities that were not available at the time of some of the old releases. So he would not enjoy the old games as much.

Here is the twist though, we can not simply label new games offer the better experience because of this. If we do that, we are not considering all the variables at play. Because of all the good times an older gamer may have had playing some of the older games, they probably would and will offer a better experience than some of the new ones.

You would have been better of wording this something like "New generation games have more adept graphics", because this is not to be argued. Graphics and a story however do not determine someones "experience" when playing the game. It is the emotional times they could have spent playing with friends or family that give them their own personal experience.


Contention 2

Older Games offer the same type of plots, stories, and music that New generation games offer, if not better.

My adversary seems stuck on the point that the story line and graphics are far better with newer games. Graphics are a non arguable fact. As time goes by graphics will always get better, this can not be argued.

I will however defend the story lines of some of these older games.

Lets think back to some epic stories in game history.


First you have Final Fantasy. All of this epic franchise is designed to have a good story. Where as what is " a good story" could be subjective as well, this series has one multiple nominations in japans for game of the year awards along with best soundtracks.

Take a look at final fantasy 7. The basic plot in and of itself is based around shinra. This organization of soldiers that ran city of Midgar. One of the soldiers was cloud, an everyday solider whom the story ends up being based around. He is following and works with sephiroth who turns out be the stories main bad guy. The world is starting to run off of materia which is essentially a magical essence that is captured in stones a majority of the time. Later in the game sephiroth figures out he was cloned alone with cloud, and that is purpose is to destroy the world and bring Armageddon.

All throughout this game it is killing off party members whom you fall in love with, and getting you addicted to the in depth story that progressives over time. More and more plot twists open up and I will avoid spoiling this for anyone whom has not played it but it turns out to be one of the most memorable rpgs ever made.

The game series was made and started by Hironobu Sakaguchi, whom along the course of his career has one multiple awards and honors for creating amazing rpgs and stories. He is a legendary designer and revered and accepted as one of the best rpg creators of all time.

So we can clearly see, that the old games have the stories as well. This is not even including games I could not mention like zelda or chrono trigger.

Also I said the music is good as well. Two games still tug at my heart with the job it did on music, and they are chrono trigger and chrono cross. It offers some of the best orchestral music I have ever heard, and still to this day I can remember the epic music that played throughout the story line. It even had one of the best stories I can remember as well. Also the Black Mages who did the soundtrack for final fantasy games produced some of the best orchestra soundtracks in the rpg world as well. Some including "those who fight further" and "one winged angel". Chrono trigger is often also listed in peoples top ten list of best games ever made along with zelda and final fantasy. You can see some of the amazing music and even some of the characters in the youtube videos I linked








http://www.imdb.com...
http://www.gamelab.es...




Contention 3

Old Games Paved the Way for New Games

Without the original games the new games would no be where they are at. It is because of the efforts, characters, and stories that most of us treasure and love that the new modern era of gaming exists.

Because of characters and stories like these below

























There are also so many more that I can't list. Because of the developers and creators of these memorable games, we have a new modern era. That is why so many people love the old gen more than the new gen



In Closing

My adversary can not or will not be able to show the New Generation of games offer a better experience than the old. It is my opinion, and probably the opinion of many more that the old games offer a much better experience and gave us memories that we will never forget.

Thus his resoultion can not be met and he has no met his BOP

Debate Round No. 2
firestorm

Pro

My opponent has offered great points.

He has put up the points of age, history and game play
experience

I shall start with age. Although you have made a valid point
of saying that older gamers and younger gamers cannot be mixed into the same generations,
but what he is saying is a generalisation of what many gamers believe to be the
factions of age. Let’s use his example of the 40 year old.

If we try to take a gamer that is 40 years old
and get him to play some of the new games, it won't offer the same experience
that some of the older games gave him. He would remember the glory days of
snes, super Nintendo, and Atari”
.

We are likely to see that the 40 year old would prefer the
“good old days”. But what cannot be said is that younger gamers have a higher
possibility of not enjoying older games. Franchises like Nintendo have
incorporated their older games for download via the internet so there is plenty
of possibility for them to like the game. There are also emulators that can
play for example the first link or the old Pokémon.

This point has strong evidence to support me and my
opponent’s case. Therefore age cannot truly be a factor of whether or not newer
games give a better experience or older ones.

Game development

The games development is an important part of the experience
as stated in my pervious argument.

My
adversary seems stuck on the point that the story line and graphics are far
better with newer games. Graphics are a non arguable fact. As time goes by
graphics will always get better, this cannot be argued.

I would like to say that I did not ramble
on about the new graphics, I clearly stated that “Development in technology
enable developers to create more realistic looking and sounding
characters”. This can be considered only
one point made about graphics. I also said that humans react to something
better if it is more realistic, my link of the psychology page should have
clarified that.

Now, addressing the point that my opponent
made about plot.

He has clearly chosen one of the best games later
generations had to offer, it has a well done plot and great characters. However
it seems to be missing that flare, the spark that makes you feel truly
emotional. I would like to use my example of mass effect, to be specific mass
effect 2.

Like my opponent I will explain the basic plot. You are the
Human spectre Commander Sheppard, patrolling the edges of human territory, when
your ship comes under attack by an unknown force. The Normandy is left as scrap
and you are presumed dead by the systems alliance. Your corpse is picked up by
the terrorist organisation Cerberus and they restore you to the great solider
you once were. You are then on a mission to find out why these unknown creatures
are after humans and their purpose for obtaining them.

You build up your crew, strengthening your fight against the
collectors. New and old crew members are incorporated into the game. As you
build up your relationship with the characters on board the Normandy and other
characters, the game continually throws curve balls forcing you to pick sides
with crew members with possible detrimental outcomes later in the game. You
will become attached to your crew and very decisions made or dialogue choice
opened seems difficult as you yourself are changing the universe around you.
All the decisions made are counted and remembered as the final mission begins.
I will not tell you the ending and how it ends because it is different for
every player however I will provide a demographic on the final mission.

http://img203.imageshack.us...


or

http://social.bioware.com...

Perhaps you have me beat on the music area; the sounds are
iconic and original as a music lover I cannot contest the quality, perhaps I should
not bow to my opponent but I cannot deny the truth that the music is still as
good as it is and was. This however does not change the rest of my
argument.

“Old games paved the way for new games”

This statement is true to some extent, you have to start
from somewhere but perhaps this may throw a spanner in the works.

When Nintendo made the Nes it was a hit in the market, it made
millions and made companies millions but they had strict rules when it came to
becoming a partner with Nintendo.

“Nintendo would only permit licensees to sell carts made by Nintendo
itself; cash in advance, with a minimum order of 10,000. Games licensed for NES
had to be console exclusives for two years after launch, and each company was
limited to just five games a year”.

If these consoles and their games where to pave their way
for the Future of Gamming, then we could have had many more ideas put into
practice. Nintendo at the time ruled the market and as my link shall show
reported to rip of their customers, their business partners and an entire
nation. This strict rules did not guarantee that the games was a success, if
they were that was great but if they fell flat they cash out of pocket a possible 10,000 unwanted games and another
lump sum to look forward to. Not only this they had to be console exclusives
for two years and with Nintendo ruling the market there really wasn’t any competition.

http://www.abc.net.au...

AS we can see the rules have changed and game makers and
developers are free to release to multiple platforms and are set at a market
based value of consumption and price. This gives them the ability to free roam
and explore the art of video gaming that’s why new generation games offer a
better experience. They are not held by constraint but are allowed to develop
their game to fit their style.

To sum up

I resist the remarks of my opponent saying that I will not be able to show that
new generation games are better. I believe I have the ability to convince many
that new games are better.

Mikal

Con

On this part I will actually hop around and provide some response to some of the contentions my adversary has made.

I would like to start here.

Contention 1

"Therefore age cannot truly be a factor of whether or not newer, games give a better experience or older ones."

Age is entirely a factor in this with the resolution you are claiming. This debate is not whether or not new generation games provide a better experience to a younger generation, but whether or they provide a better experience overall. Every type of gamer must be taken into consideration because of this, to simply limit it to the younger crowd would not meet your resolution. You are claiming they provide a better "experience", without specifying to what demographic this is referring to, it is taken as a whole.

As I stated prior to this, if you would have said that "new games give a better experience to a new generation", that could a very viable statement. We however must taken into consideration the age of all gamers from youth to elderly.

My adversary is also saying that they could rework some games like mario and donkey kong and they would be considered old generation games.

This is at fault with itself. If they rework the entire game, at that point it is a new generation game, because it is taking the new technology and applying it to an old game.

What we mean by older games, is games that were literally released years ago and have not been reworked.

Example - super mario (original) - this is an old gen game

Example - super mario 64 (still old gen by my adversaries definition, but an entirely new generation in itself)

Now if we take someone whom is 30 + , they may like the first mario better, and say these type of games offer a better experince. Someone around my age which is 25 may say that super mario 64, would give the best experience. Someone who is 18 may remember super mario sunshine and say this is a better experience.

All of these are gamers, and all their experiences must be taken into account since you are claiming that specifically games that have been released in the past 2 or 3 years would provide a better experience than older ones.

When someone is born is directly relevant to the type of experience they have while playing games

Now take this into consideration. I am 25 and love new gen games, but I still think the older ones give me a better experience all around because of the elements that they have to offer. It invokes memories of some of the best games ever released. I can enjoy new ones and still play them, but I still prefer the older generation more than the new. It reminds me of a time where I enjoyed playing games the most. This is often the case with people 18+, if you ask them they would say they love new generation, but if you ask their favorite games you will often get answers like zelda or mario.

Therefore we can conclude that my adversary is wrong when says age is not a factor.




Contention 2

"I would like to say that I did not ramble
on about the new graphics, I clearly stated that “Development in technology
enable developers to create more realistic looking and sounding
characters"

This is a truth, but again this is mainly the truth with new gen gamers. If a new gamer is born into having these new features, he will be inclined to like it more than playing an n64 or super Nintendo. I have already shown this is not the case with people who grew up gaming. Even with the features it offers, gamers can simply prefer older games because of the experiences that they had playing them.

Graphics will always get better along with sound and quality, this is something that will never change. As technology progresses so do these features, but that in itself does not offer a "better" experience to all types of gamers.



Contention 3

Plot

This is entirely irrelevant in and of itself. I made a point of giving a plot to show that older games still had good plots as well as the new ones. How much someone likes a story is directly related to their personal preference. Some people hate rpgs, so they would despise a old timey plot. Some people hate shooters, so they would not give call of duties story a chance.

Saying that the plot in itself falls in favor of only new generation games is an error in logic. Anyone depending on what they like can pick up and old game and enjoy the plot and get a good experience. This is all dependent on what they do or not do enjoy. Saying that new games give the best plots, is entirely subjective and merely an assumption rather than a fact. It is directly correlated with my adversaries preference in games. Again ask someone whom loves zelda what is the best plot, 90 percent of the time you will get the ocarina of time, which is an old gen game.


Contention 4

Music

"Perhaps you have me beat on the music area; the sounds are
iconic and original as a music lover I cannot contest the quality, perhaps I should
not bow to my opponent but I cannot deny the truth that the music is still as
good as it is and was"

This is almost ironic he can claim this with the music itself but not the experience that someone has playing the game. The same can be said for the plot, the experiences the game gives, and the characters.

Actually if we took this and reworded, it would show a strong point to support my case. Lets change some of the words around.

" The gameplay is iconic and legendary, and I as a gamer cannot contest the experince that others have. I however cannot deny the fact that newer games are still coming up and providing amazing stories and plots just as much as the old ones"

This is a statement I would agree to, one that says older generation games provide a better experience to some people while newer generation games provide a better experience to others. The story and the plots have always been amazing, and will continue to be amazing.

The one Error my adversary is making, is that he is claiming the new gen overshadows the old gen, and I have shown that this is just wrong and very subjective dependent on whom is playing the game.




Contention 5

"AS we can see the rules have changed and game makers and
developers are free to release to multiple platforms and are set at a market
based value of consumption and price. This gives them the ability to free roam
and explore the art of video gaming that’s why new generation games offer a
better experience. "

This does not in one bit show that new games offer a better experience to everyone.

Look at it like this, 10 years ago the marketing focus was aimed at that generation.
So games like mario and zelda hit it big, and were sold in bulk

So now that generation whom was around 15-18, is now 25-28 and do not play games as much. They retain the experience they had playing those games and enjoyed playing them and to this day will probably admit those were the best experiences they ever had.

Now since those people do not play games as often, there is a new generation who does not like or got bored with the older games. So to be able to stay in business companies like bioware and square enix must come up with new platforms and stories that are relevant to this generation. This ties in with new graphics and other factors. They are focusing on this generation. Since the majority of gamers are younger, it is only basic marketing to focus on this new generation with what they sell. It will make them the most money. If these companies focused on just strictly older gamers and did not focus on where a majority of the people who play games are at, they will go bankrupt.

This is not advocating a better experience to all types of gamers though. It shows that younger kids enjoy the new generation of games more than the old. This does not account for everyone personal experiences that they had with the older games though.


In Closing

I think I have made a much stronger case as to why newer games to not offer a better experience to everyone, but mainly offer a better experience to a new upcoming generation of gamers.
Debate Round No. 3
firestorm

Pro

I’ll address the contentions that have been made. Let’s proceeded in an orderly fashion

Lest start with Contention 1

I’ll use the quote of myself that has been taken, "Therefore age cannot truly be a factor of
whether or not newer, games give a better experience or older ones."
My
opponent seems to think that I am wrong in saying this however let’s look into
the facts behind this statement that I have made.

Generalization: We cannot say that every 40 year old will like older
gamming and that every younger person will like the newer gamming, this is
generalization. As I stated in the previous round that there is this faction of
age, this line in the sand that mustn’t be crossed. This leads me onto my
second fact.

Lack of evidence: neither my opponent nor I can affirm that majority of
gamers like one generation of games to another. I do not have any facts to back
up that word “Majority” and I believe that my opponent doesn’t either. The age
argument is based on what we think to be the Majority and not based on any
evidence what so ever.

I would also like to ask where in my previous argument I said “rework some games like Mario and Donkey Kong”.
I said however that there are emulators
that can play the old games, piece for piece an exact copy of the game. Also the
Nintendo Wii offers these games also if you download them. I would be happy to
be sighted as to where I said this.

To finish of this part my opponent seem to be giving a lot of
statements about age for example,

“Someone whom is 30 +, they may
like the first Mario better”



“This is often the case with people 18+, if you ask them they would say
they love new generation, but if you ask their favourite games you will often
get answers like Zelda or Mario”.

Where is the evidence to back this up, and also when I initiated
this argument I had in mind the whole of the community of gamming.

Contention 2

I believe that I don’t have to go into
any further depth with this argument about graphics and development I have
clearly stated my argument on it and so has my opponent.

Contention 3 plot

Have I rustled your jimmies mate, just kidding. The argument
about the plot was merely contesting the one you made. “Older Games offer the same type of plots,
stories, and music that new generation games offer, if not better”.
If
you were just stating that,
“older games still had good plots as well as the new ones” where in
the previous argument did you state this, the plot section was explaining why
older gen stories are better. According
to the topic sentence “if not better” implies you are contesting that newer gen
games have better stories. Again I have
made my statement on plot and I will not go into it further and I will be happy
to be sighted as to where you may have said the things quoted.

Contention 4 music

What I have said about the new gen and old gen music remains
true. However game play and experience of the game are entirely different to my
statement of the music. I believe that newer generation games give a better
experience. The statement you made about
this

“This
is a statement I would agree to, one that says older generation games provide a
better experience to some people while newer generation games provide a better
experience to others. The story and the plots have always been amazing, and
will continue to be amazing”.

If you or I believed this, then I asks you this why are we
arguing the topic. In my statements I say that newer generation games give a
better experience to all and you believe that a majority say the older
generation games are better. The fact that I’m claiming new gen games
overshadow older games is correct, but aren’t you saying that new gen games
cannot hold a candle to older generation games. I stand by my statement and I think
you do to.

Contention 5

"AS we can see the rules have changed and
game makers and


developers are free to release to multiple
platforms and are set at a market


based value of consumption and price. This
gives them the ability to free roam


and explore the art of video gaming that’s why
new generation games offer a


better experience. "

I don’t understand the statement of how it is irrelevant to
the topic. Let’s put the whole thing into context. The original argument was “Old Games Paved the Way for New Games” my
opponent went onto explain this point. I then contested it with this

“Nintendo would only permit
licensees to sell carts made by Nintendo


itself; cash in advance, with a minimum order
of 10,000. Games licensed for NES


had to be console exclusives for two years
after launch, and each company was


limited to just five games a year”.

I then explained that how and why these games these games possibly did
not set a road for newer generation games, please review if you must. My topic statement for this contention states
they are able to explore the art of gamming that is why newer generation games
give a better experience. Like any good art you need to find the core of what you’re
doing to make it a success.

I would like to point out some errors in this argument.

“They are focusing on
this generation”

“Since the majority
of gamers are younger”

Companies like Bioware and square enix are focusing on the
majority of gamers on the contrary of your statement that majority of gamers
are younger is false. Majority of gamers the average age of a gamer is about 30
and has been playing for at least 13 years.
http://www.theesa.com...;

if the companies were truly aiming it at younger people then why do they
explore darker themes and why are the ratings always so high. Can we not say
they are aiming it at the average age rather than the overused statement that
majority of gamers are younger.

To sum up

I have stated my case as to why newer generation games offer
a better experience and superbly defended my case. I would have to say that I have proven a much
stronger case as opposed to my opponent.

Mikal

Con

I don't think my adversary is quite understanding the argument that I am making for how age would determine experience. So I am going to offer up all of my points in one contention and break it down.

Contention 1

How to define someones experience and what factors play a part in determining it.


"We cannot say that every 40 year old will like older gamming and that every younger person will like the newer gamming"

My adversary claims that I am generalizing a group of people when I make this point but it is far from that. He is claiming that new video games offer a better experience, the point I am making is that if in fact old games offer a better experience to one person or one age group, his resolution is not true. Every type of gamer and every age group group must be taken into consideration.

He then claims that there is no evidence to support to this claim. Let me first cite some sources and show some facts that will show that I am correct with this assumption. Age is a big factor in gaming and also what type of game a gamer enjoys.

First lets take a look at some statistics.

"The average gamer is 30 years old and has been playing for 13 years. Sixty-eight percent of gamers are 18 or older."


"The type of game an average gamer prefers is often split in between casual and serious. Many factors can play into this such as age, the type of game, and when the game was made"


"The truth of the matter is, interactive entertainment has existed in some mass-market form since the 1970s, and it stands to reason that there is a massive audience that has grown from childhood into adulthood and middle age with entertainment software as a constant presence"
























http://www.theesa.com...
http://www.ign.com...
http://www.geekquality.com...
http://library.thinkquest.org...
http://www.geek.com...



As we can clearly see with those stats, poll, and forums age is a huge factor and a lot of people prefer older games to newer games. Thus making my adversaries resolution false. Remember he is claiming that they offer a better experience as a whole, if I can find a group of people or even some people who have a better experience with old games, his claim is not true. We can see that the age of the gamer determines what type of game they will buy, and what what type they prefer. You can even see by some of the charts above that over 60 percent of gamers are over the age of 18. Most of these people grew up playing older games and will always prefer the experience of them over the new one. You can clearly see this is some of the forums. In fact game stop still sells 10 percent of older stock such as ps2 games on a stock check basis. So it is also quite obvious just by the fact that older games still offer a market and are still sold that some people prefer them.

So now I will break this down even further.

My job is not to show that older games give a better experience than new ones. All I have to do is show they can offer the same type of experience, and my adversary would also be proven wrong. I have did this very thoroughly as well. Also if I can show that a demographic of people, or certain age group prefers older games he would be wrong. Actually if I can just simply show that some people just prefer older games to newer games, he would also be wrong. I have not done just one, but all the above.

He then states this

"I said however that there are emulators that can play the old games, piece for piece an exact copy of the game"

If he meant to say this then he is proving my point. An emulator is an often illegal version of a console that you can download to your pc. It is a program that allows you to player older versions of games and sometimes newer version. Often it is older and for free. If he is using this as a fact it goes to prove my point, that people still have a good experience playing old games and would go through the trouble of getting an emulator to play them. Thus showing the experience is quite memorable. In no way is this a new game, or newer game. It provides no credibility to my adversaries statement but goes to strengthen mine.

He goes on to also say this

" I say that newer generation games give a
better experience to all and you believe that a majority say the older
generation games are better"

I have never said nor will say that the majority prefer older games. All I have to do is show a certain demographic or that some people prefer older games, and your resolution is not true.



After this he goes on to claim that I said a majority of gamers are younger, and that he does not understand how marketing applies to my argument. I will break this down simply. I should have also phrased myself better when I said a vast amount of gamers are younger, It was in the context of saying that a vast amount of younger people, will be inclined to like new games more.

If you take new graphics and compare it old graphics, new graphics will always win in that sense. Younger gamers did not get to experience the era in which older gamers got to. So they will not share the same love or passion for older games. This is not always the case but a vast majority.

So to break down the marketing point, I will post his original point.


"AS we can see the rules have changed and game makers and
developers are free to release to multiple platforms and are set at a market
based value of consumption and price. This gives them the ability to free roam
and explore the art of video gaming that’s why new generation games offer a
better experience. "


He is claiming because of how marketing ideas work, this shows that they offer a better experience.

So for this to be said we must define experience and how it is personal to someone. An experience can be positive or negative and is completely subjective to what type of game the person likes. For each person it is different, and for my adversary to claim that just simply new games offer a better experience, is not considering all the variables. Marketing works off what makes money and what is the majority. While a vast majority of gamers are older, this is not considering who is buying the material. This is in my sources as well. The newer generation tends to spend more on games. This is around the ages of 10-25. They are the ones that spend the most money, so they are the ones that will be focused on.

Also if you shift through some of the other charts and figures in my sources you can see that older people (25+) will often buy games based off of cost efficiency. Which often leads them into still buying older games. Cost is a huge factor as to what is bought. Marketing ideas are always based off of what will appeal to the masses who are buying, and since younger people spend more money on it, it is only logical to assume that is whom will be focused on.

In Closing

I think it is almost irony in the sense my adversary says that I am generalizing, when he is claiming that a majority or all people prefer or tend to prefer new games and receive a better experience from them than older games.

There is no way for him to show this resolution is correct. If one demographics or one group of people have a better experience with older games, his statement is wrong.

There are such a vast amount of variables that play into the experience someone has with a game, that it is impossible to judge or claim which generation is better or preferred.


Thus my adversary has not or will not meet his BOP with this claim.



ALSO

Note under his defintion of old which is the 2,000s wow and LOL, are old games. They still contain bad graphics and all the basics from when they were made. Just with these two games alone, there is a 10 million + fan base.

Debate Round No. 4
firestorm

Pro

To conclude this debate.


this has been a very epic battle between both my opponent and I, both arguments in my opinion are very professional and each of the debaters took time to carefully choose defend and attack their side. I would hope that my opponent has manners and honor and meet me half way by saying what a hard topic to justify. My opponent pushed and pulled me and so did I, be I believe we did not faulty.


I will conclude by saying, I was to prove that newer generation games provide a better experience and did this quite well I would say my argument was the strongest.


thank you to my opponent for accepting this debate and putting up a fierce fight.
Mikal

Con

In Closing

My adversary has shown that new generation games offer a good experience, but has failed to disprove or show that they offer a "better" experience than old generation games.

I have shown how age, the type of games, and even cost can play a factor in someones experience playing a game. While he says such a broad term as "better", this is completely subjective and mainly just his perception.

In the end I think old and new gen games both offer good experiences. Different people get different types of experiences from games that they play. So my adversary took on an impossible role from the start

This was a great debate and I would like to thank my opponent for sticking with it.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by mrsatan 3 years ago
mrsatan
What's the point of objectively debating a subjective topic?

As for older RPGs, I have yet to see a storyline that's better than FF7, Chrono Trigger, or Xeno Gears (I've never been able to rate one of these above the others, and Xeno Gears is not very well known, but anyone with a ps3 should buy it and play it). I've played many that come close, and might even be as good, but nostalgia makes me biased. However, more often than not, I find myself disappointed with the storylines of newer games.

But overall, across all genres, I would have to say my favorite game is Zelda: A Link to the Past. Hopefully A Link to a New World will be just as amazing, but ALthP was perfectly balanced, with an excellent pace, simple yet fun combat, and a storyline that is both light yet immersive.

There are several other games that I would rate above or at least on par with newer games, save for the graphics, obviously.
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 3 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
...into the Matrix you go!
Posted by theHomelessPanda 3 years ago
theHomelessPanda
i really think this is way to subjective. "better experience" is totally based on your perception. I play my N64 games all the time. My PS3 just collects dust these days.
Posted by firestorm 3 years ago
firestorm
i'm saying older games such as things from the 90's and early 2000's as apposed to recent gaming.
Posted by Shadowguynick 3 years ago
Shadowguynick
It's hard to argue against you. Typically older games focused on gameplay. How old are you talking?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheHitchslap 3 years ago
TheHitchslap
firestormMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: way better organized, used sources, pointed out the flaw in claiming a better "experience", as based on this the new video games wouldn't rely on the same old characters (which they do)