Poll: Is Half-Life 2 a current or last gen game?

[Kahunaburger]

What is this "generation" you speak of? Is it some kind of dirty console peasant thing?

 

[ScrabbitRabbit]

Last gen: I base this off the facts that it came out in 2004 and also the console releases were on the Xbox and...probably PS2 before the Orange Box release.

Naw, never PS2. PC and Xbox exclusive at the time. It was likely because the PS2 didn't quite have the muscle power, the Xbox already struggled with it (search some Youtube vids, the framerate was horrid).

 

[Danoloto]

I would agree with earlier posts and ask the question "why would you need to define it in a generation?" PC games don't work in cycles. If anything, it's being held back by poor console ports. If I have to answer the question by the poll given, above answer shows it was on the original X-box, and thus is 'last gen'. But I think of Steam as 'current gen', just with a potentially huge life cycle.

And lastly. DNF, seriously? Have you even heard of games like Bioshock, Killzone (2 or 3), Team Fortress 2, Halo Reach, Crysis? I'm not saying these games are the best there are, but in my opinion all are EASILY better than Duke Nukem Forever will ever be. I even had an idea with one of my friends to print stickers saying "avoid at all costs", going to our local gamng store and sneacking the stickers onto the backs of the DNF boxes (sadly, I never did).

 

[fix-the-spade]

So fellow escapists, do you consider it a 'current gen' or 'last gen' game?

Two generations old.

It's Direct X9c, we're on DX11 now.

There's been console ports to both generations in that sense, but both the 6th and 7th ran to DX9, so strictly speaking they're two generations outdated on hardware as well.

But HL2 is eight years old now, last gen bare minimum!

 

[Goofguy]

Last generation but made considerably better by the releases for this current generation.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

I don't think an answer can be reached from this. HL2 is 1st and foremost, a PC title (since it was made for PC then ported well afterwards) and PCs don't follow the same generational patterns of Consoles.

Going by what it operated it on (Direct X9c) it would be 2 generations old (were at Direct X11 at the moment).

Considering, as others have pointed out, it was released for both Xbox and Xbox 360, this would make it both a generation old and current gen. But since it only works as intended on 360 and PS3, we can forget the awful Xbox port. So it's current gen on consoles?

Sounds about right. That said, it's 7-8 years old now. By that reason alone we can't really call it current gen. So it's last gen at the least... 2 generations old at the most.

 

[Darknacht]

Craaaaaap, I accidentally current'd. I meant last generation.

<img width=300>http://www.rankopedia.com/CandidatePix/18622.gif

Look... Original release port was on Xbox. How is this a question? Is Final Fantasy VII a current gen game because it's being rereleased?

It was released 7 days before the 360 was released so as far as that goes its fairly border line.

So fellow escapists, do you consider it a 'current gen' or 'last gen' game?

Two generations old.

It's Direct X9c, we're on DX11 now.

This is the correct answer.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

It does not have a gen cycle related to consoles as it is essentially 2 gens old in PC terms if you count it in directx terms as stated by fix-the-spade. Remember what are you going by is console generations and the PC does not fit into that.

 

[EvilPicnic]

If the original Half-Life was the pinnacle of Gen6 first-person shooters, I consider Half-Life 2 to be the beginning of Gen7s run of FPS games, even if it did technically come out before the launch of any true Gen7 console.


This 'Generation' thing is poorly defined when applied to PC and multi-platform games anyway.

 

[Darkmantle]

Since it's a PC game it doesn't really fit into the basic definitions of "console generations". Chronologically it came out before the 7th gen consoles did, however the game would not run on 6th gen console hardware, indeed it was with the Orange Box which was a current gen compilation.
So, chronologically it came out during the 6th console generation, but in every other way it's current gen - which personally I think is more important.

I had half-life 2 on my original Xbox, that makes it last gen me thinks.

 

[Yopaz]

PC generations can't be compared to console generations. Half-Life 2 is several generations old in PC time, but in no discussion is it a current gen game.

 

[ScrabbitRabbit]

If the original Half-Life was the pinnacle of Gen6 first-person shooters, I consider Half-Life 2 to be the beginning of Gen7s run of FPS games, even if it did technically come out before the launch of any true Gen7 console.


This 'Generation' thing is poorly defined when applied to PC and multi-platform games anyway.

I've always considered HL 1 to be more of a Gen 5 game in console terms as it came out about year before the Dreamcast. Always saw it as competing more with 5th gen console shooters like Goldeneye.

I know it had a PS2 version, but that came out 3 years later, upped the graphics quality and changed the level design a bit didn't it? More like an updated re-release than anything.

One thing is for certain, though; there's no way HL1 and 2 can be considered to be in the same generation.

 

[TrevHead]

I think some ppl are ignoring the fact that console gens IS A CONSOLE THING, PC with its constantly upgrading tech (epsecially up till 5 years ago) can't really be pigeon holed into it.

However comparing graphical standards HL2 is current gen std, as previous to this most PC ports had to be gimped in graphics, load checkpoints etc.

By that same definition one could call any bleeding edge PC DX11 game as a gen forward to this console gen

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

How is this even a question?

It came out in 2004. It's from the previous generation.

Yep. This.

There was a console port for the XBox classic even.

 

[XMark]

It's kind of a generation 6.5 game, on the edge between console generations.

In the same way I'd say Battlefield 3 is a 7.5 generation game.

 

[Vigormortis]

With PC games it's hard to tell. Unlike consoles, which have very clearly defined "generations", PC generations are vague. Or, rather, can be defined by several factors.

For example, one could look at graphical driver environments as a divining point. As such, Half-Life 2 is two generations old, being that it ran on DX9c and we're on DX11. (and moving to 11.1)

One could also use hardware product lines as their divining point. In this case, with say GPUs, Half-Life 2 is quite a few generations old. (this was always the dumbest way to look at PC generations, in my opinion, as it means each generation is between six months to two years in lenght.)

For me, I like to look at things in five year intervals. Starting with my first run-in with gaming (1985) and going up from there.

As such, Half-Life 2 is two generations old.

It's a next generation game.

What? It really is.

I mean, clearly there aren't any standards for this, otherwise people would be able to agree on this. Not to mention that there is a poll, so OP doesn't expect for there to be a clear answer, instead relying on lots of opinions. Therefore, I'm calling it next generation just because.

I'm half tempted to do the same.

How can Duke Nukem Forever possibly be the best shooter for any generation?

It still amazes me that people actually thought DNF was a guh....a guh....a good game. [sub]Damn that's hard to say[/sub]

What is this "generation" you speak of? Is it some kind of dirty console peasant thing?

Oh you. ;D

 

[StBishop]

Ok But surely this rule cant apply to the pc as pc games are using dx10 and 11 features that we only come available in the next set of consoles.
If its with console games I agree with your statement but for pc not so much.
For instance I wouldn't call minecraft a current generation game but I would call bf3/metro2033 current generation and i would call dx9 only game last gen.This is only for pc game bare in mind. As the pc seems to advance through dx levels this makes more sense.

So what Gen are indy games which run on flash?

The generation of a game is about so much more than the software used to run it. We define the games by console generation because it is convenient but the differences between current gen games and the games of our childhoods (because I assume everyone here is at least old enough to remember the last gen from their earlier life) are much greater than the hardware or software used to develop and run the games.

The culture of the industry, the nature of development, the popular trends, the successes and failures of the past. All of these things affect the games in different ways from generation to generation.

Yes these things have changed within the generations too, current games are not the same as 7 years ago, even though they're technically the same gen; but we need to draw a line in the sand and console generations is the best benchmark.

You make some very good points but I don't necessarily agree. I think flash games are not current gen, I think the only way to put pc games into a generation is with direct x as its a constant. for instance this won't happen but lets just say that no more consoles come out for like 6 years you telling me that pc games around then prob using dx 13 or what ever would still be the same generation as Bioshock 1 purely because of hardware nothing to do with a pc hasn't changed? I just think you can't use consoles for the generation of pc games. Dx levels would make more sense. and what console defines a new generation for you when the Ouya comes out does that make it next gen and all other console last gen?

Thanks.

The major problem I see with using direct x is that a) I don't know much about it. (I'll be honest here); b) As far as I can tell, you can't instantly see what dX the game uses without reading the box unless it asks you to install the newest one which you don't have yet; and c) As I said before, the generation is about so much more than the hardware, it's more to do with the time period (and culture associated with that period) in which the game was developed.

You see, gaming (ignoring the whole art debate) is a medium which evolves/is evolving really quickly. The soft/hardware we use is evolving as well but not necessarily at the same rate.
(Quick note, not all change needs to be good for evolution to occur.)

We do, though, need a line drawn in the sand for where the generations start and end. Everyone knows that games at the start of a generation look like shit compared to the end of the gen. So yes, I would call future games the same gen as Bioshock. I mean, Oblivion is the same Gen as Skyrim by any measure (unless you measure the start of the gen by the release of a TotES game).

On the Ouya, I need more information to make a decision. I can't see the future, and I don't want to make assumptions which will probably make me look foolish.
I think the Ouya is a bad example. It's not going to be competing, for the most part, with the big three. It's not even in the same game; let alone race. Do you mind if I take your question and apply it to the WiiU?

Assuming you're fine with that, let's ask what happens if the WiiU comes out and the other two turn around and say:

"Gaming has become too bloated, we're not releasing a new console for 5 more years. The WiiU is Nintendo catching up with us on a hardware level but we all know that Nintendo are in a league of their own and have their own fans to worry about.
We are worried about people who already have the consoles, we want to sell games and amazing services on our current consoles while we figure out how to make our next console affordable, competitive, and easy to develop for."

So the other two say it's WiiU catching up, and hardware wise, they are. Maybe retroactively we'll decide that the Kinect and Move were the motion control generation because of the change that happened (but maybe we haven't recognised it yet) in gaming, maybe the tablet controller will be it's own generation.
Personally I think that phone gaming is it's own generation, the games are so different, and probably the future of good gaming.

So the answer is, I don't know. I guess consensus is the deciding factor in when a generation starts. But you're right, even if no consoles come out any time soon, the generation is different now to 6 years ago, it'd be nice if we had a date to draw the line at though.