Talk:Eighth generation of video game consoles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Video games (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Nvidia - Project Shield[edit]

Graphics processor manufacturer Nvidia has announced Project Shield, an Android-based mobile gaming console complete with a 5-inch, 720p HD screen attached to a console-style controller with dual analog sticks. Nvidia enters the handheld console gaming wars eighth generation with Project Shield.

Commercial Video -

Information -

"Milestone Titles"[edit]

An editor keeps on re-adding this to the article, despite the fact that the most recent discussion on this resulted in a consensus to not include them in the article.

  1. There is no definition as to what a milestone title is. What makes a game one? What are the inclusion criteria.
  2. It seems bizarre that the only one in the list is a game release mere days ago. I'm a huge Smash Bros fan, but I feel like its a little presumptuous to already declare it a generation defining game. Sergecross73 msg me 18:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey It seems more bizarre that this topic is only discussed in this generation, what about the other ones?, the other generations included many games that are written in the same style as this game (critical acclaimed with major sales and great critic response from people for something "innovative" or "influential"), so instead of trying delete this game from the page should it be better to go check the other generations milestones pages and discuss about what video games should really enter the milestone titles in each generation (including this one) because it is the same problem in every page of every generation video game console and it is starting to get very confusing about what is a great videogame. 19:44 28 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

None of the past articles have any sort of definition. All they do is randomly select some games that sold a lot of copies or reviewed well. It seems like a big case of original research. Sergecross73 msg me 02:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, it is wrong that many video games enter this milestone title category just because they had great critical reception or good sales, that doesn't make sense if a video game is a milestone title only for that then a lot of video games could enter the category easily and it is even worse that the definition of a milestone title is not yet clear, if nobody knows the real definition of a milestone title why this category even exists in all the video game consoles articles?, there should be a discussion page for ALL the milestone titles in every video game consoles articles or everybody will continue including the video games that they like without researching well, you are right with that, some editors include the video games in the milestone titles list just because "one or two internet pages" say that they are milestone titles but the other internet pages don't say that. 23:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC) comment added by (talk)

I received a message to stop adding the milestone title section to this page, so I stopped, but last time I came to check up on the page, it was back. So I added to it. Osh33m (talk) 00:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
That's...not a good reason to start at it again. Also, if we are to do it, these sorts of descriptions are almost certainly not good. The problem, as mentioned below, is that we don't have a definition of "milestone", but even if we did, it doesn't make any sense to list off a game's shortcomings or mixed reviews in the milestone section. Whatever its definition, I think we can all agree that "milestone" would be a positive thing - so it makes no sense to list off negative things in that section. That's like listing off some good reviews at the List of games notable for negative reception - it doesn't make sense at that venue. Sergecross73 msg me 03:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the entire section. Unless criteria are defined and receive consensus, this section is useless. No, "other generation articles have it" is not a valid justification. It should probably be removed from those as well. -- ferret (talk) 03:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, exactly this. We need a definition of what makes a "milestone" if we are to do this, and "other generation articles did it" is not acceptable considering I don't believe any of the generation have had any sort of GA/FA peer review treatment. Sergecross73 msg me 03:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand why other wikipedia articles having a milestone section isn't a good enough reason for the 8th gen article not to have one. You people really need to think of wikipedia in practice, because not doing so is what is hurting this place. In practice... imagine someone on the internet coming and reading on the 8th gen page, expecting to have a section of notable video games (that would've been the milestone section, and the list of games on it). Without it, the article seems strangely empty, especially considering whoever thought up the milestone section in the first place probably thought it was important to have one. And to answer your question about why there are some negative publicity to the now removed section... some of those games broke records, and breaking records is usually considered milestones, even if the product itself didn't have good critical reception. For example, the latest pirates of the caribbean and (nearly all) transformers movies have terrible critical reception, yet never cease to make billions of dollars. Does their negative reception take away from their accomplishments at the box office? Osh33m (talk) 03:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Its simple. As stated before, just because something was done in the past, does not make it right. Lets say someone got away with murder several times. Does that make it okay? Is he free to keep doing it, because no one noticed yet? No, of course not. It just means he hasn't gotten caught/no ones bothered to fix it. That's extreme, I know, but roughly the same premise could apply here. Sergecross73 msg me 03:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Murder is obviously wrong. No one disputes that. This however, is being disputed. I don't agree at all that milestone sections shouldn't be allowed. Again, think in practice. Put yourself in the shoes of a reader of this page. A milestone section doesn't hurt, but the absence of one does. I'm not gonna continue to readd it (I wasn't the one who put it back in the first place, but added to it when I saw it was back) but at least give it some thought before just dismissing it as a bad idea. Osh33m (talk) 04:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Then help define it then? What concretely makes a title a "milestone"? What discounts a title from being one? If we can't define it, then it's going to lead to an excessively large list, or WP:NPOV issues because we only go by what passer-bys add or remove on a whim. There's also the WP:OR issue; sources are concretely declaring titles as "milestones". If sources don't say it, then who are we to say it? Sergecross73 msg me 04:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
The "Milestone" titles of a generation really can only be determined when the generation is over - I'm pretty confident, for example, that I can find several articles written in the last year about the key titles for the PS3/Xbox 360/Wii systems as they were being replaced by these units, so we should be able to define them for the 7th, but we simply don't have enough data for 8th gen. System sellers, maybe, but not milestones. --MASEM (t) 05:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
@Sergecross73, I've already said that a milestone for gaming means several (and I mean tons of) award winning, or record breaking sales. That's make the game revolutionary. Milestones shouldn't and aren't limited to that either. But all the games that I put on there had those factors. The rest, I would need help defining otherwise it would be just my opinion. Osh33m (talk) 18:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
@Masem, I would not say necessarily that the milestone titles are decided upon at the end of a generation. cod4, mgs4, mass effect 2, and uncharted 2 if I recall correctly, all milestone titles in our 7th gen list, were added there maybe after a month from their releases. Because it was clear what those games did for the gaming industry in general. And I thought the same could've been said for the games on the 8th gen list that was here before Ferret removed it all. But I don't think Ryse belonged on that list. Mixed critical reception, yes 1 award, but it wasn't really revolutionary (didn't receive numerous awards or publicity). Osh33m (talk) 18:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
You're basing your arguments on personal opinions about the games that were listed. That's why a criteria is necessary before anything is added. Personal opinions aren't suitable. So far you've offered no suggestions on any possible criteria to rely on that I've seen. Nevermind I see you want to base it on awards or sales. How many awards? From whom? How many sales? Does every COD title go there, since they break the sales record every time? -- ferret (talk) 20:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
They're not my personal opinions dude. IGN has stated that the Mass Effect series is one of the defining franchises of the 7th generation. And numerous other sources claim games like MGS4 and Uc2 to be killer apps of the PlayStation 3. In regards to Cod, our 7th gen milestone lists Cod 4: Modern Warfare, and mentions how after that game, the series began streaks of record breaking sales. The same was done for GTA4 (mentions GTA5), so as to avoid repetition. Osh33m (talk) 23:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Masem, Osh33m - I'm fine if we can establish some definitions and inclusion criteria, its just that, so far, it doesn't seem like there's much of that. Many of them look more like people just plunking down their favorite games that had a good Metacritic or something. I mean, the list started off with only one title - Fire Emblem Awakening. I really love that game, but its really not a "milestone title" in any sense of the term. If we keep it vague, people are just going to bloat the list with game's they like, and/or its going to boil down to arguments that depend more on subjectivity than anything. Sergecross73 msg me 14:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Well we want to put bias aside, right? It is of my opinion that GTA5 is a horrible game and extremely overrated, although it is a technical marvel. Now, that does not mean I don't recognize it as a milestone title, in every sense of the word. The case with Destiny is that although it received mixed critical reception, it became the best selling new IP in gaming, and it is a game that will definitely be in discussion for years to come. All that is what makes it a milestone title. Both Watch Dogs and Titanfall achieved similar feats before Destiny's release. If we need to continue building consensus, then let's do so. Because I don't think it's right to leave out the milestone section entirely. Unless the intention is to leave it out until true milestone titles are released. Osh33m (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay sooo if no one is objecting at this point, I'm going to go ahead and add back the following titles to our milestone list: Destiny, Titanfall, Watch Dogs, and Smash. Osh33m (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
No, wait. The problem is that "milestone" is a vague, subjective thing. It's not concrete like going platinum is 1 million sales in music. lWhich is why we need clear cut inclusion criteria. "Sales records" is too vague in itself. Smaller companies set minor sales records all the time for example. Sergecross73 msg me 19:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Generally speaking, games that will be remembered for several years to come. This is why final fantasy 7 (I game I've never played mind you) is a milestone title. It is still talked about as one of the greatest games, to this day. On our 7th gen list, I once added god of war 3 to it because I felt like it was missing, but then someone edited it and took it out because it didn't belong and I realized they were right, even though god of war 3 was one of the most popular Ps3 games. Destiny is a game that will definitely be remembered for years to come despite its bad publicity, and watch dogs as well on a lesser scale. Titanfall received praise for being a game that showcased where the 8th gen was heading. And smash (at a time) received universal acclaim on metacritic. I realize I have not given you much of a definition yet for "milestone," but I am defining why the ones I mentioned should be a part of the list. Osh33m (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Not a single thing you listed is objective. Sergecross73 msg me 00:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
In order for this to work, we're going to have to have objectivity. I don't understand why everyone on wikipedia has to be so "by the book" about everything. If you want to get certain things accomplished, "original research" is necessary. And "original research" needs to be given more credit than it is given. Are you seriously going to propose removing all the milestone lists that already exists? I'm telling you right now that's only going to hurt wikipedia. It's not going to make anyone take it any more seriously. And I'd say a lack of one right now will make readers already take it less seriously since we cannot come to a simple consensus on what games to put on the list. Osh33m (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we have to follow Wikipedia policy. If that means no mile stone lists because it's purely OR, then so be it. You want us to judge, on a case by case basis, the suitability of every individual game. No, we need a criteria for "milestone" so that games can then be added when they meet the criteria. -- ferret (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm troubled that you don't have a single objective suggestion, and that all you have to fall back on are baseless claims that we're somehow hurting the encyclopedia by coming up with objective criteria. Sergecross73 msg me 03:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Well it's not like I have started an edit war, so why are you feeling troubled? I get that we have go by wiki's guidelines but I say the guidelines themselves are faulty. The rest of the internet or perhaps a good portion is already saying some of the things I am so for all intents and purposes, this encyclopedic page without a milestone title, is a lacking encyclopedic page. But fine, what do you want to define as a milestone title? You tell me. We have to start somewhere. Osh33m (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I find it troubling that you can't even objectively define the concept you're defending. And usually, when people are unhappy with the guidelines, I advise them to try to find consensus to change them, but I don't even know what your proposal would be. "Do whatever you feel"? "Concepts don't need definitions"? "Do as I say or the encyclopedia will be worse off"? Sergecross73 msg me 04:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Maybe this specific term is best defined by a list of examples. Osh33m (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Is there a reliable source with a list of example milestone titles? -- ferret (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't make any sense. Without any definition, it'd be impossible to rule out any game. Sergecross73 msg me 20:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I will say that we should include "best selling games" , or even games that break a certain barrier in sales (1M units is too low, but maybe 5 or 10M?) as a perfectly objective list, but this is different from Milestone, which should be titles that "defined" that generation, and that inclusion is absolutely going to require a secondary source. And that can make things difficult, like how would Minecraft fit here, due to it's history as a PC game and not a console to start? (at least, in terms of 7th gen). I'd rather not have a Milestone list that is going to be something people will argue forever about. --MASEM (t) 19:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, it is too early to add milestone titles to this generation's page. I agree that some should be added at some point, however we will not be able to reach consensus in the middle of the generational cycle. Time will tell which titles last: they will be re-released, have record sales, and be honored by reliable sources. Mamyles (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
As I've stated already, I do not think it is too early to add the titles Destiny, Titanfall, Smash, and Watch Dogs. I recall Mass Effect 2 and Uncharted 2 being added to last gen's list about a month or so after they were released. Osh33m (talk) 03:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
That is your personal opinion. Consensus seems to be to not include a milestones section at this time. In the mean time, it'd probably be beneficial to come up with some inclusion criteria if you want to persuade people further down the line. Sergecross73 msg me 04:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
It is my personal opinion, backed up by history... in the list right before this one, it took about a month for some of the games on the list to be included. I wish we could come to a consensus about this easier. Osh33m (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Then offer a valid set of criteria. So far mostly you've posted "other stuff exists" -- ferret (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I can't do that alone, obviously. I named the 4 games I believe should be on that list now but it simply isn't good enough for you guys. We need to build this consensus together. Osh33m (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but you can't describe why or what makes them a milestone, so you have yet to convince anyone. Furthermore, I'm not sure how well you understand WP:CONSENSUS. It looks like we already have one - everyone but you has agreed that it should not be included at this time, and I would say majority of the people agree that a more concrete definition should be created. There is no problem with "not working together". Everyone's working together and discussing well, they just don't agree with your approach. There's a big difference. Sergecross73 msg me 20:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. For example, I could see the logic behind Destiny and Smash Bros. as being critical darlings of this generation, but I can't see any logic in Watch Dogs nor Titanfall, both which had a lot of promise but ended up lackluster. Not that a milestone title can't have that, but we'd need a source to affirm that, and for games like that, we likely won't know until the end of this generation. --MASEM (t) 20:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
That sounds good to me, so can we start the list now and add destiny and smash to them as the first 2 entries? I'll do the honors, just gimme the green light. Osh33m (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
No, not at all. That's not what they're saying. -- ferret (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Well that's unfortunate. The way I've interpreted it is that he sees logic in destiny and smash being on the 8th gen milestone list. Osh33m (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I said I see the logic - that means, I expect that in time, they will be easily be called milestone/key titles of this generation, but we need a source to make those claims. Not that we included them now, but showing the problem with making assumptions w/o sources to back them up. --MASEM (t) 22:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey I'm back, well as I see in this comments there are a lot of trouble concerning what is a "milestone title" in video gaming and I also notice that you eliminated the "milestone titles" section, well it is good for stopping or calming the issue temporarily but it doesn't resolve the problem of the "milestone titles", if you people don't know what is a milestone title in video gaming then Why in the other video game consoles generations pages there are milestones titles?, you are not taking this seriously, you are only talking about what is a "milestone titles" only in this generation and pretend that the other articles are fine, well you're wrong, if we are talking about milestone titles we must talk about all the milestone titles sections in every video game console generation articles because if we don't know what video game is a "milestone title", then what are the other video games of the other generations?, there must be a discussion page to talk about what is a milestone title and which videogames we should include there or nothing will happen. 01:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC) comment added by (talk)

Try actually reading this discussion, it's already been explained. Sergecross73 msg me 14:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Well it does not make sense for me, the majority of the discussion only is about the discussion between Osh33m and the other editors for including or not the section in this article and I read the discussion before writing my comment and the definition of a "milestone title" is still not explained and I still see the sections of every milestone title in every video game consoles generations articles the same so as I said you are not taking this seriously: the milestone titles in this article is erased and is problem resolved for you with the other issues forgotten because I also want to know which video games were the most representative for each generation. 18:01 4 January 2015 (UTC) comment added by (talk)

  1. No one is able to define what a milestone is. Maybe help with that if you want change.
  2. As the discussion states, the generation is still on-going, which makes it both different from the other generations, and difficult to define, as it's still changing and in development. Sergecross73 msg me 01:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

You are just only avoiding my questions because you don't even know what to do so the final resolution is that the "milestone titles" section is temporarily not included and we don't care of the other issues end. 01:02 5 January 2015 (UTC) comment added by (talk)

No, what he is telling you is that there is a difference between past (concluded) generations and the ongoing (current) generation. We know what games did well on past generations, which got the most acclaim, etc. This generation is still changing. What might appear to be a milestone for the first year may ultimately prove otherwise as the generation continues. There's not enough reliable sources to form a section for this generation at this time. -- ferret (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No, IP, I just don't find it necessary to rehash an answer that was made directly above where you posed all your questions. No one can define what it means to be a "milestone". Without any definition, and while things are still ongoing/early onset, its deemed impossible to determine, so it was removed. It's the burden of the people who want include information to supply an answer to challenged information. Osh33m can't define it and has made no convincing argument. I don't recall you actually proposing any real solutions, just complaining, so...that's where we're at: A policy based decision to remove content, with the other side so far not presenting any policy-based solutions to do anything else. Sergecross73 msg me 13:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Milestones revisited - 2015[edit]

Alright, some game critics have called bloodborne "the first essential of this gen" and currently it is the highest rated current gen game on metacritic that is not a cross gen port or a remaster. can we agree that this meets the general conformity of a milestone title? Osh33m (talk) 05:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to say without you presenting any sources, but still I don't believe anyone's what it is that defines a "milestone title", so I'm inclined to think no... Sergecross73 msg me 17:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
article pointing out how edge magazine calls bloodborne the first true essential of this gen -->
bloodborne is the highest rated game on metacritic that isn't a remaster or a cross gen title --->
if you ask me these would fit the descriptions looked for in a milestone title for a generation. what usualy presets it: critical acclaim, sales (yet to be seen), and impact on the gaming industry. Osh33m (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
The metacritic aspect doesn't matter or make sense for us to base that decision on. Milestone titles can be sequels (see Nintendo's history). And we'd need more than just one source saying a game is "essential". Additionally, it being out only a week, that's far too soon to be making a decision about it. We're looking for titles that are arguably console sellers or influenced sales #s, and that's far too soon on Bloodborne. Destiny might be different in that matter, same with the Majora's Mask remake on the 3DS (which pushed the new 3DS XL system). --MASEM (t) 17:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
It's pretty much impossible to find more than one source using the exact same words to describe the game. But it is receiving critical acclaim. If you need more time before deciding to add it there, so be it. But I think you should consider it at some point, soon. Osh33m (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
If it's that hard to find multiple sources that say the same thing, that's probably your sign that it's too soon to make a generalized claim like this. Sergecross73 msg me 00:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
this is no"generalized claim", it is a fact that the game is critically acclaimed. Osh33m (talk) 04:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Lots of games are critically acclaimed. We're looking for milestone titles, the must-haves for a console or system. (For example, BioShock Infinite is a critically acclaimed game but far from being a milestone title). --MASEM (t) 05:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
bloodborne is the first critically acclaimed title that isn't a cross gen title or a remaster. If you need more time to boil things down then fine. When that time comes though I hope you will agree. Osh33m (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm back again, I have a complaint. If you Masem are saying that Bioshock Infinite is far from being a milestone title then why this game is included in the list of milestone titles of the seventh generation talk 05:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd say there's a lot wrong with that list on general. I think it's rather ludicrous, for exams, that someone put Bayonetta on there. It got good reviews, but it was a commercial failure and not really all that influential on a whole. This is the reason why I have such a problem with the term, and how hard exactly it is to define. Sergecross73 msg me 21:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I told you Sergecross73 that the definition of "milestone title" in video games wouldn't be defined by just erasing the milestone titles section of the article because first of all the video games that are included in the other milestone titles sections in every video game consoles articles (specially in the seventh generation one) are not explained why they were included and second the confusion of including a videogame whether it is for acclaim, sales or impact wasn't resolved so even if this eight generation video game consoles continues for at least six years this article won't even have a single title in this section because we still wouldn't have reached a definition of this category. (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree the list in 7th gen is very iffy and far too subjective. The games included should be one that drive console sales or equivalent for the purposes of talking hardware generations, not games that are just critically acclaimed. So for example, Wii Sports is a legit as it is stated that it drove significant sales of the Wii (though I've not checked the source). Guitar Hero/Rock Band have very high numbers of sales and huge $ figure due to hardware pushes. But then you have titles like Bioshock which was a high selling game but didn't drive hardware, same with Assassin's Creed or Bayonetta. A possible alternate solution is to have lists by year of the top 5 games from top-tier sites like IGN or Game Informer, or "Game of the Year" for specific industry awards (BAFTA, Spike/VGA), and list those out during the console history period, as that applies no editor subjectivity on the topic. --MASEM (t) 22:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree that every single game that is critically acclaimed should not be considered milestone. With that being said, Bioshock the first game is the one that counts on the list, and deserves to be there since it is considered one of the Greatest games of all time. bioshock infinite is mentioned there only in passing. the rest of the games there are not only critically acclaimed, but definitely sported impact in the gaming industry, and in some cases, defined it, and revolutionized it. With all that being said, I still believe bloodborne should be the first title to make the 8th gen milestone list. it's been over a month. would anyone like to discuss? Osh33m (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
There is a subtle but significant difference between "greatest games" and "milestone titles", when we are talking hardware generations, however. It is possible for a game to be both, for sure, but again, take Wii Sports. A top game of all time? No, but it sold a buttload of Wii systems, and thus a milestone title for 7th gen. --MASEM (t) 22:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Bioshock Infinite is mentioned there only in passing? really? the game is obviously included in the milestone titles category, it even states that this game received also critical acclaim and that's why it's included, so if we just include videogames in this category only for that then there would be like fifteen videogames in this section already. And do you know which ones?
MasemI agree that there is a difference between greatest games and milestone titles. The former is sometimes the latter, but not vice versa, because not all milestone title end up as the greatest games ever. And IP 186, yes, bioshock infinite is mentioned there only in passing. Just like LittleBigPlanet 2 is mentioned there only in passing. GTA5 is an example of one that isn't mentioned there in passing. Now with all this being said, I still believe bloodborne to be the first that should be added to the 8th gen list. Waiting on others to moot. Osh33m (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
No you're wrong Osh33m, it's true that Bioshock Infinite is put together with Bioshock in the section but as I stated before, the game is also described as a milestone title because there says that Bioshock Infinite was critically acclaimed with many critics saying it is better than the original Bioshock, so the two games are even compared and also why someone would include a video game in the milestone titles section only in passing if in the mileston titles section of the fifth generation crash bandicoot, spyro, resident evil and tomb raider only have their first games listed in the section even if their sequels got the same or better critical and commercial success than the first games? talk 17:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Still think its too declare to anything a milestone, let alone the sources presented for Bloodborne, which just showed that it got some good reviews. Sergecross73 msg me 17:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
As a counterexample, this would definitely allow SSB + MK8 to be called milestone titles since they are said to have bolstered lagging Wii U sales (in addition to being well-received titles). --MASEM (t) 14:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I was just reading that article myself and was thinking the same thing. If/when we do keep these milestone titles, I'd be much more okay with titles/sources like this, being both well received and showing they've had a literal effect for the console (and as such, the industry). Sergecross73 msg me 14:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't just "some good reviews" it amounted to critical acclaim for bloodborne and it is the first game of this generation that isn't a remaster or crossgen to achieve this feat. I dunno about MK8 but I think had smash included in my preliminary list that got removed. Osh33m (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
When I say "just reviews" I don't mean to downplay the degree of positivity of the reviews, but rather, it didn't seem to especially have an effect on hardware, the industry, the direction of the genre, or any other aspect of video games. MK and Smash did. Sergecross73 msg me 23:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Also, I'd argue that positive reviews is not a requirement for a milestone title. "Wii Sports" is a prime example of one that sold Wii's on novelty but was lukewarm reception. --MASEM (t) 00:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
So, have you decided which games are going to represent the milestone titles of the eight generation or at least the definition of a milestone title in video games and what are we going to do with the milestone titles of the seventh generation, according to what you are saying there are some games which shouldn't have been included in the section for only being critically acclaimed? talk 00:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I originally stated that destiny & smash (a few others but I don't as strongly for those) should be on the milestone titles, and since then, bloodborne has been released and that's another title I believe should be on the list as well. but, we have to wait for the consensus. Osh33m (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

New Nintendo 3DS[edit]

The New Nintendo 3DS is not mentioned at all in this article. Should it either replace the entries for the original 3DS/XL or be put into a seperate section. Lucasstar1 (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Cores off by one on Wii U, PS4 and Xbox One[edit]

I just did a quick look through of another edit made to the page when I noticed something peculiar, not related to the edit. The core counts for the processors are all off by one, starting at zero rather than one.

Example: Wii U (L2 Cache)


(Core 0: 512 KB, Core 1: 2 MB, Core 2: 512 KB)


(Core 1: 512 KB, Core 2: 2 MB, Core 3: 512 KB)

Another one: PS4 and Xbox One (L2 Cache)


Cores 0-3: 2 MB, Cores 4-7: 2 MB


Cores 1-4: 2 MB, Cores 5-8: 2 MB

Is there a reason that we start core counts for the eighth generation consoles at zero rather than one? Thanks. Haseo9999 (talk) 02:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Core IDs begin at 0. The first core is always Core 0, not Core 1. -- ferret (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I guess you never stop learning. Thanks for the tip. Haseo9999 (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:History of video game consoles (third generation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)