Consoles Are Holding Gaming Back

[Snotnarok]

Those arguing that graphics don't matter don't realize that devs have to spend time trying to squeeze every bit of memory out of these devices, wasting time to do things with the hardware that it was never meant to do, crazier visuals, larger worlds, other such things, even worse some games just cut down your field of view to lower what's being rendered, which is a bit of an issue because humans don't view things straight on, you see a more than that. So when games like Modern Warfare 3 pack 60 as a FOV and Skyrim around 70 it's a bit mental when the comfort zone seems to be around 85-110. This is problematic because it effects what you can see and react to and in other cases just gives headaches, which is real fun.

So yes, the hardware for graphics does matter because devs have to waste time trying to make the hardware do crazier things.

Think Skyrim pulled back the armor slots and types because of balancing? No it was because the hardware struggled as is, have a look at the PC ver of skyrim vs either console, the loadtime is nearly 1/10th, textures are higher res, etc etc.

 

[Sunrider]

As much as I agree with people saying "graphics is not what makes a game good", I'm getting tired of the automatic backlash against people who actually DO care about graphics. As I said, I'm not one of them, but who are we to judge what someone else prioritizes?
Stop acting so fucking elitist in this area, please.

Other than that, I agree with this post:

Consoles are holding gaming back in terms of open areas, AI, memory issues, not to much as graphics.

 

[Asuka Soryu]

Well, pushing for amazing graphics has just been soo good for the industry. -sarcasm- Who cares if the graphics are held back on consoles? I'm afraid if we live in a world where Tomb Raider failed to make the money needed, jacking up graphics and the cost to make a game isn't gone to improve the gaming world. I imagine we'd see less innovation and more people going out of buisness. I don't think it's consoles holding us back, but the ungodly prices of developing a game that uses the best visuals you can muster out of a gaming system.

Meh, I really don't care. I love games on my 3DS and they have graphics that look like ass compared to a PC. I could't care less about the fact that we're not seeing teh best graphikz evaz.

 

[RicoADF]

I would also like to point out that consoles simply existing doesn't cause these limitations to be in place; rather, it's the reaction companies have had to it. Nothing is stopping a developer from making a game that totally takes advantage of high-end PC specs other than they'd miss out on profits from the console crowd, as well as PC gamers who do not have the best hardware. But I suppose that's just something of a nitpick of mine.

This is one particular opinion that I especially share with you. For some time now, I've been wondering why a PC developer doesn't simply come along and provide a PC-exclusive game that really truly does take advantage of the MASSIVE amount of space available on a gaming rig and simply make this sort of game that many people address on this thread- a game that is not placed under the limitations of consoles.

It seems as though most developers are perfectly happy with just making more RTS games or cutesy little indie titles with bland, black-and-white visual styles. Not to say that RTS games are bad (Indy games with trite, Oscar-bait-esque art forms are). Which makes me wonder why everyone seems to enjoy reclining in their sofas and talking about all of the things that their PC is capable of creating, but not MAKING those things.

Of course, independent developers don't have the budget to make those sorts of games, and big publishers want to sell on consoles, too. But isn't there anyone out there with some money and stones willing to actually go out and make a game that simply breaks free from every limitation set by this current generation?

It's called the ArmA series, their often not the prettiest game at the time their released (though not horrible), but their focus on a massive world with proper AI makes them one of the most demanding and best games I've ever played. Since 2002 there has not been a moment that one of the games (or sometimes 2) from the series hasn't been on my machine (usually with modding tools right next to them).

 

[Windcaler]

Why exactly did it need a reduced player count? I've never got a straight answer on any of it. BF3 on console is horribly inferior to BC2 in my opinion anyway, largely because it was a lot less fun.

As for player count... the world needs MAG 2.

Ive emailed some DICE employee's but Ive never gotten an answer from anyone in dice or any PR person. I dont think they want to answer the question. However from my limited knowlege in PC archetecture and programming I think it comes down to the older hardware of consoles. They literally cant handle the game so it has to be scaled back

 

[Crazie_Guy]

Consoles aren't really holding games back. Developers who are making a game that is an actual labor of love, something that they want to make as opposed to a mass marketed money grab will just make it a PC only game if that's how it has to be.


If there were anything holding back PC games on the higher end of the technical spectrum it would be the desire to cling to 32-bit OS support. If anything the new higher-than-2GB RAM next gen consoles should help finally move things along by dragging us into the 64-bit age.

 

[4RM3D]

Here's something I wanted to discuss: what would happen if consoles were to simply fall off the map? On the one hand, PCs could potentially rise in price even further to corner the market, or for the sake of higher demand and the future of gaming, the prices could be dramatically lowered. If we were to remove consoles completely from the equation, would gaming as a whole have fewer shady business practices, more depth, increased scale, and overall higher standards? Or would it be destroyed by the obsession of the tech-based area to constantly grow and start breaking the bank with newer and newer technology?

When there is more demand the price will rise. However there'll also be more new competitors entering the market. Which could potentially lower the prices. But we can't talk of a PC as a whole like we can with consoles. A PC consists of parts which can be bought separately. So the end result is difficult to predict.

Ironically, I think the above situation would lead to 'console' PCs. Meaning premade PCs with specific specs. You would get something like PC-2013 model, PC-2014 model, etc. Overall generic levels in order to more easily tune in the minimal required specs for playing a game.

 

[4RM3D]

You think the averaged person would be willing to throw that much EVERY YEAR at there computer? of course not so your going to have older computers and you either alienate those customers or drop back your game to run on low to mid range systems anyway, most of which are LESS powerful than the PS3 (certainly more power in the PS3 than my laptop).

Not every year. A high end gaming PC can last for many years. But it is up to the person how much they want to spent. It's not like developers have to have insane minimum requirements. They could have low minimum requirements so that people with older or simpler PCs could still play the game (on low setting). And at the same time those developers could implement an ultra high setting for the people with new PCs.

It isn't all black and white.

 

[4RM3D]

Those reasons I can understand. I'm curious as to why the OP would choose to focus in on the graphical aside as opposed to the aspects that could be much more valuable to the growth of the medium--AI, for instance. Generally speaking, AI is an area that has always struck me as lacking somewhat compared to other core technical component of a game, especially graphics.

Consoles do put shackles on gaming, there is no doubt about that. But you are looking in the wrong area OP.

I am aware there is more to it than graphics. I just choose to make this thread about graphics, because I was curious about it.

High end graphics are expensive, but creating big open worlds (with a lot of detail) and creating complex AI are expensive also. So, corners have to be cut to make the budget. It is fine if they cut corners in the graphics, but then I would expect something in return. Instead we still don't have high end graphics or complex AI or good open worlds (minus Skyrim, maybe). Actually we haven't had any improvements over the past few years. There has been more variation in the indie scene with a lot of interesting games. But those are not better, just more refreshing.

 

[Fdzzaigl]

If you're only talking about graphics, I think that could actually be a good thing. How much more money are people going to pour into hyper-realistic graphics, driving budgets through the roof?

Honestly, it's not the graphics that matter, it's creating a good visual style. I'm a stern advocate of simpler and even more "cartoony" or "animeish" graphics, as long as they manage to keep them unique and don't fall into the same tropes over and over, like modern FPS games tend to do.

Gameplay wise, maybe consoles are holding the genre back somewhat because they produce extra sales for the same old COD / Fifa / Racing etc. games, but then those would probably be on top today without consoles as well.

 

[Ickorus]

I disagree, I'm a PC gamer but I think consoles provide a much needed baseline.

If everything was PC gaming we'd have a lot of extremely sloppy coding going on, with consoles about however they are forced to code efficiently in order to get the most out of the hardware meaning lower system requirements on PC.

 

[4RM3D]

Absolutely not. Graphics if anything are held back by the tools in which the artist creates them. Actually consoles help by limiting the computing power and redesigning the tools so that an artist can get the most out of the tools.

The tools might be limiting things. But that doesn't mean it's a good thing. Lets compare it with fuel efficiency. When you have only a small tank (little) fuel available, you want to make the best of it. If you have a gigantic tank you don't care as much about efficiency. So in the end a 10 liter car could run 150 miles while (a less optimized) 20 liter car could run 200 miles. If you look at the miles per liter the small car wins, but with brute performance the bigger car still wins.

Now the different is that fuel is finite and expensive, while graphic power is not. Although it does gets increasingly more expensive, we haven't come close to reaching that point.

My point being: why spend time and money trying to optimize things, while it is just cheaper to put in an extra 8 GB.

Speaking of which... The decision to "only" have 5 GB of available memory is probably going to cost developers millions in optimization costs. Just put in another 8 GB, have the consumer pay 20 bucks more and safe millions in development costs. But no, we can't have consoles cost too much. Console are already lasting 5+ years (minus RRODed Xboxes). Can't we have a little extra power to last through the years?

 

[Soopy]

Consoles in and of themselves don't hold gaming back. Needlessly long (tech wise) generations do. Technology dates at such a rate, that consoles quickly become redundant. Simply because the components can't be replaced.

So, perhaps in the vein we are discussing this issue, console generations need to be shorter?
Five years instead of eight or ten?

 

[Trippy Turtle]

Most games made don't even reach the limits.

Aside from that simple fact ruining your whole argument, here are a few more:
Graphics are not the most important part of a game, they are rarely even important at all.
If you think progress consists of better graphics and higher specs, than people like you are what is holding gaming back.
If everyone had to buy a high end PC to game then this would be a dying industry, relatively few people would drop $2,000 on a gaming system.

Anybody can make a general statement like that. Look at this:

PC's are holding gaming back, they allow developers to just pump in better graphics and more processor heavy areas rather than have them focus on better design and innovation.

In the end this discussion is moot anyway because as far as I can tell the industry is progressing fine. Lets get back to something productive like insulting EA.

 

[Soopy]

Do long console generations hold back gaming development from a gameplay standpoint though?

I mean, we did see quite a lot of corridor shooters last gen?

 

[Racecarlock]

Well, send me the $100-$500 necessary along with some kind of electrical engineering manual, and I'll gladly join you in the future or whatever.

Fucking hell, why is everyone always trying to make me feel like some kind of darth vader-esque evil villain that's holding the industry back?

If all you want is graphics, fine, go watch some luxrender animations on youtube. I can't just pull money out of my ass and build a PC here. I just can't.

Edit: Also, if consoles didn't exist, this topic would just be called "Low end PCS are holding gaming back" and it would be the same tired ass bullshit.

 

[Calcium]

I'd go out on a limb and say the next Mario game will get more people into gaming than ArmA 2 or the Witcher 3.

Maybe, but if you start comparing Mario with The Witcher 3, you might as well start including Facebook (social) games and mobile games into the equation.

You can certainly compare the two in terms of budgets I imagine - something that you can't with mobile/social games. I'm not one of the "Your fun is different than my fun so your fun must be wrong" crowd though so if people enjoy passing time with those then good on them - just not my thing.

From my view though, social/mobile games don't move hardware. People will buy their first hardware to play something like Mario or the Sims 3. People will upgrade their hardware for things like ArmA and Total War, but these games don't grow the amount of gamers there are.

And with the way budgets of games have increased over the years, the more people there are that play games the better for many of the titles.

 

[Nomadic Fanatic]

This just seems like it's becoming a pissing contest between PC and console gamers now.

 

[DoPo]

You think the averaged person would be willing to throw that much EVERY YEAR at there computer? of course not so your going to have older computers and you either alienate those customers or drop back your game to run on low to mid range systems anyway, most of which are LESS powerful than the PS3 (certainly more power in the PS3 than my laptop).

Not every year. A high end gaming PC can last for many years. But it is up to the person how much they want to spent. It's not like developers have to have insane minimum requirements. They could have low minimum requirements so that people with older or simpler PCs could still play the game (on low setting). And at the same time those developers could implement an ultra high setting for the people with new PCs.

It isn't all black and white.

Also, not to mention that if developers did start making games only for the bleeding edge of tech, the market would correct itself after a period. Really, how many people would be keeping up with tech all the time? Not a lot, so the market share for those games would be quite small, and indeed not a lot would be keeping up with the tech all the time, too. Many would just rely on Moor's Law and get the games in a couple of years or something. And now more than ever I expect a backlash to occur and provide a more immediate feedback that devs should hold their horses.

 

[Guy from the 80's]

Graphics are important.

I've always been one of those "graphics means nothing just look at-rez" type of people but lately I've come to appreciate good graphics more than before. Graphics add to atmosphere and thats important in lets say open world games. Try comparing a modded version of Skyrim (better lightning etc) with the console version and you immediately see what I mean.