Consoles Are Holding Gaming Back
- Thread starter 4RM3D
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Please explain to me how this "restricts" gaming as a whole.RhombusHatesYou said:
If you were a good developer, you would find ways to get around your limitations.
Not throw in the towel and cry for better technology.
Oh yeah, the thread title is TOTALLY not flame bait.
As a kid, I was introduced to games via consoles, as a result, I bought games and game related products which in turn, stimulate the gaming industry. So yeah, totally holding gaming back.
As for the whole graphics thing, I personally don't care too much so long as the game in question is actually fun. Of course, a game having good aesthetics helps as well.
As a kid, I was introduced to games via consoles, as a result, I bought games and game related products which in turn, stimulate the gaming industry. So yeah, totally holding gaming back.
As for the whole graphics thing, I personally don't care too much so long as the game in question is actually fun. Of course, a game having good aesthetics helps as well.
The endless pursuit for the most high end graphics is (among other things) what's holding gaming back. The focus on graphics has developers turning their games into big, epic, linear display cases meant for showing off all the money that went into rendering it.
Consoles also make the gaming industry as large as it is. Without consoles, the gaming industry would consist of much smaller scale games. Games like Skyrim wouldn't be made because they're not worth the investment.
And, let's face it, consoles are a better deal for most people, because you can wait a year or two, pick up a console for $250-$300, and still have the ability to play recent games.
And, let's face it, consoles are a better deal for most people, because you can wait a year or two, pick up a console for $250-$300, and still have the ability to play recent games.
That is true also. Though I am not sure how many console games would have actually used open areas if it were possible. There aren't many open world games, but I don't think the console's power is directly responsible. Although it is still an issue.endtherapture said:
I didn't say the PC is better than the console. I said I think the console is holding back games in terms of graphics. That doesn't mean that the console is (overall) worse.endnuen said:
Asking whether the PC is better than a console is like asking whether iPhone is better than an Android phone. It all depends on what you want to do with the system.
That's interesting, but what does that mean for the future? Are we at an impasse?j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
One example is the PS3 on Skyrim - console limitations caused the infamous "save bloat" causing an unplayable game.4RM3D said:
Also as an example is Crysis 1. Crysis 1 simply couldn't work on consoles. When it was eventually ported, the wide open areas were far less detailed and much more scaled down. Also compare the levels and AI of Crysis 1 to that of Crysis 2. Crysis 2 was a far inferior game in those terms simply because it was created to run on a console as opposed to a PC.
Gaming NEEDS to be held back, budgets and ballooning, and many aspects of gaming haven't caught up with the constantly rising standard.
Another thing is that I genuinely believe that limitations breed creativity, I feel like removing limitations or raising the roof too high to be reached will lead to the 'scibblenauts effect'
Another thing is that I genuinely believe that limitations breed creativity, I feel like removing limitations or raising the roof too high to be reached will lead to the 'scibblenauts effect'
Well yes, there are games like Skyrim that have issues on the console. But there are only a handful. I think there are other, more important, issues the developers are facing. Making an open world game is tricky in itself, regardless of of the limitations of the console.endtherapture said:
Well that's why I gave the example of Crysis.4RM3D said:
Crysis should've been the blueprint of shooters in the next generation. Directed sandbox gameplay. Each level was self contained, but only semi linear. You got given objectives and could accomplish them however you wanted. Whether that's go in guns blazin, sneak in, swim in, hijack a boat and kill everyone or steal a truck, strap C4 on it, drive it in, jump out and blow everyone up. Crysis came near the beginning of the generation and I was so excited to play other similar shooters like it. It had simply the best gameplay of any shooter ever, due to the fact it was a PC exclusive so it had more resources to play about it. It should've been a new age for shooters, but instead of games going in the direction of Crysis, they went in the direction of Call of Duty, probably due to the technical limitations of a console.
Graphic advancements need to die in a fire until we can freaking pay for them. Considering the amount of money it requires to make a AAA game, we need a few good years of optimization first.
As is, we're acting like a teenager who just got his first job and has already bought a car, TV and diamond necklace for his girlfriend.
As is, we're acting like a teenager who just got his first job and has already bought a car, TV and diamond necklace for his girlfriend.
Consoles are holding us back from even more pointlessly bloated budgets revolving around progressively smaller and smaller graphical improvements?
Seriously, not only don't I give a crap about bleeding edge graphics, I DO give a crap about the state of budgets in gaming.
Seriously, not only don't I give a crap about bleeding edge graphics, I DO give a crap about the state of budgets in gaming.
This is where I'll definately say the current systems are holding back games, but it looks like it's going to be alleviated with nice big stacks of high bandwidth memory in the new consoles, after all watching the extended interview gamespot had with Guerilla and the hands on with Killzone Shadow Fall, we're getting some nice, big, open areas, with much better lighting and particle effects.RhombusHatesYou said:
I'll try dig up the video...
I think thats what wed be better using more powerful tech for; larger more complex experiences, though there is definitely a place for focused and linear games, we do need to move away from the abundance of corridor design.
I'd tend to disagree. They may be restricting the direction of gaming, but they're contributing to its growth. Consoles are even good for pc gamers - I know myself and friends got into gaming through consoles whilst growing up, and half of us play on pc or both now, something that just didn't have any appeal years ago (apart from perhaps RTS games). Regardless of the platform or game, enjoying gaming itself only leads to interest in other gaming experiences, all of which push the medium forward.
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.
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.
That might be possible. Looking at the popularity of Call of Duty, many developers tried to get a piece of the action. Most developers don't have a budget like that of Activision (or EA). So they start cutting corners, including the graphics. But you do have a point. The budget of Activision is so big that they easily could make better graphics. So they are either not doing it because of the limitations of the console or because they are using an outdated engine and can't be arsed to update it.endtherapture said:
FinalHeart95 said:
That is another way to look at it. The consoles have done more good than harm. I guess we should be grateful for what the consoles have achieved. But we can't lean on this forever.Calcium said:
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.Calcium said:
Also, do we really want another Mario game? How many do we have now? 60+? I am surprised people still keep playing it. Or maybe it's the new generation of kids getting into gaming, whilst the older generation have abandoned Mario (and Nintendo).
Back on topic: yes, gameplay > graphics
I agree that consoles are holding back PC gaming but not because of graphics. Grahpical fidelity has increased to a point where we dont really need it to be better (despite what Cyrtek might tell you). Consoles are holding back PC gaming in the sense of processing power and gameplay. The last of us is a good example of this because everyone I know who plays primarily on PC thinks that the game feel slow and choppy due to it being locked at 30 frames per second (while most of us play at around 60). In any kind of action game frames per second are a huge part of the smoothness of the gameplay
Some console games have to be serverly cut down from their PC counterparts because of the limited hardware. For example battlefield 3 has 64 vs 64 man servers, has 5 objectives on conquest, and genreally just plays a lot better (IMO) on PC. However with the console version you get 12 vs 12 which isnt enough for most maps and conquest objectives get cut down to 3 which makes for a less tactical game
That aside you also dont get the wide variety of games on consoles due to all the licensing costs. This may change with the new generation but Ive seen no evidence of that yet.
Some console games have to be serverly cut down from their PC counterparts because of the limited hardware. For example battlefield 3 has 64 vs 64 man servers, has 5 objectives on conquest, and genreally just plays a lot better (IMO) on PC. However with the console version you get 12 vs 12 which isnt enough for most maps and conquest objectives get cut down to 3 which makes for a less tactical game
That aside you also dont get the wide variety of games on consoles due to all the licensing costs. This may change with the new generation but Ive seen no evidence of that yet.
I enjoy both PC as well as console gaming. However i do admit that consoles do hold back the PC in some ways and that is not going to change in this generation either as you will see soon.But rather than complain which platform holds back the other we should just enjoy what each platform has to offer.
Ah, remember those glorious days when only the richest of the rich could afford to upgrade their PC every year to keep up with games with insane System Requirements?
Yeah, fuck that.
Viva la stagnation so more people can play games on even crappy hardware. I'd rather have more people playing and enjoying a game then a spit-shine bloom effect.
Yeah, fuck that.
Viva la stagnation so more people can play games on even crappy hardware. I'd rather have more people playing and enjoying a game then a spit-shine bloom effect.