Consoles Are Holding Gaming Back
- Thread starter 4RM3D
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I am of the camp that graphics boosts are on diminishing returns at this point. I would rather the developers spend time honing their skills. This way, we can have all the amazing graphics, and the games don't have to peter out at 6 hours or less.SkarKrow said:
Seriously, just one console generation ago, a game's SP being less than 15 hours was considered abysmal. Fast forward to today, where we can pay $60 for a 4 hour campaign and subpar MP modes that barely last a week.
It's just not good value for money...which in turn is bad business. Developers are pushing these games out too fast, and wasting too much budget on marketing. I'm not saying every game needs to be Skyrim, but a meatier campaign and more attention to such details can't go wrong.
And if it's a choice between eye-bleeding graphics and a lengthy batch of content, give me the latter any day. Seriously, I doubt I'll complain about a game looking like Ninja Gaiden One (which still holds up) when it lasts for 50 hours.
The only thing holding back gaming is greed and laziness. Dev's world rather take the safe and lazy route for maximum profit rather than take a risk on something new and refine it. That's why we get crappy, one size fits all games on every platform instead of a well tuned game for one or the other.
Idk going back and replaying a lot of PS2 games they can be wrapped up in 8-10 hours, which is what I consider a healthy length for an action game or FPS, though I prefer them to be slightly longer, or have a world fleshed out enough that I can waste a good 20+ hours in it.Seracen said:
Having bigger, more expansive and open environments offers a lot more in the way of replay, so it helps keep things fresh and encourages replaying the game to see what you missed, or what you could have done differently, it looks like a few games like Shadow Fall will be delivering something like that but it's something we'll only be able to tell with hindsight.
I do hope we get some more crazy random stuff like we did in the days of the PS2 though. Things like Viewtiful Joe are far too rare.
I'm also pining for a good Mega Man experience or a new true Castlevania (as much as I like Lords of Shadow, it's got nothing on the DS titles or the mighty Symphony of the Night).
Anyway, I hear what you're saying, but you can happily finish the mains tory of skyrim in a few hours without much trouble. Just like |I'm sure you could hammer through BioShock Infinite in 6 or so hours if you want, I however chose to enjoy the world and experience the game as more than a time sink and spent a good 21 hours on my first playthrough (a good 3 or 4 are likely pause time..). Giving the player a richer world to explore is rarely a bad thing.
Consoles have been holding gaming back for a long time now. I'm not talking about graphics or other technical aspects but I mean entire genres.
I miss space sims, the abundance of RTS games, adventure games and isometric RPG's. Yes many of those genres are coming back from crowd funding but I'd love to see them get bigger and better budgets. The games I like to play aren't being made because the developers and publishers want the mass market appeal found on consoles. As a gamer I'm being under served. Consoles are consistently holding back those games because of controls, online infrastructures and business models. I don't give a damn about graphics, I just want more variety in games as opposed to shiny corridor shooters and action games. Yeah they have their place but variety would be nice.
You know what I miss on consoles? Platformers. But hey I guess everyone wants to be CoD.
I miss space sims, the abundance of RTS games, adventure games and isometric RPG's. Yes many of those genres are coming back from crowd funding but I'd love to see them get bigger and better budgets. The games I like to play aren't being made because the developers and publishers want the mass market appeal found on consoles. As a gamer I'm being under served. Consoles are consistently holding back those games because of controls, online infrastructures and business models. I don't give a damn about graphics, I just want more variety in games as opposed to shiny corridor shooters and action games. Yeah they have their place but variety would be nice.
You know what I miss on consoles? Platformers. But hey I guess everyone wants to be CoD.
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.Windcaler said:
As for player count... the world needs MAG 2.
I personally think that the more interesting possibilities with better hardware lies in AI and scale rather than graphics. I'll take a bigger, more realistically behaving world over a better looking one any day.
That said, I've always been of the opinion that innovation and evolution of gaming isn't (contrary to what some major developers claim) dependent on better hardware. Creative, interesting ideas are what make for innovative games, not bigger flashier tech.
That said, I've always been of the opinion that innovation and evolution of gaming isn't (contrary to what some major developers claim) dependent on better hardware. Creative, interesting ideas are what make for innovative games, not bigger flashier tech.
Really, the primary reason why consoles could potentially be holding back gaming are because of the smaller amounts of space with which to fit items, features, and world area into a product. Not to mention, graphics already take up a large amount of that space. So in truth I can get what hardcore PC gamers are getting at, but aren't games of the scale of Oblivion and Dark Souls already good enough? Having TOO MUCH content would be overwhelming, which fits in with the "limitations are a good thing" argument.FootloosePhoenix said:
EDIT: 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?
If the premise of this thread was accurate there would be one genre which would have a blinding difference in graphics RTS. It has no competition on console, its all PC only so why is there no huge difference between RTS's and the rest of the industry? because the premise is crap
oh and http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=EiTowCuwF-E
I donated to a kickstarter project called Shroud of the Avatar by Richard Gariott (Lord Britsh) for a massive world game and people kept asking Chris Spears (lead technical designer) why they weren't going to make it a one single world like Skyrim rather than the 2 level map that they planned and there comment back was its a waste of resources. Apparently Skyrim had a million budget for the world itself alone without anything in it. Now double the detail and how much difference have you got? Do Bluerays really look that Different from DVDs? No of course not. Someone mentioned Crysis, well I bought a new computer recently with the aim of playing Shroud of the Avatar, Sims and a few other games and it was reasonably expensive (certainly compared to a console) but I happened to ask about Crysis and the guys comment back to me is if you want to play that then everything I paid for the rest I needed to throw at the graphics card alone. That is ridiculously expensive, especially for the mass market which you would have if consoles were gone. Your talking about a difference of 300-500 for consoles vs $1000 PLUS just on a graphics card not to mention the chip, RAM, board, HD, peripherals, Operating system and THEN you can start playing games. 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). The advantage of consoles is that the variables are removed developers don't have to worry about different graphics cards, different operating systems etc. They know exactly what the PS3 runs and can develop for that knowing that everyone of those customers will be able to play the game
Anyway lets go back to Crysis,
oh and http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=EiTowCuwF-E
I donated to a kickstarter project called Shroud of the Avatar by Richard Gariott (Lord Britsh) for a massive world game and people kept asking Chris Spears (lead technical designer) why they weren't going to make it a one single world like Skyrim rather than the 2 level map that they planned and there comment back was its a waste of resources. Apparently Skyrim had a million budget for the world itself alone without anything in it. Now double the detail and how much difference have you got? Do Bluerays really look that Different from DVDs? No of course not. Someone mentioned Crysis, well I bought a new computer recently with the aim of playing Shroud of the Avatar, Sims and a few other games and it was reasonably expensive (certainly compared to a console) but I happened to ask about Crysis and the guys comment back to me is if you want to play that then everything I paid for the rest I needed to throw at the graphics card alone. That is ridiculously expensive, especially for the mass market which you would have if consoles were gone. Your talking about a difference of 300-500 for consoles vs $1000 PLUS just on a graphics card not to mention the chip, RAM, board, HD, peripherals, Operating system and THEN you can start playing games. 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). The advantage of consoles is that the variables are removed developers don't have to worry about different graphics cards, different operating systems etc. They know exactly what the PS3 runs and can develop for that knowing that everyone of those customers will be able to play the game
Anyway lets go back to Crysis,
So according to them at least it sounds like all flash and no substance, where is the epic story? not there if they are rating Half life 2 better (a game I can run on my laptop). Is that really what you want out of a game? the whole budget blown not on the story but on the art? I certainly don't
More power means more possibilities. In all areas.
In 10 years we will have game experiences we couldn't dream of today. Cities the size of New York, populated realistically, each pedestrian running complex AI. All buildings enterable and destructible with realtime physics, all in a seamless world with no loading screens. Bulletholes, trash and rubble and corpses all consistent and lasting. All in a device the size of an iphone.
Will it happen? Maybe not. But that is the sort of thinking you need to excersize to understand what gaming could evolve into. It doesnt matter what is holding the industry back, or what you think of it, since it won't change a thing. But never think that there isn't room for improvement.
In 10 years we will have game experiences we couldn't dream of today. Cities the size of New York, populated realistically, each pedestrian running complex AI. All buildings enterable and destructible with realtime physics, all in a seamless world with no loading screens. Bulletholes, trash and rubble and corpses all consistent and lasting. All in a device the size of an iphone.
Will it happen? Maybe not. But that is the sort of thinking you need to excersize to understand what gaming could evolve into. It doesnt matter what is holding the industry back, or what you think of it, since it won't change a thing. But never think that there isn't room for improvement.
God... I must be fucking backward... I just dont see whats so important about realistic graphics.
Okay. Let's just say that it is.
Does that change the fact that many people prefer a console? No. It does not. Thus it will it will not change that consoles still make up a good amount of the market, thus the statement is rendered irrelevant because it changes nothing.
See, I think that daily mail readers are holding my country back. But does that change that a good enough amount of people read that trash to keep the accursed paper going? No. It does not.
What is the best thing for the medium does not equal to what people want to happen for now, and thus does not equal to what will happen, no matter how much anyone insists that it must.
Does that change the fact that many people prefer a console? No. It does not. Thus it will it will not change that consoles still make up a good amount of the market, thus the statement is rendered irrelevant because it changes nothing.
See, I think that daily mail readers are holding my country back. But does that change that a good enough amount of people read that trash to keep the accursed paper going? No. It does not.
What is the best thing for the medium does not equal to what people want to happen for now, and thus does not equal to what will happen, no matter how much anyone insists that it must.
While I do agree, graphics have been held back because developers have been making games specifically for console, I don't believe that's the consoles fault. It's the developers fault for making games for console, then making PC ports which end up looking average or only slightly better than their console counterpart. of course, I've always hated the smug "PC is sooooo muuuuch better than console, these games won't even work! on console!" bullshit. Remember when Crytek said Crysis would never, ever run on console? Last I checked, it's on console, and still manages to look very pretty. Pity the main game was boring as a bag of dicks.
People can brag about graphics as much as they want. But at the end of the day, if Final Fantasy 7 is more entertaining (And not even in a nostalgia way) than Assassins Creed 3, and Halo CE is better than CoD...fuck graphics. I'll play my bad looking games until I'm done having fun instead of stroking the graphical cock.
People can brag about graphics as much as they want. But at the end of the day, if Final Fantasy 7 is more entertaining (And not even in a nostalgia way) than Assassins Creed 3, and Halo CE is better than CoD...fuck graphics. I'll play my bad looking games until I'm done having fun instead of stroking the graphical cock.
Games that would make use of those thousand dollar rigs would have high production costs, and be marketing to a smaller audience due to the high entrance fee. Due to all this, the prices would be monstrous just to buy one game. I'm happy there are consoles to allow normal people to be able to game, not just those that can afford their thousand dollar PCs.
Graphics holding back the industry? Give me a break. If anything, the bloated expectations of consumers who cry for ever greater levels of detail is killing it. I hate to break it to you, but it's not cheap to continuously push the bar. And it's money that could be spent elsewhere. The only people who think otherwise are those who can afford to throw money at their PC every couple of years for upgrades and expect the industry to do the same.
Consoles are saving the industry from choking on these expectations. They are stable and consistent platforms developers can work with. They are attractive to consumers with smaller budgets. Consoles exist as the economic middle-ground, pure and simple.
Consoles are saving the industry from choking on these expectations. They are stable and consistent platforms developers can work with. They are attractive to consumers with smaller budgets. Consoles exist as the economic middle-ground, pure and simple.
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.DishonoredElderSouls said:
As for the other point you brought up here, I often feel overwhelmed already by the number and scale of open-world games on the market these days. Don't get me wrong, I love sandbox-type games and they can easily give you the most bang for your buck (good ones anyway), but I simply don't have the time to experience them to their fullest when there are so many on the market. I realize that's a bit of a silly complaint, but I'm a big fan of variety. Not to mention developers can easily get caught up in creating a large map with lots of places, but skimp on details in those environments. Having a mid-sized or even small number of dungeons to explore yet with great depth, for instance, is much better than having oodles of empty ones. So yes, I agree that limitations can be good, especially if it means developers will have to get more creative.
Oh lawrd, creativity to compensate for limitations is something I could probably go on about for another few paragraphs, but I think I'll restrain myself for the time being.
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.Oh and for the person who said 12 vs 12 multiplayer compared with 64 vs 64, sorry but INTERNET speeds are the limiting here. Australians get bad enough lag playing Diablo with 4 people without trying to add another 123 to the mix
The new consoles aren't "already outdated", that's stupid bullshit from people who spend flat out exorbitant amounts of money on a PC and at the same time don't understand the optimization benefit of consoles. When they know exactly what hardware everyone is running it's incredibly easy to optimize relative to PC where there are thousands if not millions of configurations that should be able to run your game. That's why we're just now having RAM issues on the big consoles that have like 256 MB of RAM.
Consoles do limit graphical fidelity but to be frank I'm fine with the rate it's gone in the last ecade.
Consoles are holding us back for a number of reasons though. They're proprietary and thus can limit themselves more than PCs, they encourage exclusives when it would be better for gamers if there was just one device they can buy all their games on, they're only going to have one online storefront. Their only advantage is arguably and at certain points in time price, but even then we tend to get new games cheaper on steam and old games MUCH cheaper on steam sales. Fuck people seem to be under the impression PC is inferior because of controllers: You can get all 3 (including wii mote I heard) major console controllers working on PC
Consoles do limit graphical fidelity but to be frank I'm fine with the rate it's gone in the last ecade.
Consoles are holding us back for a number of reasons though. They're proprietary and thus can limit themselves more than PCs, they encourage exclusives when it would be better for gamers if there was just one device they can buy all their games on, they're only going to have one online storefront. Their only advantage is arguably and at certain points in time price, but even then we tend to get new games cheaper on steam and old games MUCH cheaper on steam sales. Fuck people seem to be under the impression PC is inferior because of controllers: You can get all 3 (including wii mote I heard) major console controllers working on PC