Consoles Are Holding Gaming Back

[SonOfVoorhees]

Nope, dont agree. Developers are holding gaming back. There are plenty of open world games, GTA, Saints Row, Elder Scrolls, Just Cause, Far Cry 3 and Fallout to name a few. So yeah, consoles dont matter. Its companies that would rather bring out the next cod game. Id rather a linear awesome game than a game made big just for the sake of it.

What is holding games back is developers and massive AAA budgets. Hiring big name stars and spending money badly. Graphics and power is great, but doesnt matter if its wasted on a shitty game. Look at Crysis 3 - crappy game that had great graphics. Im not interested in ultra realistic graphics, because it just takes more power to move them around. I would rather have lower graphics but with an increased experience. For instance, do you remember that CoD game where you stormed the Normandy Beaches, like the start of Saving Private Ryan? Well i want that. I want huge towns etc to fight through with lots of ai soldiers fighting alongside you so you feel your part of a bigger war. Thats what i thought the future of gaming would be, instead with each console gen and next installment of cod/MW/Blops the games got more linear as the graphics got better.

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

On the other hand, we also get better optimized games.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

Look, back in the days of old and yore awonder, consoles had a graphical style that was decidedly different from what you'd get on home computers and PCs. Yes, back in the day there were pretty much at least half a dozen competing computer systems around at all times, not including dad's boring but very expensive PC.

If you were alive and beyond pooping your pants during the times of the Commodore 64, the ZX Spectrum, the Atari ST, the various inarnations of the Amiga or the Apple II were what people used to play games on, and PC graphics were mostly still made up of ASCII characters of sorts, and their screens came in green or amber with the only other colour being black.

The rise of arcade games was, for at least two decades, the apex of where it was at, technically speaking. Home computer ports of popular arcade games were always peacemeal, downsized, ugly and shoddy with but few exceptions that brought that arcade feeling home in a satisfactory manner during the 8 bit dark ages. The 16 bit computers, especially the Amiga, brought with it a graphical fidelity for the masses that was mindblowing and very, very inspiring. By the time the PC caught up, EA - then still ECA - was established as freaks and hippies turned suit-and-tie entrepreneurs.

From the top of me silly head, I'd say that up to the PS2 era of things there were two rather different worlds in full effect, one being the PC games world, the other the console games world... with arcade games being on the decline. I'd wager to posit another thought: The PS3 and the XBOX killed off proper arcade games, as they killed many an arcade.

Sadly enough, both machines were nothing more than very, very limited PC gaming rigs with very peculiar processor choices that shaped the gaming world to come with predetermined on-rails experiences or tunnel vision approached to things, no matter how good the devs and programmers managed to hide that sorry fact from us.

The limitations of these new machines eventually started bleeding over to actual PC games, and their success is what brought with it plenty of other funny and ludicrous ideas. Rising costs pretty much killed off proper PC-specific development, the consoles becoming the lowest common denominator that was to be the mold to shape all things to come. You didn't see anything like the first Crysis duing the reign of PS3/360, the sequels are... sad little things compared to the first one, no matter how much coding expertise and love they put into them. The new generation of consoles might solve this one particular huge problem by - finally - raising the bar. They are no guarantee for actual good games, though. I'd still expect true cheap thrills and proper innovation to pop up in the minis/XBL games, if they are allowed to thrive on the new systems.

I am looking forward to the PS4 as it looks like it will allow for games to go back in time a bit, because with significantly more power and RAM at their disposal, devs can finally pick up the pieces again and start anew where PC gaming died a little a decade ago. Of course, the Xbox 3 (xbox one for people with severe dyscalculia and a dislike for capital letters) started out on a different path, building on the assumption that customers were stupid and easily caught, culled and turned into a constant revenue stream that was locked down and under total remote control of Big Brother Central.

So... with consoles being nothing but locked down, glorified and mostly single-purpose PCs these days, your argument is invalid. The cake of having multiple systems to choose from has been a lie ever since the 360 and the PS3 were released, with the only random exception being Nintendo's output of fun and weird.

Where's that guy with his non-sequitur false dichotomy and his army of strawmen? I miss him.

 

[4RM3D]

Most games made don't even reach the limits.

Well, most games are indie games after all. But I suppose you meant to say: Most AAA games made don't even reach the limits. Even then, it's a tricky statement, because it is unknown what the limit really is. Anyhow, I do believe developers are hitting a wall, it might not be a graphical one, but it is definitely there.

Graphics are not the most important part of a game, they are rarely even important at all.

Opinions. Still, it is something I already mentioned in the OP. It might not be the most important but it still can be discussed.

If you think progress consists of better graphics and higher specs,

Yes, better graphics = progress, but not every game needs it and it isn't the only way or even the most important way to progress. Nonetheless it is progress of some sort.

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.

Well, what I have mentioned before: it isn't all black and white. People could still buy cheap PCs and still being able to run all games, albeit not with max settings.

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.

Hehe, EA... I wouldn't say the industry is progressing. Changing, definitely... but progressing? *looks at EA*. There are good side to the industry and bad sides. Alright, alright, overall it is progressing. Though I do feel like the game market has stagnated over the past few years (not talking about graphics here). Sure mobile and social games have become more popular and widespread, but that is what I meant with changing, rather than progressing. Where is my Planescape: Torment 2 and Baldur's Gate 3? *looks at Kickstarter* Oh, there it is. Yes, Kickstarter and it's ilk have had a huge impact on the gaming industry since Double Fine tried it. So yeah, there have been some (indirect) improvements.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Publishers that are not familiar with video game market and that are trying to treat it like it's meat industry are holding gaming back.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

aw man, only online game im playing at the mo is awesomenauts. 2D basic cartoony graphics. really enjoying it

playing hit man, and the graphics are great, but its just killing my pc when on ultra, n doesnt really add to the experience much

 

[MammothBlade]

Ah, catchy subject, no? While I do agree that consoles are holding gaming back. I am specifically referring to the graphics. The graphics have stagnated over the past few years and I believe the most important reason is that every developer is developing for the consoles. Even the PC version is based off the consoles and won't make the most use of the PC's power. The current gen consoles are at their limit.

Of course there is light on the horizon. New consoles are coming and with it better specs. This (hopefully) means there will be a new standard for graphics. And as a result the games released on the PC will also be graphically better. Although I also hear people say the new consoles are already outdated.

What do you think?

I should note though that I don't think graphical improvements are absolutely necessary. It would be nice for the more realistic games. But for the more stylish games (aesthetic), it wouldn't be as much of an issue.

No, they're not. Can we just drop this bullshit argument once and for all?

Consider that most people can't afford to or don't have the technical know-how to keep upgrading their graphics card or CPU to the latest model either. Even if it was just PCs, they'd be constrained by the rate of new hardware adoption. A console is an investment in optimum playability for ~ 6 years.

Consoles are good for gamers in general because they provide accessibility and consistency.

 

[4RM3D]

No, they're not. Can we just drop this bullshit argument once and for all?

Consider that most people can't afford to or don't have the technical know-how to keep upgrading their graphics card or CPU to the latest model either. Even if it was just PCs, they'd be constrained by the rate of new hardware adoption. A console is an investment in optimum playability for ~ 6 years.

Consoles are good for gamers in general because they provide accessibility and consistency.

And everyone assumes PC gaming is difficult and expensive. You could have your system build in the store you bought it. That store most likely has premade systems for gamers also, ranging from cheap to ludicrous speed (Spaceballs).

A PC might still be more expensive than a console, but not overly expensive.

Still, +1 for the Redline avatar.

Go home OP, you're drunk. Or watch this Bayonetta 2 trailer instead.

No, I will not watch the Bayonetta 2 trailer. Damn traitors. PS4 exclusive, fine... heck, even Xbone exclusive would be fine. But the WiiU!? WTF! It does not belong on the WiiU and certainly not as exclusive.

That is supposed to tell me that consoles are holding gaming back? Console exclusive games like this are supposed to be the indicator that consoles are holding us all back?

Exclusives suck. I ain't buying a WiiU, PS4 and Xbone. If it's console exclusive as in the game is release on all consoles, but not the PC, that is fine. But if it's limited to one console, no no.

*snip*

As for the other movies... some are from the next gen consoles. When I made this topic, I was referring to the current gen. Still, some games do look rather impressive. The developers sometimes even surprise me what they can do with so "little".

 

[MammothBlade]

No, they're not. Can we just drop this bullshit argument once and for all?

Consider that most people can't afford to or don't have the technical know-how to keep upgrading their graphics card or CPU to the latest model either. Even if it was just PCs, they'd be constrained by the rate of new hardware adoption. A console is an investment in optimum playability for ~ 6 years.

Consoles are good for gamers in general because they provide accessibility and consistency.

And everyone assumes PC gaming is difficult and expensive. You could have your system build in the store you bought it. That store most likely has premade systems for gamers also, ranging from cheap to ludicrous speed (Spaceballs).

A PC might still be more expensive than a console, but not overly expensive.

Still, +1 for the Redline avatar.

Still, you have to concede that PC games have compatibility issues much more than any console games. You can play console games just out of the box because they're optimised for that particular system, whereas with PCs you have all sorts of different things that might not work. No wonder PC gaming has a reputation for being difficult and expensive to get into. Now I play more games on PC than on console, particularly those which are better controlled with mouse and keyboard - strategy, FPS, etc. Yet consoles seem better for certain more cinematic, story-oriented experiences.

(And thanks, I can just smell the high-octane petroleum)

 

[redwolflim86]

Consoles did not hold the games back. Developers are the major factor that hold the games back. Good graphic doesn't mean good gameplay. Two good examples are: Minecraft (THAT GRAPHIC!!!) and Dwarf Fortress.

If you want to argue about graphic, think about this: Developers and Publishers are a bunch of greedy demons, they are trying to sell as many games as possible in order to earn the maximum profits. If they develop a high resolution graphic game based on specific gaming video card like "GTX Titan", one of the best graphic card we could get at the moment, but imagine how many PCs will shit themselves if they try to run the game with low quality video card....

Heck, if the consoles never exist in the first place, the developers will still develop the game based on the mid-level video card only, and it wont optimised the graphic resolution for the next-gen video game.

It is always up to the Developers, do not put the blames to consoles

 

[FootloosePhoenix]

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.

You seem to have extraordinarily high expectations. We do have high-end graphics and we do have good open-worlds (as I noted earlier, AI does seem to be lagging behind the rest of advancements). Could they be better? Yeah, probably. But that doesn't make what we have anything to scoff at. I can't think of a single game this generation that looked bad due to technical limitations. Saying things have stagnated during this generation isn't correct, either; look at the difference between the first inFamous game and the second, for example, or Uncharted and The Last of Us or the first BioShock and Infinite.

There has been more variation in the indie scene with a lot of interesting games. But those are not better, just more refreshing.

Well "better" is very subjective and would depend on the indie game in question. But I would argue the exact opposite of what you're coming across as saying; indie games are making the industry markedly better as a whole by breaking the possibility for innovation and creativity wide open. That doesn't mean every indie game is good, of course, but the movement as a whole is invaluable. With the point we've already reached with video game graphics and technology as a whole, it is much more important for creativity to be at the forefront of development than new shinies.

I still think you're placing the blame for lack of technological progress on the wrong thing, anyway. It's not the consoles themselves but the market that has formed. The video game industry is now viewed as a business like any other and developers/publishers need their products to be as accessible as possible. Consoles and average PCs that can't run the apex of graphics are convenient for this.

 

[James Crook]

They're holding back gaming due to hardware limitations such as memory, which negatively impact both the AI and the gameplay's depth as devs attempt to streamline the game's features to make it playable with a controller and such limited specs.
Just look at Skyrim and Fallout: New Vegas. The cities feel small, empty, dead. The Strip was cut up in three parts, and so was Freeside. The Wasteland didn't even feel like a warzone between the NCR and the Legion. In Skyrim, Solitude and Whiterun, despite being some of the biggest cities in the lore, felt puny.

 

[The White Hunter]

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

Honestly from my knowledge of hardware thats nothing to do with player count as it's just a few more generic character models and BF3 on consoles looks arse anyway, everything is low res and jaggy as hell (compared to the PC version... and also Killzone 3 and Uncharted 3 look better on PS3, not sure bout Xbox as mine is currently used as coasters and thus beyond repair).

I think it's more likely an issue with EA servers. I don't think they want to dedicate the server space to the extra player count and I think that's a horrible problem with BF3, half the maps are designed to be stuffed with 128 players whilst the rest are all 32vsfocused and tiny, cramped and as a result not very fun to play.

I honestly prefer Bad Company 2 (I think it looks better even on PC, mostly because I dig the aesthetic it has) for my BF fix, particularly on consoles but on PC as well. A much more enjoyable game with a much more unique foundation (carried forth from the first Bad Company which is: BLOW EVERYTHING UP!).

Or if I want some more tactical multiplayer I'll hit up some Killzone 3 and roll with some friends.

 

[The White Hunter]

Spoiler: Spoilered for length, and also kupopuffs

So, not wanting to leave this topic alone, I decided to go away and find footage of recent and upcoming games that are console exclusive. If console gaming is truly holding back gaming, then games which are console exclusive should be fully indicative of all the ways that games are currently being held back compared to PC gaming, right?







So out of this small sample of games, we've got a strategy-beat 'em up where the player uses a team of superheroes to beat the shit out of giant alien robot dragons, a game where the player controls an invisible character only made visible by the rain, a strategy game where the player controls an army of adorable little flower people, an acclaimed survival game with one of the best narratives of this or any other generation, an open world superhero game, and an open world mech RPG where you fight giant magical dinosaurs.

That is supposed to tell me that consoles are holding gaming back? Console exclusive games like this are supposed to be the indicator that consoles are holding us all back?

Go home OP, you're drunk. Or watch this Bayonetta 2 trailer instead.


Holding back gaming... the absurdity of the notion.

The Last of Us is so far my absolute game of the year, it was edge and edge with BioShock Infinite (because thats insaenly fun), but then it wins by being a fantastic story with excellent writing and the first genuinely well written homosexual character I have ever seen in an audio-visual medium, and on top of that it blends survival with some light horror and action whilst forcing you to think, forcing you to decide, limiting what youc an do and when.

It isn't a fun game, oh no, it's a rewarding one that you want to survive.

Kind of like if Spec Ops: The Line wasn't just a really boring third person shooter with forced morality and a shit cover system.

 

[mike1921]

No, they're not. Can we just drop this bullshit argument once and for all?

Consider that most people can't afford to or don't have the technical know-how to keep upgrading their graphics card or CPU to the latest model either. Even if it was just PCs, they'd be constrained by the rate of new hardware adoption. A console is an investment in optimum playability for ~ 6 years.

Consoles are good for gamers in general because they provide accessibility and consistency.

And everyone assumes PC gaming is difficult and expensive. You could have your system build in the store you bought it. That store most likely has premade systems for gamers also, ranging from cheap to ludicrous speed (Spaceballs).

A PC might still be more expensive than a console, but not overly expensive.

Still, +1 for the Redline avatar.

Still, you have to concede that PC games have compatibility issues much more than any console games. You can play console games just out of the box because they're optimised for that particular system, whereas with PCs you have all sorts of different things that might not work. No wonder PC gaming has a reputation for being difficult and expensive to get into. Now I play more games on PC than on console, particularly those which are better controlled with mouse and keyboard - strategy, FPS, etc. Yet consoles seem better for certain more cinematic, story-oriented experiences.

(And thanks, I can just smell the high-octane petroleum)

How precisely would console be better for story-oriented experiences?

 

[MammothBlade]

No, they're not. Can we just drop this bullshit argument once and for all?

Consider that most people can't afford to or don't have the technical know-how to keep upgrading their graphics card or CPU to the latest model either. Even if it was just PCs, they'd be constrained by the rate of new hardware adoption. A console is an investment in optimum playability for ~ 6 years.

Consoles are good for gamers in general because they provide accessibility and consistency.

And everyone assumes PC gaming is difficult and expensive. You could have your system build in the store you bought it. That store most likely has premade systems for gamers also, ranging from cheap to ludicrous speed (Spaceballs).

A PC might still be more expensive than a console, but not overly expensive.

Still, +1 for the Redline avatar.

Still, you have to concede that PC games have compatibility issues much more than any console games. You can play console games just out of the box because they're optimised for that particular system, whereas with PCs you have all sorts of different things that might not work. No wonder PC gaming has a reputation for being difficult and expensive to get into. Now I play more games on PC than on console, particularly those which are better controlled with mouse and keyboard - strategy, FPS, etc. Yet consoles seem better for certain more cinematic, story-oriented experiences.

(And thanks, I can just smell the high-octane petroleum)

How precisely would console be better for story-oriented experiences?

Simply the way consoles are typically set up in a living room connected to the television, so you can relax or other people can watch comfrotably, whereas PCs usually have you hunched over a screen.

 

[Bonk4licious]

I don't really care too much about the graphics, though my heavily invested gaming PC would like to differ. I find I'll take more frames per second than actual graphics quality any day. But I don't think it's holding us back, I think it's giving life to it in different ways. One thing is that indie games get popular and out the masses, popularity has come to random titles I didn't expect like Limbo and Trials, because once they got popular they were suddenly pasted all over my dashboard for X-Box and PS3. I think the one thing the consoles do wrong is that they pump out AAA bro shooters and bro-op games left and right to the point that we've ruined ourselves on what good games should be, and now those experiences are what we base other games on anymore. I think consoles give us a clear limit to what we can do with hardware, then force us to make the best out of these concepts, while PC only gaming sometimes loses itself in how good they can make the graphics for the best systems.

A lot of random thoughts aside, I don't think consoles hold back gaming, they just do a lot of experimenting on systems that clearly reach the most people, but I think the feedback from the wide variety of console gamers ruins how developers make games now, from that feedback. I remember Gears of War 3's beta was very fun, with good balancing and overall fun mechanics, which down the line was slowly ruined in patches based on feedback from people who wanted things rebalanced to suit their play styles, and now we have Shotguns of War 3. Overall they both rely a lot on their communities, and I think consoles have stretched so far that they now don't necessarily have people that care about gameplay balancing responding with feedback as much as they do the sheep that just care about getting their virtual profiles as big as they can responding back, letting developers know what should be ridiculous or what clearly shouldn't have an advantage over them when all they have to do is play a little differently to win. The other day I popped in Halo: Reach to get yelled at on Grifball by players who just wanted to not play and rack up points rather than actually have fun. We look at these things so much differently now.

 

[Bonk4licious]

I don't really care too much about the graphics, though my heavily invested gaming PC would like to differ. I find I'll take more frames per second than actual graphics quality any day. But I don't think it's holding us back, I think it's giving life to it in different ways. One thing is that indie games get popular and out the masses, popularity has come to random titles I didn't expect like Limbo and Trials, because once they got popular they were suddenly pasted all over my dashboard for X-Box and PS3. I think the one thing the consoles do wrong is that they pump out AAA bro shooters and bro-op games left and right to the point that we've ruined ourselves on what good games should be, and now those experiences are what we base other games on anymore. I think consoles give us a clear limit to what we can do with hardware, then force us to make the best out of these concepts, while PC only gaming sometimes loses itself in how good they can make the graphics for the best systems.

A lot of random thoughts aside, I don't think consoles hold back gaming, they just do a lot of experimenting on systems that clearly reach the most people, but I think the feedback from the wide variety of console gamers ruins how developers make games now, from that feedback. I remember Gears of War 3's beta was very fun, with good balancing and overall fun mechanics, which down the line was slowly ruined in patches based on feedback from people who wanted things rebalanced to suit their play styles, and now we have Shotguns of War 3. Overall they both rely a lot on their communities, and I think consoles have stretched so far that they now don't necessarily have people that care about gameplay balancing responding with feedback as much as they do the sheep that just care about getting their virtual profiles as big as they can responding back, letting developers know what should be ridiculous or what clearly shouldn't have an advantage over them when all they have to do is play a little differently to win. The other day I popped in Halo: Reach to get yelled at on Grifball by players who just wanted to not play and rack up points rather than actually have fun. We look at these things so much differently now.

 

[Requia]

No, they're not. Can we just drop this bullshit argument once and for all?

Consider that most people can't afford to or don't have the technical know-how to keep upgrading their graphics card or CPU to the latest model either. Even if it was just PCs, they'd be constrained by the rate of new hardware adoption. A console is an investment in optimum playability for ~ 6 years.

Consoles are good for gamers in general because they provide accessibility and consistency.

And everyone assumes PC gaming is difficult and expensive. You could have your system build in the store you bought it. That store most likely has premade systems for gamers also, ranging from cheap to ludicrous speed (Spaceballs).

That cheap gaming PC price is a direct result of consoles low power (adn that we're at the end of a generation). There are relatively few game that both offer very high end graphics and aren't also on console. Because the games are also on console, the devs are forced to also offer mid range graphics in line with the consoles capabilities. End result, affordable gaming PCs that run 99% of new games.

If consoles have more power however (or weren't around), devs will be more likely to neglect the mid range PC owner (and we should see for sure if this holds true again in the next few years, there might be PCs available that beat the XB1 and PS4, but they are very expensive machines). This means very expensive gaming PCs, just to meet minimum requirements, rather than to use the very best graphical features.

 

[dragongit]

I kinda think now we are at the point where games are already looking fantastic (the next generation not the one we're "currently" in) and they haven't even reached either consoles full potential. Maybe there should come a time when we should consider diminishing returns, and instead from each generation onward focus more on physics, particles, ways to render things quicker instead of simply looking better, AI, and ways to make the above easier to make.we're already at the point where studios are hardly making anything back on their investments.