Not necessarily. Character and world models are pretty much as good as they are ever going to get. Now we need to work on realistic facial expressions, realistic body movement and higher definition textures.4RM3D said:
Consoles Are Holding Gaming Back
- Thread starter 4RM3D
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Holding it back from what exactly?
It's not about the resources, it's knowing what to do with them.
It's not about the resources, it's knowing what to do with them.
The models are looking great, that's not the problem, the only thing holding back the current generation in not enough RAM and texturing. As soon as we get the power to upscale textures to high definition I think we'll really stop noticing the differences, because even average modeling now days can be solved with better textures. Most of the time I stop to look at a bad or good graphic, it's because it's either a low or extremely higher than normal resolution texture.Th37thTrump3t said:
Offended, are we?j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
I didn't know that. I suppose it is better to be a WiiU exclusive than to not be at all. So Platinum may have had a good reason, in this case.j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
I just don't like it when the first game gets released on console X and the 2nd game on console Y and the third game on a mobile console Z. I know it is difficult to stick with a console in this volatile era of gaming. But I would appreciate sticking with the first console the game was released on. Either that or go multi-platform.
And then there cases of game series stopping halfway, where the sequels are not being released in Europe or translated in English. Abandoning us like that feels worse that the console exclusivity, even though they might have good reasons.
Anyhow, I was half joking about Platinum being traitors. Maybe it came over a little harsh, though.
Yes, lets thank Activision for making another Call of Duty. (That was sarcasm, BTW.) The statement above is moot, anyhow.j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
For some unknown reason I am always thinking about 2 groups: PC and consoles; lumping all consoles together. I don't know why though. Maybe because from a practical standpoint it seems pointless to have multiple consoles. While I do understand why someone would want at least 1 console.j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
That would make sense for the studios belonging to the console manufacturer to only release the games for their own console. But that is not always the case. Microsoft is notorious for buying exclusive rights.j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
I didn't say all console games should be multi-platform. And I am not whining about it. It just came up in the discussion. It would be nice if games would be multi-platform. That's all.j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
As for PC exclusivity, simply put I would dislike PC exclusivity as much I would dislike console exclusivity. The thing is, when a PC release gets a shoddy console port, I rather wish it was a PC exclusive, so it got some better treatment. But by default I am all for multi-platform.
The Gameboy proves two things: people don't care about graphics and people go where the games are. Console exclusivity was much worse in the past. The Game Gear was superior in every way compared to the Gameboy. Well, maybe not battery life. Anyhow, the console went down under and it would take year before another color screen mobile console would hit the market and survive.j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
I already stated that not every developer needs to pursue the best graphics. Also not every game needs it. Persona 3 and 4 on the PS2 still look good. But if you look at Skyrim, that engine could use an overhaul. Fortunately there are a lot of good mods to improve the environment. So in the end the engine isn't much of an issue. Ironically though you still need a PC to install the mods. In that case it isn't so much about raw power, than it is about customization and possibilities.j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
-----
You know I have been playing games all my life. Started with a black and green PC screen with only a few pixels. I still play games that look as if they were released for the Super Nintendo and I am fine with that. Then there are games like Bastion which rely heavily on style and aesthetics and they look gorgeous. Heck I also have it on my iPhone now. I have been playing these games for over a decade and I believe they will never become or feel outdated. But sometimes I do hunker for a massive, awesome graphic fest of destruction and free roaming (Just Cause 3!).
You've missed something. Graphics are close to peak EVERYWHERE across the board. There's only so much more pretty graphics you can actually bother with to try and make things more 'real' and eventually people just stop noticing. It hardly makes a difference to me anymore, certainly. Computers can't go 100% committment to their technology anyway. The planned obsolescence plan. If they put everything to the max immediately, there's less to sell later. Further, this whole thread has no meaning, simply because of the market. If it sells, it's viable, so nobody's holding back anything.4RM3D said:
Well yes, but that's not how it will be used, because that's not what companies can efficiently advertise in short demonstrations. It takes a while to relay the quality of AI, intuitiveness of controls and fun quirks of gameplay, while with graphics all they need to do is say "Hey look, shiny and detailed, ainnit?"Doom972 said:
I think that's the reason why graphics are made out to be such a selling point, they're easy to demonstrate...
I don't know if consoles or graphics are holding back gaming.
I think gaming is holding back gaming.
Games are indeed an art form, but like cotton candy and espresso, it only exists because a machine was invented to make it.* The problem is that the capabilities of the machines is constantly growing, Moore's Law and all that. This means video games are constantly in a cycle of new technology coming in. When new technology comes in, there's usually an artistic dry period as the new tech is the selling point. Some film historians noted there were such periods when sound and later color were added to film.
It's a weird pattern in human behavior to first get something and then to figure out what to do with it. Film hasn't had such a breakthrough in decades, and no. 3D is not a breakthrough at all**. So the language of the medium has gelled into something relatively solid.
Video games really haven't had much time to catch their breath as a medium, much less really figure out how it works and what works best or better in this medium. As a result, publishers and developers have managed to find lowest common denominator (LCD) product that they can sell instead of trying for something more interesting if more risky. This has led many who don't like these LCD games to abandon the hobby, or turn into retro gamers, further entrenching these LCD games as the only things that sell because only people who buy that sort of guff still buy games.
* Although computers are not always necessary. Tomy made a series of clockwork games including Blip.
** What's sold as 3D in theaters or on Blu-Ray is not actually three dimension. I believe it is possible to achieve actual three dimensional imagery. The how's of that are another topic. But such a thing would require learning how to make films all over again to make the best use of this new technology. Much like how many old films are set up like a stage production because how to make a film wasn't known yet.
I think gaming is holding back gaming.
Games are indeed an art form, but like cotton candy and espresso, it only exists because a machine was invented to make it.* The problem is that the capabilities of the machines is constantly growing, Moore's Law and all that. This means video games are constantly in a cycle of new technology coming in. When new technology comes in, there's usually an artistic dry period as the new tech is the selling point. Some film historians noted there were such periods when sound and later color were added to film.
It's a weird pattern in human behavior to first get something and then to figure out what to do with it. Film hasn't had such a breakthrough in decades, and no. 3D is not a breakthrough at all**. So the language of the medium has gelled into something relatively solid.
Video games really haven't had much time to catch their breath as a medium, much less really figure out how it works and what works best or better in this medium. As a result, publishers and developers have managed to find lowest common denominator (LCD) product that they can sell instead of trying for something more interesting if more risky. This has led many who don't like these LCD games to abandon the hobby, or turn into retro gamers, further entrenching these LCD games as the only things that sell because only people who buy that sort of guff still buy games.
* Although computers are not always necessary. Tomy made a series of clockwork games including Blip.
** What's sold as 3D in theaters or on Blu-Ray is not actually three dimension. I believe it is possible to achieve actual three dimensional imagery. The how's of that are another topic. But such a thing would require learning how to make films all over again to make the best use of this new technology. Much like how many old films are set up like a stage production because how to make a film wasn't known yet.
Huh.
You do realize that not everyone can afford to game on a multi-thousand dollar machine that takes time and energy to maintain and upgrade right? Sure, PC gaming is awesome, what with all the customizable settings and mods and upgradable hardware, but the barrier for entry is perceived to be too high for your average gamer. Consoles are more accessible and are in large part responsible for gaming becoming so mainstream. Console games are optimized for whatever machine you buy them for, so no fiddling around with settings, you can just boot it up and run it (unless you need to update, fuck you current gen).
I have a decent PC and a few games from steam (TERRARIA!!!) but I do the majority of gaming on my ps3, simply because it's, well, simpler. Also The Last of Us (drops mic and walks off stage).
You do realize that not everyone can afford to game on a multi-thousand dollar machine that takes time and energy to maintain and upgrade right? Sure, PC gaming is awesome, what with all the customizable settings and mods and upgradable hardware, but the barrier for entry is perceived to be too high for your average gamer. Consoles are more accessible and are in large part responsible for gaming becoming so mainstream. Console games are optimized for whatever machine you buy them for, so no fiddling around with settings, you can just boot it up and run it (unless you need to update, fuck you current gen).
I have a decent PC and a few games from steam (TERRARIA!!!) but I do the majority of gaming on my ps3, simply because it's, well, simpler. Also The Last of Us (drops mic and walks off stage).
I have to disagree that graphics hold an industry back.
Just look at Fallout 3/NV, both look like a melted wellington but god dammit they're just plain fun.
here endeth the lesson
Just look at Fallout 3/NV, both look like a melted wellington but god dammit they're just plain fun.
here endeth the lesson
Consoles are perceived to be simpler. They're not really all that different. If you're capable of using a PC to use this forum, then you're 90% there. $200 GPU and you're right for the upcoming gen, for a while at least anyway. Provided your PC isn't 500yrs old.Azure23 said:
Gameplay and graphics make a game. Todays games are expected to push the envelop in both gameplay and graphics.kingthrall said:
On topic I think console exclusives are holding the industry back. Consoles are supposed to support the games not the other way around. If I have a rig that can play a game is ridiculous that I have to buy another rig ( ps3) just to have the right to play it.
Exclusives also segregates the multiplayer experiences. Anyone playing a given game should be able to play each other regardless of which pc they play it on. Unfortunately the console pc's come loaded with restrictions
I'm calling BS to this, I'm sick of hearing that more complex graphics equal better graphics. Some of the most beautiful games I've ever played came out for this guy.
For example:
So did
But it's not all aesthetics either, some games genuinely managed to do more with less, like
and
Honestly, I can't believe some people still actually judge graphics by whether they look "real" or not. Unless you're actually trying to make yourself forget you're playing a videogame, I don't see why that matters.
For example:
Viewtiful Joe scrapped realism for style.
Windwaker
But it's not all aesthetics either, some games genuinely managed to do more with less, like
Rogue Squadron II Rogue Leader
RE4
Honestly, I can't believe some people still actually judge graphics by whether they look "real" or not. Unless you're actually trying to make yourself forget you're playing a videogame, I don't see why that matters.
I couldn't agree more, and more so because my 2 year old computer has better specs than both "NextGen" consoles.4RM3D said:
Now, I understand a lot of the cut backs, they're aiming to make a cheap piece of consumer electronics, it needs to be effective and affordable, and through that I really can understand their specs, but when I'm hearing reports that this generation will last for 10 years... I get a little pissed off.
I mean at-the-fucking-least if you want it to last ten years put 16GB of ram in there. Some people might say that's excessive, but this is fucking gaming, it's the only time you're going to use that much ram, and believe me when I say it CAN be used. Imagine Skyrim without any pop in, imagine loading screens becoming a rarity instead of the standard, and finally picture all the crazy shit they could toss in: absurd numbers of NPCs, Destruction physics on every object, ACTUAL PHYSICS SIMULATION SYSTEMS.
8GB is infuriating because it means there likely won't be any really interesting advances in tech in my opinion.
The rest I understand can be boosted through the solid unit cohesion that consoles get, but 8GB is 8GB, and it's not much in a world where games are 32+GB just for textures, sound, and code, not even counting the actual calculations that run through the code.
I understand some people may want to argue that 8GB is plenty of space and that most games now don't use that, but to me that's like saying "Well we don't need a space program, we didn't have one before". More importantly, yeah, we don't use that much now, but we don't have real water physics, air, vapor, and smoke physics, simulated gravity, or light physics...
Things that I personally want to see more than higher resolution textures or better poly counts.
I'm curious as to what the PC lifecycle would be without the existence of consoles.
MMO's are almost exclusively PC and yet very few of them push the limits of what a system can handle. I'd argue that a PC only environment would stagnate almost as much as a console one for the simple reason that the vast majority don't want to force their target market to upgrade in order to play. This creates a barrier to entry and costs sales.
The PC cycle would probably still be 4-6 years as a result with only a few niche titles pushing the boundaries.
MMO's are almost exclusively PC and yet very few of them push the limits of what a system can handle. I'd argue that a PC only environment would stagnate almost as much as a console one for the simple reason that the vast majority don't want to force their target market to upgrade in order to play. This creates a barrier to entry and costs sales.
The PC cycle would probably still be 4-6 years as a result with only a few niche titles pushing the boundaries.
Ever really done any heavy video editing? My experience anything less than 8GB is going to make it a pain because with longer videos all those programs are going to take quite a while to respond.vasiD said:
Gaming PCs are not the pinnacle of raw processing power generally; heavy-duty workstations are...
What's holding gaming back is that they found that they can use a safety net to sell units rather than innovate and evolve to stay ahead of the competition.
Not everyone has a two year old computer.
Case in point, I am typing to you right now on a 7 year old laptop, that manages to play Skyrim on the most abysmal settings( and still suffers frame rate drops) and can barely play Portal 2 without my computer reminding me that my video card is too shitty to really be playing a game like that.
This is the same scenario with a lot of computer users.
Many people, myself included have shit old computers. A fact that many PC gamers either completely ignore when making an argument, or claim that we have shit financial skills or stupid for not upgrading our computers(mainly on Kotaku)
I have games for the PC.
I can see the convenience of games on the PC.
However as of right now the graphics of the games I'm playing on my laptop are on par with the Gamecube half the time. The Skyrim that shows up on my computer, looks like a circus show to the Skyrims Let's Players are uploading on Youtube with their high end PC rigs.
Also you guys never mention the fact that most computers are used for more then gaming.
At least with a console, the machine can focus 100% of it's power on playing the game.
With a PC, you don't know what other uses the person has for it.
In my instance I use it for doing illustrations.
As such I have the entire Adobe Suite on it as well as a variety of medium to heavy weight art specific programs.
Other people may be in to making videos.
You'd be surprised just how fast video files can take up computer space.
Others music.
A PC can never- unless you have NOTHING ELSE IN IT devote 100% of it's power to games.