Consoles Are Holding Gaming Back

[mike1921]

PC's are infinitely superior for gaming

Except they aren't PC's are actually pretty horrible for gaming. That is why getting games to work on a PC requires hardware with near twice the spec of a dedicated console.

Oh yes the final result are indeed superior but this is the combination of years upon years of software, drivers, OS modifications APIS and any number of other software go between that have been created to make games actually work on PCs but end of the day it doesn't change the fact that if you built a PC with similar spec components to a dedicated console then the console would piss all over the PC.

As for console holding anything back, that's total crap. A lot of the stuff we see in games now a days is a direct result of publishers being able to spend large amounts of cash on game development and the cash has come from console bringing gaming to the mainstream. Sure we can select the odd indie budget title that blows us all away or we can sit here and pretend that the bedroom developed games from the Spectrum era where all amazing and nothing new is a patch on them but gaming is where it is because of consoles and without consoles gaming would be a minor league hobby, 'dominated' by small league developers and the market would be a wash with 1 decent title for every 1,000.

Of course there's years of software and drivers behind it, that's sort of how technology advances in the digital age, you update shit, make incremental improvements, that's not a downside.

Yes with the same specs console wins, I hope we're all aware that consoles do have the singular advantage of easier optimization because every console owner has the same specs. In exchange for that though, you get an open platform, cheaper games, more control options (I can use pretty much any controller with my PC), better performance if you do have decent hardware (including 60 fps), and a gigantic backlog of games including pretty much every game that came out before the 360 release.

 

[Soopy]

PC's are infinitely superior for gaming

Except they aren't PC's are actually pretty horrible for gaming. That is why getting games to work on a PC requires hardware with near twice the spec of a dedicated console.

Oh yes the final result are indeed superior but this is the combination of years upon years of software, drivers, OS modifications APIS and any number of other software go between that have been created to make games actually work on PCs but end of the day it doesn't change the fact that if you built a PC with similar spec components to a dedicated console then the console would piss all over the PC.

As for console holding anything back, that's total crap. A lot of the stuff we see in games now a days is a direct result of publishers being able to spend large amounts of cash on game development and the cash has come from console bringing gaming to the mainstream. Sure we can select the odd indie budget title that blows us all away or we can sit here and pretend that the bedroom developed games from the Spectrum era where all amazing and nothing new is a patch on them but gaming is where it is because of consoles and without consoles gaming would be a minor league hobby, 'dominated' by small league developers and the market would be a wash with 1 decent title for every 1,000.

Mmm nah, I could build a PC to compete with the upcoming generation consoles for the same or less than what the consoles cost. 10yrs ago, I'd have agreed. But PC gaming is far easier these days.

 

[Lilani]

-snip-

The games market isn't just about graphical fidelity or the specs of consoles or the quality of games that come out, you know. There's also the huge aspect of, you know, marketing. E3 has become a huge moneymaking and marketing opportunity, not just for console makers but also game devs. If not for the incredible amounts of money console games have brought into the market, such a huge event would have no reason to exist. The big AAA companies that cater to consoles also bring tens of thousands of jobs to the games industry. Consoles are a huge factor in why big celebs like Jimmy Fallon and Lewis Black stuck their neck out for games when Microsoft announced the X-bone.

Also, as has been pointed out before, the most successful console of just about every single generation has not been the one that had the most processing power of that generation. Which goes to show that having more power does not necessarily mean more money, more games, or a greater quality in games.

Like it or not, consoles are a huge part of the reason games are becoming so much more commonplace and generally accepted in society, and they bring in a lot of money, jobs, and power to the market. Mobile games are also doing this, but consoles were on their way to being ubiquitous long before Angry Birds came out. Losing consoles at this point would only serve to injure the industry in a big way.

 

[The_Tron]

HIEL MIENE PC MIESTER RENNEN.....

in all seriousness this I find this thread ridiculous and just a piss poor attempt to start a flame war.

 

[Soopy]

And here is an example of how little graphics actually matter. Look at God of War 3 on PS3, then look at its PS2 predecessor God of War 2. The gameplay is essentially the same. The game experience is virtually identical. GoW3 looks slightly better because it was truly tweaked to use all of the PS3's power. But it adds so little to the game experience vs the previous that the overall fun factor and value is the same for either version. But 3 probably cost 4x more to make.

Sorry but god of war 3 looks more than slightly better than god of war 2. Like I could see ow somewhere between them you are hitting the point of diminishing returns....but those are still sizable returns.
I mean, look at it http://origin.playstationlifestyle.net/assets/uploads/2010/02/Cyclops-Eye-Rip-Comparison-.jpg
GoW2 was the better game but that's more because GoW3 just was like, dragged out as fuck because it was pretty much just the ending of God of War 2 with no real respectable reason to have an arc of it's own.

Yes GoW 3 looked better. Things were sharper clearer. Better sparkly effects. But the game itself was pretty close to exactly the same as GoW 2. Same gameplay. Same enjoyment. Same overall player experience. Were those slightly improved graphics worth the cost? Did they add so much to the end user experience That they made it worth needing at a minimum 3x the production staff to create?

This is the same shit we are seeing going on in Hollywood these days. The costs of producing these lush budget summer movies have grown beyond the revenue streams ability to reasonably recover them for little actual practical benefit to the end viewer. Look at those spectacular "knocking down buildings" sequences in Man of Steel. They cost 10's of millions. But how much did 40 continuous minutes of them bring to the movie? Did they not comunicate much the same experience for a much cheaper price way back in 1980?

For FPS fans, do you get more or the same level of enjoyment from an online matchup of the current version of CoD or from Team Fortress 2? Yes CoD "looks" much better. But does that really improve or add to the gameplay? And is that "looks better" worth the obscene costs and all of the negative effects that it piles on the industry? At what point do we finally walk away from that old paradigm of "better graphics always = better games"?

Graphics do not cost THAT much. The reason GoW3 had such a need for money was because it was made on limited hardware and OPTIMIZATION is extremely expensive. That, and some other stuff such as PR and marketing, voice acting and so on probably also was responsible.
Take for an example Metro Last Light. That game is MUCH more graphically advanced than GoW3. And yet it was done by 90 people with 1/10 of GoW3's budget. Same thing with, lets say, STALKER Clear Sky, which also had better AI.

Oh, and TF2 and CoD are quite comparable overall. CoD is probably slightly more graphically intensive, but TF2 does actually tax the CPU with better physics and more dynamic objects than CoD.

Good post dude, some very good points there.

 

[faefrost]

And here is an example of how little graphics actually matter. Look at God of War 3 on PS3, then look at its PS2 predecessor God of War 2. The gameplay is essentially the same. The game experience is virtually identical. GoW3 looks slightly better because it was truly tweaked to use all of the PS3's power. But it adds so little to the game experience vs the previous that the overall fun factor and value is the same for either version. But 3 probably cost 4x more to make.

Sorry but god of war 3 looks more than slightly better than god of war 2. Like I could see ow somewhere between them you are hitting the point of diminishing returns....but those are still sizable returns.
I mean, look at it http://origin.playstationlifestyle.net/assets/uploads/2010/02/Cyclops-Eye-Rip-Comparison-.jpg
GoW2 was the better game but that's more because GoW3 just was like, dragged out as fuck because it was pretty much just the ending of God of War 2 with no real respectable reason to have an arc of it's own.

Yes GoW 3 looked better. Things were sharper clearer. Better sparkly effects. But the game itself was pretty close to exactly the same as GoW 2. Same gameplay. Same enjoyment. Same overall player experience. Were those slightly improved graphics worth the cost? Did they add so much to the end user experience That they made it worth needing at a minimum 3x the production staff to create?

This is the same shit we are seeing going on in Hollywood these days. The costs of producing these lush budget summer movies have grown beyond the revenue streams ability to reasonably recover them for little actual practical benefit to the end viewer. Look at those spectacular "knocking down buildings" sequences in Man of Steel. They cost 10's of millions. But how much did 40 continuous minutes of them bring to the movie? Did they not comunicate much the same experience for a much cheaper price way back in 1980?

For FPS fans, do you get more or the same level of enjoyment from an online matchup of the current version of CoD or from Team Fortress 2? Yes CoD "looks" much better. But does that really improve or add to the gameplay? And is that "looks better" worth the obscene costs and all of the negative effects that it piles on the industry? At what point do we finally walk away from that old paradigm of "better graphics always = better games"?

Graphics do not cost THAT much. The reason GoW3 had such a need for money was because it was made on limited hardware and OPTIMIZATION is extremely expensive. That, and some other stuff such as PR and marketing, voice acting and so on probably also was responsible.
Take for an example Metro Last Light. That game is MUCH more graphically advanced than GoW3. And yet it was done by 90 people with 1/10 of GoW3's budget. Same thing with, lets say, STALKER Clear Sky, which also had better AI.

Oh, and TF2 and CoD are quite comparable overall. CoD is probably slightly more graphically intensive, but TF2 does actually tax the CPU with better physics and more dynamic objects than CoD.

Graphics DO cost that much. Really they do. The shear amount of digital art department man hours required to develop for a higher resolution, graphically superior game can be staggering. In a few cases being unprepared for that change can and has killed games. When you double the polygon count you vastly increase the man hours needed to color in those polygons. And this escalates exponentially throughout the development process. Remember, while most games are built around common third party engines these days, the games art and appearance is something unique to each game. The artwork has to be built pretty much from scratch for each game. Probably 30-40% + of the total man hours poured into a game development is art related.

One of the better examples of this (granted a little dated now) Was Asherons Call 2. The game failed and closed not simply becauseof chat server bugs, but because the game could not deliver what the players were expecting in terms of content. In the prior game Asherons Call players had grown accustomed to monthly content patches that progressed the story and the world forward. These were great patches that would easily add 2 weeks to a months worth of content for the players to enjoy every month. Maybe 5 or 6 new dungeons. A bunch of new loot etc. But AC1 had a fairly crude graphics engine. a few people could easily put it all together in a month. Then they put out the sequel with what was then the best MMO graphics engine anyone had ever seen. And suddenly those monthly content patches seemed to get real lean. Where players used to get at a minimum a week or twos worth of content, the new games patches were lucky to give them an hour. If it used to take a dev an hour to design a new sword and add it to the game, it now took 10+ hours, just for that one sword. At the higher level of graphics they could not produce content to keep pace with the players ability to devour it. It took more and more people to do less and less.

Graphic fidelity is wonderful to a point. But at the end of the day it is far surpassed by simple better art direction and good game design. And there reaches a point where finer and finer graphics are not worth the costs being thrown at them.

 

[Soopy]

And here is an example of how little graphics actually matter. Look at God of War 3 on PS3, then look at its PS2 predecessor God of War 2. The gameplay is essentially the same. The game experience is virtually identical. GoW3 looks slightly better because it was truly tweaked to use all of the PS3's power. But it adds so little to the game experience vs the previous that the overall fun factor and value is the same for either version. But 3 probably cost 4x more to make.

Sorry but god of war 3 looks more than slightly better than god of war 2. Like I could see ow somewhere between them you are hitting the point of diminishing returns....but those are still sizable returns.
I mean, look at it http://origin.playstationlifestyle.net/assets/uploads/2010/02/Cyclops-Eye-Rip-Comparison-.jpg
GoW2 was the better game but that's more because GoW3 just was like, dragged out as fuck because it was pretty much just the ending of God of War 2 with no real respectable reason to have an arc of it's own.

Yes GoW 3 looked better. Things were sharper clearer. Better sparkly effects. But the game itself was pretty close to exactly the same as GoW 2. Same gameplay. Same enjoyment. Same overall player experience. Were those slightly improved graphics worth the cost? Did they add so much to the end user experience That they made it worth needing at a minimum 3x the production staff to create?

This is the same shit we are seeing going on in Hollywood these days. The costs of producing these lush budget summer movies have grown beyond the revenue streams ability to reasonably recover them for little actual practical benefit to the end viewer. Look at those spectacular "knocking down buildings" sequences in Man of Steel. They cost 10's of millions. But how much did 40 continuous minutes of them bring to the movie? Did they not comunicate much the same experience for a much cheaper price way back in 1980?

For FPS fans, do you get more or the same level of enjoyment from an online matchup of the current version of CoD or from Team Fortress 2? Yes CoD "looks" much better. But does that really improve or add to the gameplay? And is that "looks better" worth the obscene costs and all of the negative effects that it piles on the industry? At what point do we finally walk away from that old paradigm of "better graphics always = better games"?

Graphics do not cost THAT much. The reason GoW3 had such a need for money was because it was made on limited hardware and OPTIMIZATION is extremely expensive. That, and some other stuff such as PR and marketing, voice acting and so on probably also was responsible.
Take for an example Metro Last Light. That game is MUCH more graphically advanced than GoW3. And yet it was done by 90 people with 1/10 of GoW3's budget. Same thing with, lets say, STALKER Clear Sky, which also had better AI.

Oh, and TF2 and CoD are quite comparable overall. CoD is probably slightly more graphically intensive, but TF2 does actually tax the CPU with better physics and more dynamic objects than CoD.

Graphics DO cost that much. Really they do. The shear amount of digital art department man hours required to develop for a higher resolution, graphically superior game can be staggering. In a few cases being unprepared for that change can and has killed games. When you double the polygon count you vastly increase the man hours needed to color in those polygons. And this escalates exponentially throughout the development process. Remember, while most games are built around common third party engines these days, the games art and appearance is something unique to each game. The artwork has to be built pretty much from scratch for each game. Probably 30-40% + of the total man hours poured into a game development is art related.

One of the better examples of this (granted a little dated now) Was Asherons Call 2. The game failed and closed not simply becauseof chat server bugs, but because the game could not deliver what the players were expecting in terms of content. In the prior game Asherons Call players had grown accustomed to monthly content patches that progressed the story and the world forward. These were great patches that would easily add 2 weeks to a months worth of content for the players to enjoy every month. Maybe 5 or 6 new dungeons. A bunch of new loot etc. But AC1 had a fairly crude graphics engine. a few people could easily put it all together in a month. Then they put out the sequel with what was then the best MMO graphics engine anyone had ever seen. And suddenly those monthly content patches seemed to get real lean. Where players used to get at a minimum a week or twos worth of content, the new games patches were lucky to give them an hour. If it used to take a dev an hour to design a new sword and add it to the game, it now took 10+ hours, just for that one sword. At the higher level of graphics they could not produce content to keep pace with the players ability to devour it. It took more and more people to do less and less.

Graphic fidelity is wonderful to a point. But at the end of the day it is far surpassed by simple better art direction and good game design. And there reaches a point where finer and finer graphics are not worth the costs being thrown at them.

So how do you explain TW2 and other indie games with exceptional graphical quality and comparatively minuscule budgets?

AAA development is simply over bloated with inconsequential crap.

 

[Lunar Templar]

and here I was ALMOST expecting to see something OTHER then graphics, silly me. Come back when they hold something that actually matters back.

 

[faefrost]

And here is an example of how little graphics actually matter. Look at God of War 3 on PS3, then look at its PS2 predecessor God of War 2. The gameplay is essentially the same. The game experience is virtually identical. GoW3 looks slightly better because it was truly tweaked to use all of the PS3's power. But it adds so little to the game experience vs the previous that the overall fun factor and value is the same for either version. But 3 probably cost 4x more to make.

Sorry but god of war 3 looks more than slightly better than god of war 2. Like I could see ow somewhere between them you are hitting the point of diminishing returns....but those are still sizable returns.
I mean, look at it http://origin.playstationlifestyle.net/assets/uploads/2010/02/Cyclops-Eye-Rip-Comparison-.jpg
GoW2 was the better game but that's more because GoW3 just was like, dragged out as fuck because it was pretty much just the ending of God of War 2 with no real respectable reason to have an arc of it's own.

Yes GoW 3 looked better. Things were sharper clearer. Better sparkly effects. But the game itself was pretty close to exactly the same as GoW 2. Same gameplay. Same enjoyment. Same overall player experience. Were those slightly improved graphics worth the cost? Did they add so much to the end user experience That they made it worth needing at a minimum 3x the production staff to create?

This is the same shit we are seeing going on in Hollywood these days. The costs of producing these lush budget summer movies have grown beyond the revenue streams ability to reasonably recover them for little actual practical benefit to the end viewer. Look at those spectacular "knocking down buildings" sequences in Man of Steel. They cost 10's of millions. But how much did 40 continuous minutes of them bring to the movie? Did they not comunicate much the same experience for a much cheaper price way back in 1980?

For FPS fans, do you get more or the same level of enjoyment from an online matchup of the current version of CoD or from Team Fortress 2? Yes CoD "looks" much better. But does that really improve or add to the gameplay? And is that "looks better" worth the obscene costs and all of the negative effects that it piles on the industry? At what point do we finally walk away from that old paradigm of "better graphics always = better games"?

Graphics do not cost THAT much. The reason GoW3 had such a need for money was because it was made on limited hardware and OPTIMIZATION is extremely expensive. That, and some other stuff such as PR and marketing, voice acting and so on probably also was responsible.
Take for an example Metro Last Light. That game is MUCH more graphically advanced than GoW3. And yet it was done by 90 people with 1/10 of GoW3's budget. Same thing with, lets say, STALKER Clear Sky, which also had better AI.

Oh, and TF2 and CoD are quite comparable overall. CoD is probably slightly more graphically intensive, but TF2 does actually tax the CPU with better physics and more dynamic objects than CoD.

Graphics DO cost that much. Really they do. The shear amount of digital art department man hours required to develop for a higher resolution, graphically superior game can be staggering. In a few cases being unprepared for that change can and has killed games. When you double the polygon count you vastly increase the man hours needed to color in those polygons. And this escalates exponentially throughout the development process. Remember, while most games are built around common third party engines these days, the games art and appearance is something unique to each game. The artwork has to be built pretty much from scratch for each game. Probably 30-40% + of the total man hours poured into a game development is art related.

One of the better examples of this (granted a little dated now) Was Asherons Call 2. The game failed and closed not simply becauseof chat server bugs, but because the game could not deliver what the players were expecting in terms of content. In the prior game Asherons Call players had grown accustomed to monthly content patches that progressed the story and the world forward. These were great patches that would easily add 2 weeks to a months worth of content for the players to enjoy every month. Maybe 5 or 6 new dungeons. A bunch of new loot etc. But AC1 had a fairly crude graphics engine. a few people could easily put it all together in a month. Then they put out the sequel with what was then the best MMO graphics engine anyone had ever seen. And suddenly those monthly content patches seemed to get real lean. Where players used to get at a minimum a week or twos worth of content, the new games patches were lucky to give them an hour. If it used to take a dev an hour to design a new sword and add it to the game, it now took 10+ hours, just for that one sword. At the higher level of graphics they could not produce content to keep pace with the players ability to devour it. It took more and more people to do less and less.

Graphic fidelity is wonderful to a point. But at the end of the day it is far surpassed by simple better art direction and good game design. And there reaches a point where finer and finer graphics are not worth the costs being thrown at them.

So how do you explain TW2 and other indie games with exceptional graphical quality and comparatively minuscule budgets?

AAA development is simply over bloated with inconsequential crap.

By TW2 do you mean Two Worlds 2? A game that while gorgeous in screenshots was characterized by excessive graphics glitches (and the publisher actively bribing and blackmailing gaming review media to excuse or cover up that fact and not downrank the game because of it?) Yeah! That would be good art direction mixed with very very poor graphics QC. (remember those "exponential production escalations" that I mentioned? Well QC'ing the higher rez graphics is one of those. Higher graphics means more things that can cause tears, clipping, frame rate issues etc etc. But if you just ignore all that and publish the game anyway yeah you can really lowball the costs.

 

[Soopy]

And here is an example of how little graphics actually matter. Look at God of War 3 on PS3, then look at its PS2 predecessor God of War 2. The gameplay is essentially the same. The game experience is virtually identical. GoW3 looks slightly better because it was truly tweaked to use all of the PS3's power. But it adds so little to the game experience vs the previous that the overall fun factor and value is the same for either version. But 3 probably cost 4x more to make.

Sorry but god of war 3 looks more than slightly better than god of war 2. Like I could see ow somewhere between them you are hitting the point of diminishing returns....but those are still sizable returns.
I mean, look at it http://origin.playstationlifestyle.net/assets/uploads/2010/02/Cyclops-Eye-Rip-Comparison-.jpg
GoW2 was the better game but that's more because GoW3 just was like, dragged out as fuck because it was pretty much just the ending of God of War 2 with no real respectable reason to have an arc of it's own.

Yes GoW 3 looked better. Things were sharper clearer. Better sparkly effects. But the game itself was pretty close to exactly the same as GoW 2. Same gameplay. Same enjoyment. Same overall player experience. Were those slightly improved graphics worth the cost? Did they add so much to the end user experience That they made it worth needing at a minimum 3x the production staff to create?

This is the same shit we are seeing going on in Hollywood these days. The costs of producing these lush budget summer movies have grown beyond the revenue streams ability to reasonably recover them for little actual practical benefit to the end viewer. Look at those spectacular "knocking down buildings" sequences in Man of Steel. They cost 10's of millions. But how much did 40 continuous minutes of them bring to the movie? Did they not comunicate much the same experience for a much cheaper price way back in 1980?

For FPS fans, do you get more or the same level of enjoyment from an online matchup of the current version of CoD or from Team Fortress 2? Yes CoD "looks" much better. But does that really improve or add to the gameplay? And is that "looks better" worth the obscene costs and all of the negative effects that it piles on the industry? At what point do we finally walk away from that old paradigm of "better graphics always = better games"?

Graphics do not cost THAT much. The reason GoW3 had such a need for money was because it was made on limited hardware and OPTIMIZATION is extremely expensive. That, and some other stuff such as PR and marketing, voice acting and so on probably also was responsible.
Take for an example Metro Last Light. That game is MUCH more graphically advanced than GoW3. And yet it was done by 90 people with 1/10 of GoW3's budget. Same thing with, lets say, STALKER Clear Sky, which also had better AI.

Oh, and TF2 and CoD are quite comparable overall. CoD is probably slightly more graphically intensive, but TF2 does actually tax the CPU with better physics and more dynamic objects than CoD.

Graphics DO cost that much. Really they do. The shear amount of digital art department man hours required to develop for a higher resolution, graphically superior game can be staggering. In a few cases being unprepared for that change can and has killed games. When you double the polygon count you vastly increase the man hours needed to color in those polygons. And this escalates exponentially throughout the development process. Remember, while most games are built around common third party engines these days, the games art and appearance is something unique to each game. The artwork has to be built pretty much from scratch for each game. Probably 30-40% + of the total man hours poured into a game development is art related.

One of the better examples of this (granted a little dated now) Was Asherons Call 2. The game failed and closed not simply becauseof chat server bugs, but because the game could not deliver what the players were expecting in terms of content. In the prior game Asherons Call players had grown accustomed to monthly content patches that progressed the story and the world forward. These were great patches that would easily add 2 weeks to a months worth of content for the players to enjoy every month. Maybe 5 or 6 new dungeons. A bunch of new loot etc. But AC1 had a fairly crude graphics engine. a few people could easily put it all together in a month. Then they put out the sequel with what was then the best MMO graphics engine anyone had ever seen. And suddenly those monthly content patches seemed to get real lean. Where players used to get at a minimum a week or twos worth of content, the new games patches were lucky to give them an hour. If it used to take a dev an hour to design a new sword and add it to the game, it now took 10+ hours, just for that one sword. At the higher level of graphics they could not produce content to keep pace with the players ability to devour it. It took more and more people to do less and less.

Graphic fidelity is wonderful to a point. But at the end of the day it is far surpassed by simple better art direction and good game design. And there reaches a point where finer and finer graphics are not worth the costs being thrown at them.

So how do you explain TW2 and other indie games with exceptional graphical quality and comparatively minuscule budgets?

AAA development is simply over bloated with inconsequential crap.

By TW2 do you mean Two Worlds 2? A game that while gorgeous in screenshots was characterized by excessive graphics glitches (and the publisher actively bribing and blackmailing gaming review media to excuse or cover up that fact and not downrank the game because of it?) Yeah! That would be good art direction mixed with very very poor graphics QC. (remember those "exponential production escalations" that I mentioned? Well QC'ing the higher rez graphics is one of those. Higher graphics means more things that can cause tears, clipping, frame rate issues etc etc. But if you just ignore all that and publish the game anyway yeah you can really lowball the costs.

No, I mean The Witcher 2.

 

[mike1921]

And here is an example of how little graphics actually matter. Look at God of War 3 on PS3, then look at its PS2 predecessor God of War 2. The gameplay is essentially the same. The game experience is virtually identical. GoW3 looks slightly better because it was truly tweaked to use all of the PS3's power. But it adds so little to the game experience vs the previous that the overall fun factor and value is the same for either version. But 3 probably cost 4x more to make.

Sorry but god of war 3 looks more than slightly better than god of war 2. Like I could see ow somewhere between them you are hitting the point of diminishing returns....but those are still sizable returns.
I mean, look at it http://origin.playstationlifestyle.net/assets/uploads/2010/02/Cyclops-Eye-Rip-Comparison-.jpg
GoW2 was the better game but that's more because GoW3 just was like, dragged out as fuck because it was pretty much just the ending of God of War 2 with no real respectable reason to have an arc of it's own.

Yes GoW 3 looked better. Things were sharper clearer. Better sparkly effects. But the game itself was pretty close to exactly the same as GoW 2. Same gameplay. Same enjoyment. Same overall player experience. Were those slightly improved graphics worth the cost? Did they add so much to the end user experience That they made it worth needing at a minimum 3x the production staff to create?

This is the same shit we are seeing going on in Hollywood these days. The costs of producing these lush budget summer movies have grown beyond the revenue streams ability to reasonably recover them for little actual practical benefit to the end viewer. Look at those spectacular "knocking down buildings" sequences in Man of Steel. They cost 10's of millions. But how much did 40 continuous minutes of them bring to the movie? Did they not comunicate much the same experience for a much cheaper price way back in 1980?

For FPS fans, do you get more or the same level of enjoyment from an online matchup of the current version of CoD or from Team Fortress 2? Yes CoD "looks" much better. But does that really improve or add to the gameplay? And is that "looks better" worth the obscene costs and all of the negative effects that it piles on the industry? At what point do we finally walk away from that old paradigm of "better graphics always = better games"?

The way I see it is, if you have good reason to think you'll turn a profit you could put billions into graphics for all I care. My problem isn't overblown budgets per se it's overblown budgets that don't match the game's odds of success. GoW3 was a guaranteed blockbuster hit as was Avatar so the way I see it as long as they turn a profit they can spend the GDP of a country on special effects. My problem is when a game that isn't so guaranteed t do well, like Tomb Raider shouldn't have had a budget so high that 3.6 million sales at launch is seen as bad. I didn't see man of steel, but if they were impressive to the audience was it money wasted?

I honesty don't think CoD looks better, I think it looks boring. TF2 oozes charm out of every orifice. Looks are a big part of the experience though. A TF2 that looks like CoD would be a much different game. And I feel like a spec ops with say early-mid ps2 era graphics would probably be a worse game for it.

 

[Dragonbums]

Then...buy a new computer if it's that shit? I'm fairly certain you can get a decent gaming computer for $500 (xbone price, I think we could safetly say if you're comparing it PS4 you can save $100 easily off of steam sales and bundles and not paying $50-$60 a year to play games online).
In fact: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883113263
Fairly certain that's more than enough to last you for years and years.

I'm assuming by memory you mean storage: large amounts of storage isn't really that big of a deal anymore, external hard drives exist and as you can see that computer just gives you a terabyte. You could get a 1TB external for $100 if you really want and don't want to add another drive.

Why is the amount of processing power your art takes relevant? You're not gaming at the same time you're doing your art, are you? Like I guess if you demand you do them both at the same time that would maybe be an issue but....that seems pretty fucking weird to me.

yes, I know that if you want to play games you'll buy a console, I just think that's a horrible mentality and that PC's are infinitely superior for gaming and it just seems to be evidence of closed mindedness, "NO I USE THIS KIND OF DEVICE FOR THIS TASK, I DON'T CARE WHICH IS BETTER I WANT THE DEDICATED ONE".

You are completely missing the point.
I just told you that the day my computer dies on me is the day I will buy a new computer. This is the same mentality of a lot of computer users.
Most of them- me included will not waste the time and effort getting to know the ins and outs of a computer to build one. We will simply buy a console because it is easier. We put in the CD and it runs at very acceptable levels of graphics.
If PC was truly superior to gaming then it would've dominated by now. However it doesn't. And it doesn't look like it will anytime soon.
You never see big E3 conferences where anyone talks about gaming on the PC. Or talk about PC exclusives. It's all about the consoles and everyone knows it.
Saying that those who don't want to game on the PC are closeminded is a closeminded statement in itself.
It is a very valid reason for people to want a machine 100% dedicated to playing games. The refusal to see the benefits and reasons as to why someone would want to use a console to play games on as anything other than self centeredness is the reason why PC gamers have garnered such a negative reputation from everyone outside the gaming community.

Also do you understand that programs take up processing power when in use? The bigger the file is, the more energy my computer is putting into it to make sure it runs at optimal speed. Do I play games at the same time? No. However the space those games take up on my computer do not help with the load.
It's the reason why the head designer at Platinum Games says he doesn't like gaming on his PC. In fact, he doesn't game on his PC at all.
He does his work on the PC. Model files and modeling programs take up an enormous amount of space on computers, and he states that adding games to it will not make it any better.
It's clear the guy knows the ins and outs of computers, however people were quick to jump on his back and flame the shit out of him for saying anything even remotely a flaw in "PC Gaming Master Race"

Also $100 bucks for an external hard drive?
That $100 bucks can do a lot for people.
You say that like it's chump change. It's not.
I can buy a new tablet with that kind of money.
I can get a decent amount of groceries with money like that.
Do you think the average person with bills to pay, and taxes to file is just going to throw in $100.00 for an external hard drive like that?
Especially in this economy?

 

[dashiz94]

Seriously, this is why I can't stand PC gamers sometimes. Fuck graphics. As long as the game doesn't look like shit, I don't care if the arm hair is animated on a character. Consoles are there for people who don't want to deal with all the tech elements of PCs, and just want to plug in a game and fucking play. Worrying about graphics is stupid, I wish people would stop caring about them, fuck graphics.

 

[mike1921]

Then...buy a new computer if it's that shit? I'm fairly certain you can get a decent gaming computer for $500 (xbone price, I think we could safetly say if you're comparing it PS4 you can save $100 easily off of steam sales and bundles and not paying $50-$60 a year to play games online).
In fact: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883113263
Fairly certain that's more than enough to last you for years and years.

I'm assuming by memory you mean storage: large amounts of storage isn't really that big of a deal anymore, external hard drives exist and as you can see that computer just gives you a terabyte. You could get a 1TB external for $100 if you really want and don't want to add another drive.

Why is the amount of processing power your art takes relevant? You're not gaming at the same time you're doing your art, are you? Like I guess if you demand you do them both at the same time that would maybe be an issue but....that seems pretty fucking weird to me.

yes, I know that if you want to play games you'll buy a console, I just think that's a horrible mentality and that PC's are infinitely superior for gaming and it just seems to be evidence of closed mindedness, "NO I USE THIS KIND OF DEVICE FOR THIS TASK, I DON'T CARE WHICH IS BETTER I WANT THE DEDICATED ONE".

You are completely missing the point.
I just told you that the day my computer dies on me is the day I will buy a new computer. This is the same mentality of a lot of computer users.
Most of them- me included will not waste the time and effort getting to know the ins and outs of a computer to build one. We will simply buy a console because it is easier. We put in the CD and it runs at very acceptable levels of graphics.
If PC was truly superior to gaming then it would've dominated by now. However it doesn't. And it doesn't look like it will anytime soon.

People having a bad mentality is not the fault of PCs.

I just linked you to a computer that will be perfectly fine to run anything in the next 5 or so years, you're telling me you don't care enough about gaming to at the very least ask someone who does care to point you to one of those? Like, just buy it , I'm not saying to build it yourself, buy it and plug everything in. PC gaming community really shot themself in the foot by acting as if you can't use a prebuilt, like yes it'd probably be worth it to assemble it yourself but for the love of god there's no reason you should feel like you have to. And it's not exactly hard to have a basic grasp of what's good or bad, I can't tell you a thing about that graphics card, or really any of that hardware, I just have a very basic grasp of what number indicated a graphics card is recent, how much ram is good, and what processors are somewhat recent. l

You never see big E3 conferences where anyone talks about gaming on the PC. Or talk about PC exclusives. It's all about the consoles and everyone knows it.
Saying that those who don't want to game on the PC are closeminded is a closeminded statement in itself.
It is a very valid reason for people to want a machine 100% dedicated to playing games. The refusal to see the benefits and reasons as to why someone would want to use a console to play games on as anything other than self centeredness is the reason why PC gamers have garnered such a negative reputation from everyone outside the gaming community.

Demanding anything being dedicated without a reason the dedicated thing is better is close mindedness.But fine, be that way, every console also functions as a DVD player (or I assume the wii does), every console functions as a netflix box, every console functions as a storefront, now you can't play any games except arguably those on handhelds because you have some backwards notion that a dedicated system is inherently better. There's a reason everyone's moving to smart phones, and that's because having a dedicated piece of hardware for anything is becoming outdated outdated.

I refuse to see benefits that don't exist, the only benefits to consoles are exclusives and start up times (and even then I'm on somewhat old tech maybe start up times faster than console are reasonably possible).

Also do you understand that programs take up processing power when in use? The bigger the file is, the more energy my computer is putting into it to make sure it runs at optimal speed. Do I play games at the same time? No. However the space those games take up on my computer do not help with the load.
It's the reason why the head designer at Platinum Games says he doesn't like gaming on his PC. In fact, he doesn't game on his PC at all.

Wait, what the fuck are you talking about. Yes they take up processing power, WHEN IN USE, they shouldn't be in use while you're gaming.....The more energy your computer is putting in....ok? Space being taken up does not really effect the load times, I mean maybe if there's less than 15% left but in general that's not a problem for people. No idea how much space your digital art takes but...It seems to me like average computers come with 500gb now and I know most people don't use 40% let alone 85% of that.

He does his work on the PC. Model files and modeling programs take up an enormous amount of space on computers, and he states that adding games to it will not make it any better.
It's clear the guy knows the ins and outs of computers, however people were quick to jump on his back and flame the shit out of him for saying anything even remotely a flaw in "PC Gaming Master Race"

Or maybe because he's wrong? Or Could easily just get more storage?

Also $100 bucks for an external hard drive?
That $100 bucks can do a lot for people.
You say that like it's chump change. It's not.
I can buy a new tablet with that kind of money.
I can get a decent amount of groceries with money like that.
Do you think the average person with bills to pay, and taxes to file is just going to throw in $100.00 for an external hard drive like that?
Especially in this economy?

Dude, the thing came with a 1TB hard drive, I think the average person who can fill a 1TB hard drive can afford a 1TB external.

And, like I said, if you're a gamer, you'll save $100 off of other things easily because games are cheaper. Fuck, regardless of system if you play online: You pay that every two years. If you're living paycheck-to-paycheck and can't afford to look more long term with $100 I doubt you'll need an external. And if they will there's a good chance they'll need replacement hard drives for whatever console they're on anyway.

 

[Starik20X6]

"Necessity is the mother of invention"​

With that in mind, I'm a firm believer in the idea that restrictions are one of the main driving forces of creative greatness. When you've got limitations, you have to be creative and work around them to create something astonishing.

Remember when every character could only have 3 colours? When the AI was limited to walking around in random circles? Isn't it funny how those were some of the most creatively brilliant years of gaming's history? Now look at us- we've got the ability to create anything, we are limited only by our imaginations... And what do we make? Samey shooter after samey shooter after samey fucking shooter. And occasionally a samey fantasy game.

Look where most of the original creative ideas are now: the indie games, who, most of the time, don't have the limitless budgets and tech available to the big boys. So what happens? They improvise. They have to use what they have to create something great.

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

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.

One example is the PS3 on Skyrim - console limitations caused the infamous "save bloat" causing an unplayable game.

No, that's just poor design. Anybody who makes a game that doesn't function correctly on a console should be beaten and have their developer license taken away. Unlike a PC, which can have any number of different parts inside it, they know damn well exactly what's inside a console and what it's capable of. There no reason, none, ever, under any circumstances, that a game should stutter and slow down or indeed suffer from that 'save bloat' because the console is choking on the game itself. A bad workman blames his tools and all that.

 

[leviathanmisha]

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.

I agree with this so hard. I had to wait to get a PS3 because finances and stuff since I was heading off to college.

But I have one now and I am planning on getting a PS4.

When it comes to PC's, I went through two laptops, both recently released when I bought them, and they both crapped out within a year, forcing my business to Apple and their products because I can't afford to replace my laptop every year. Repairing PC's can be just as expensive as buying them, because their warranties are flimsy as shit. Which is another reason I've always been more console than PC.

Also, if you are still playing the graphics card, just give up already. I think we would all go back to the 8-bit era if it meant that we actually got halfway decent games when it came to their stories.

 

[endtherapture]

One example is the PS3 on Skyrim - console limitations caused the infamous "save bloat" causing an unplayable game.

No, that's just poor design. Anybody who makes a game that doesn't function correctly on a console should be beaten and have their developer license taken away. Unlike a PC, which can have any number of different parts inside it, they know damn well exactly what's inside a console and what it's capable of. There no reason, none, ever, under any circumstances, that a game should stutter and slow down or indeed suffer from that 'save bloat' because the console is choking on the game itself. A bad workman blames his tools and all that.

Are you saying the design of the PS3 should've made Skyrim even less technically impressive? Because arguably the Xbox and PS3 already held back the game? Should they have removed even more features so it could work on the PS3?

 

[Anthony Corrigan]

Its obvious the answer to this is a no. reason consoles exist is because people buy them, there are various reasons for that, ease of setup, support that you get with a console (there is a 1300 number for Playstation if there is anything wrong with a game or the console, where was that for Diablo 3 when Blizzard were blaming NVIDIA, NVIDIA were blaming Microsoft and Microsoft was blaming Blizzard). More people means more money for games, more money means more things get made, so its quite obvious that the stability, price and whatnot of consoles benefits game development and that this whole thread is troll bait

 

[Wolf In A Bear Suit]

I really have no problem with my graphics on my Xbox 360. I don't feel like making them any better will seriously affect how much I enjoy a game, so no, not really.

 

[Starik20X6]

One example is the PS3 on Skyrim - console limitations caused the infamous "save bloat" causing an unplayable game.

No, that's just poor design. Anybody who makes a game that doesn't function correctly on a console should be beaten and have their developer license taken away. Unlike a PC, which can have any number of different parts inside it, they know damn well exactly what's inside a console and what it's capable of. There no reason, none, ever, under any circumstances, that a game should stutter and slow down or indeed suffer from that 'save bloat' because the console is choking on the game itself. A bad workman blames his tools and all that.

Are you saying the design of the PS3 should've made Skyrim even less technically impressive? Because arguably the Xbox and PS3 already held back the game? Should they have removed even more features so it could work on the PS3?

I'm not asking them to do anything other than provide a game that works, and I'm kind of worried because it seems that's too greater ask. Knowing they were going to release it on the PS3, 360 and PC, they should have made sure the game would function on all systems equally. Or, they could just not release it on the less powerful consoles. Or, they could have made console-specific versions, like they used to with the CoD games on the Wii. Bottom line, they should have made sure the damn game worked properly on the system running it. And this doesn't just go for Skyrim, it goes for any game that doesn't work correctly on a console.