Consoles Are Holding Gaming Back

[KungFuJazzHands]

Consoles are indeed holding PC gaming back, not because of graphical limitations. The PC side of the business is constantly getting bombarded with the crap console-centric publishers think PC gamers will be willing to accept. We get subpar console ports. We get cross-platform games that are at 1/10th of their potential because of console hardware constraints. We get pathetic attempts at industry-wide $60 Day One pricing. We get the horribly manipulative DLC schemes that console pubs made so popular. We get games loaded with QTEs and unskippable cinematics because console gamers eat that lousy shit up. We get PC-centric companies wasting massive resources trying to find success in the console market, only to fail miserably because the console fanbase isn't interested.

I wouldn't mind seeing a nice big line drawn in the sand, with both sides sticking to what they do best and ignoring each other.

 

[mike1921]

You know why graphics have been improving less and less recently? Because of a thing called diminishing returns. That's all.

The difference between an object with 100 polygons and one with 1000 is huge. The difference between an object with 100,000 polygons and 200,000 is negligible.

Consoles are in now way holding back gaming. Gaming is first and foremost about gameplay. A game which emphasis on graphics over gameplay is something which would work better as a CGI film than as a game.

Now imagine you have hundreds of units running about.

I would also say that it is actually PC gaming that's holding gaming back or specifically lazy developers and lazy pc gamers.
The Wii brought along decent motions controls with the Wii plus and Apple pushed forward touchscreens with associated gameplay changes. While it is possible to have Wii controls and touchpads on the PC, they were neglected and the task fell to consoles.

Are you calling us lazy for wanting a certain type of control system? Touchscreens are shit for a good number of games because of the lack of tactile confirmation that an action has taken place, wii controls are shit because they take you out of the experience by requiring exertion. I'm waiting for the Oculus Rift since that seems like an actually innovation that's actually superior to the old system.

Your criticisms are slightly contradictory, I'm not sure what to make of them. You complain about feedback but then if it's too much then exertion is a problem.
No doubt if occulous wasn't being backed by famous people it would also be overlooked.

Yes, because that's how it works. The more your attention is brought outside of what you perceive as the fictional world, the worse. If you are given no feedback to make sure you did shit right you will feel forced to focus on the controller. A balance needs to be struck where you notice the feedback enough to know about it but not enough for it to bring your attention elsewhere. The Occulus Rift expands what you view as the fictional world so it'll improve immersion and is likely to make things like motion controls more immersive, since if you look down...there's your arm in the game world, you're more likely to feel like that arm is the arm feeling weight behind it.

Umm, yes you need to raise awareness. It can be the greatest invention of all time, if no one knows aboutt it of course it'll be overlooked. That's not a count against the Oculus, that's just how any reality works.

 

[SinisterDeath]

You know why graphics have been improving less and less recently? Because of a thing called diminishing returns. That's all.

The difference between an object with 100 polygons and one with 1000 is huge. The difference between an object with 100,000 polygons and 200,000 is negligible.

Consoles are in now way holding back gaming. Gaming is first and foremost about gameplay. A game which emphasis on graphics over gameplay is something which would work better as a CGI film than as a game.

There's really no point in discussing Polygons, because that is irrelevant. (mostly)
What it all comes down to is Textures when we are talking about Graphics.

The 3d Models, in most video games, are pretty good. The problem isn't the 3d models. Its the Textures. Consoles have limited Memory, and textures... take up far more memory than 3d models (kinda). There are far more gains graphically, for the PC to scale the Textures up, than to increase the polygon count 50%. (this plays into shadows, and all those annoying graphic-card burning hurtles it jumps through)

Simply having better textures, will increase graphics a staggering amount. (look at Morrowind mods for that example! Ultra-low (by todays standards) polygon counts. Ultra-high Texture quality.. And it looks, just below skyrim, in quality of graphics.)

One of the tricks they did in Metal Gear Solid IV, was pretty interesting.

What they did, was simply make ultra-high quality polygon models, with ultra-high-quality textures, with the best lighting/ect. They then used all that data, to make textures that kept a lot of that shader-detail, so they could apply it to a lower-polygon-model, while keeping much of the shader-quality. (to a point). They obviously scaled down most of the textures to fit the PS3's memory, but.. Hell the game still looks great in 2013.

But they added even more tricks up their sleeves.

Why make a texture of a.. say face. If that face is Symetrical... why does a 1024x1024 face texture.. Need to be of the full face, and not the half? if you instead, make a texture that is 1024x1024 that is even more detailed half-of-a-face. And simply mirror said face on 3d model. Your getting more texture quality, while using less memory. (I'm guessing they somehow only loaded the texture into memory once, not sure how it doesn't double up by mirroring it, but that's what they claimed they did at least)

And if that didn't work, they could just have easily, made a texture that was 512x1024 pixels, using about half-the disc-space, and about the same in-game memory.

They did a lot-of-tiny tricks like that. (I believe this site even had articles all about it, prior to it being released.)

In Short:
To get more out of a game graphically simply upping the polygons is pointless, if your textures look like horse-shit.
Most PC gamers, just want higher quality textures. It achieves the same end-game-purpose, without using as much resources. Vanilla Skyrim on the PC, Looks like crap until you get in some nice HD textures.

 

[BarelyAudible]

You know why graphics have been improving less and less recently? Because of a thing called diminishing returns. That's all.

The difference between an object with 100 polygons and one with 1000 is huge. The difference between an object with 100,000 polygons and 200,000 is negligible.

Consoles are in now way holding back gaming. Gaming is first and foremost about gameplay. A game which emphasis on graphics over gameplay is something which would work better as a CGI film than as a game.

There's really no point in discussing Polygons, because that is irrelevant. (mostly)
What it all comes down to is Textures when we are talking about Graphics.

The 3d Models, in most video games, are pretty good. The problem isn't the 3d models. Its the Textures. Consoles have limited Memory, and textures... take up far more memory than 3d models (kinda). There are far more gains graphically, for the PC to scale the Textures up, than to increase the polygon count 50%. (this plays into shadows, and all those annoying graphic-card burning hurtles it jumps through)

Simply having better textures, will increase graphics a staggering amount. (look at Morrowind mods for that example! Ultra-low (by todays standards) polygon counts. Ultra-high Texture quality.. And it looks, just below skyrim, in quality of graphics.)

One of the tricks they did in Metal Gear Solid IV, was pretty interesting.

What they did, was simply make ultra-high quality polygon models, with ultra-high-quality textures, with the best lighting/ect. They then used all that data, to make textures that kept a lot of that shader-detail, so they could apply it to a lower-polygon-model, while keeping much of the shader-quality. (to a point). They obviously scaled down most of the textures to fit the PS3's memory, but.. Hell the game still looks great in 2013.

But they added even more tricks up their sleeves.

Why make a texture of a.. say face. If that face is Symetrical... why does a 1024x1024 face texture.. Need to be of the full face, and not the half? if you instead, make a texture that is 1024x1024 that is even more detailed half-of-a-face. And simply mirror said face on 3d model. Your getting more texture quality, while using less memory. (I'm guessing they somehow only loaded the texture into memory once, not sure how it doesn't double up by mirroring it, but that's what they claimed they did at least)

And if that didn't work, they could just have easily, made a texture that was 512x1024 pixels, using about half-the disc-space, and about the same in-game memory.

They did a lot-of-tiny tricks like that. (I believe this site even had articles all about it, prior to it being released.)

In Short:
To get more out of a game graphically simply upping the polygons is pointless, if your textures look like horse-shit.
Most PC gamers, just want higher quality textures. It achieves the same end-game-purpose, without using as much resources. Vanilla Skyrim on the PC, Looks like crap until you get in some nice HD textures.

Like a super advanced version of Donkey Kong County?

 

[SinisterDeath]

You know why graphics have been improving less and less recently? Because of a thing called diminishing returns. That's all.

The difference between an object with 100 polygons and one with 1000 is huge. The difference between an object with 100,000 polygons and 200,000 is negligible.

Consoles are in now way holding back gaming. Gaming is first and foremost about gameplay. A game which emphasis on graphics over gameplay is something which would work better as a CGI film than as a game.

There's really no point in discussing Polygons, because that is irrelevant. (mostly)
What it all comes down to is Textures when we are talking about Graphics.

The 3d Models, in most video games, are pretty good. The problem isn't the 3d models. Its the Textures. Consoles have limited Memory, and textures... take up far more memory than 3d models (kinda). There are far more gains graphically, for the PC to scale the Textures up, than to increase the polygon count 50%. (this plays into shadows, and all those annoying graphic-card burning hurtles it jumps through)

Simply having better textures, will increase graphics a staggering amount. (look at Morrowind mods for that example! Ultra-low (by todays standards) polygon counts. Ultra-high Texture quality.. And it looks, just below skyrim, in quality of graphics.)

One of the tricks they did in Metal Gear Solid IV, was pretty interesting.

What they did, was simply make ultra-high quality polygon models, with ultra-high-quality textures, with the best lighting/ect. They then used all that data, to make textures that kept a lot of that shader-detail, so they could apply it to a lower-polygon-model, while keeping much of the shader-quality. (to a point). They obviously scaled down most of the textures to fit the PS3's memory, but.. Hell the game still looks great in 2013.

But they added even more tricks up their sleeves.

Why make a texture of a.. say face. If that face is Symetrical... why does a 1024x1024 face texture.. Need to be of the full face, and not the half? if you instead, make a texture that is 1024x1024 that is even more detailed half-of-a-face. And simply mirror said face on 3d model. Your getting more texture quality, while using less memory. (I'm guessing they somehow only loaded the texture into memory once, not sure how it doesn't double up by mirroring it, but that's what they claimed they did at least)

And if that didn't work, they could just have easily, made a texture that was 512x1024 pixels, using about half-the disc-space, and about the same in-game memory.

They did a lot-of-tiny tricks like that. (I believe this site even had articles all about it, prior to it being released.)

In Short:
To get more out of a game graphically simply upping the polygons is pointless, if your textures look like horse-shit.
Most PC gamers, just want higher quality textures. It achieves the same end-game-purpose, without using as much resources. Vanilla Skyrim on the PC, Looks like crap until you get in some nice HD textures.

Like a super advanced version of Donkey Kong County?

Like the realism texture pack for Minecraft.

Case and point. Minimized Polygons (minecraft)
Crappy textures

HD textures

Simply adding the illusion that something is 3d to a flat surface, accomplishes more than having a ridiculous amount of polygons, and a craptastic texture.

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

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

Pretty much this. The more advanced our graphics get, the harder it gets to advance them further, and right now graphics are pretty damn advanced. The influence of consoles is more in simplicity than anything else. Games can't get too complicated, lest they become PC-only, and then you're cutting-out a massive portion of your potential audience.

 

[JetFury]

Diminishing returns. Now I'm cool

Well I'm not really a pc gamer, really only played a few mmos years ago, the witcher, and a few emus but I can see where the superiority of pcs really lies. If I had a gaming pc that would be the best route to take just for benefits alone. I have friends and last of us on consoles though

 

[4RM3D]

Like the realism texture pack for Minecraft.

Case and point. Minimized Polygons (minecraft)
Crappy textures

HD textures

Simply adding the illusion that something is 3d to a flat surface, accomplishes more than having a ridiculous amount of polygons, and a craptastic texture.

I rest my case.

Then again, Minecraft was never about the graphics. Still, it's interesting to see the huge difference like this.

 

[LAGG]

Not from a tech standpoint and not for graphics. But the trend of games moving from competition and simulation into "cinematic" passive media is related.

I don't think so. Games are moving in that direction because it's what sells reliably. Consoles could do "competition and simulation" along with the best of PCs.

That's what I mean: from a culture (what the install-base wants) and business (what can live off hype and sequels) standpoint not from tech/hardware limitations.

 

[deadish]

Not from a tech standpoint and not for graphics. But the trend of games moving from competition and simulation into "cinematic" passive media is related.

I don't think so. Games are moving in that direction because it's what sells reliably. Consoles could do "competition and simulation" along with the best of PCs.

That's what I mean: from a culture (what the install-base wants) and business (what can live off hype and sequels) standpoint not from tech/hardware limitations.

You speak like it's exclusive to "console culture".

Personally, I don't give a shit about graphics. The graphics from the recent Black Ops 2, or Battlefield 3, mean as much to me as the graphics to games such as Pirates of the Caribbean, Rome Total War or M&B Warband.
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that 'good' graphics sometimes take me out of a game. In Crysis 2 and the aforementioned BF3, I found in geniunely painful in places, and hard to see things throughout. It actually gets annoying and makes me want to play games without the stupid lighting effects amongst other things.

That's not a problem of good graphics, that's a problem of bad design. Look at TF2: you probably wouldn't notice it until you play it for a while, but TF2 actually has really good graphics. It's just that TF2 doesn't sacrifice good visual design for the sake of "realism". If BF3 or 2 or any of the recent COD games had just cut back on the fucking visual clutter, the gameplay would be a lot more bareable. As it is, though, too much shit on screen makes the game boil down to who can spot the brown and grey smear behind all the brown and gray and in front of all the brown and grey before the enemy does, and it's just not fun when you're being beaten more by the scenery than you are your own lack of skill.

Ironically, that's the point of military camo.

 

[Godhead]

Consoles aren't holding back gaming because what they do has little to no effect on PC, and PC games can continue to improve graphics, enhance gameplay and other hogwash. Consoles do that too; they can improve gameplay, and make new innovations on controllers. Not to mention that indie games have made a humongous leap into the spotlight on consoles, PC, and app stores alike.

Really the only way that consoles can be holding gaming back is through shitty ports (which many times are rectified if the PC community is allowed to mod and fix the console to PC ports) a single company developing, producing, and distributing a gaming system (which from a pure capitalist standpoint isn't all too bad because competition and such even if the entry level is ridiculously high). In fact, with the exception of exclusivity and paying to play online PC has a much worse issue with obtrusive DRM.

 

[Laughing Man]

If it weren't consoles, then it would be low end PCs.

Sorry not everyone wants to shell out the money necessary for a high grade PC.

This guy here, the folk blaming consoles for holding gaming back are failing to take in to account that only a fraction of the PC gaming populous have the uber rigs capable of playing Crysis 3 at full chat. A quick look on the Steam survey shows the third most popular GPU is a god damn on CPU Intel HD 3000. Developers make games to sell to the highest number of people and more people own mid to low range gaming rigs than own high end uber spec rigs.