Doom Architect "Not Excited" by Next-Gen Consoles

[matrix3509]

I don't care about resolutions on consoles. I just want new consoles so advances in things like physics and things like the number of objects that can be rendered at 1 time can be made. There is only so much you can do with 512MB of RAM.

I wouldn't count on them being cracked so soon. Next to no progress has been made on the 3DS and the PS3 was only cracked through a really stupid mistake Sony made (the newest FW hasn't been cracked). I'm not sure if next gen will be so easy.

Thats exactly what Carmack is talking about though. None of those extra physics objects make a lick of difference to gameplay. I don't know if you've noticed just how stale gameplay is these days. Its all I can do to just stay awake when I play a AAA game. Also throwing more processing power at a physics engine isn't going to solve shitty physics.

Physics do not affect gameplay? You have played Crysis and Battlefield BC2 haven't you? How about Red Faction Guerilla?

I have played all three of those games. In the first two, they were nothing but gimmicks that added nothing of value. In Red Faction, it was "Look at me! This is the only thing that sets me apart from other cover shooters, so I am going to make the player use it every 5 seconds." Again it was used as a gimmick, except it was given the spotlight that time. I'd use Red Faction as the poster child, in fact, for why physics gimmicks do not make gameplay. World of Goo uses physics in a more engaging way than any of those titles. All of this is besides the point though, which is this: all three of those games are playable on current gen tech.

 

[Woodsey]

'the Wii possessed a mere tenth of the processing power of the other two systems, yet enjoyed incredibly healthy sales figures due to its innovative control scheme.'

Or, y'know, it shoveled shit and suckered people who weren't to know better into buying it.

This guy hasn't been relevant in YEARS.

The guy's a technical genius; doesn't mean you have to agree with him, but he is relevant.

 

[newwiseman]

Why whenever there is talk of a new system do the devs always say we don't need more graphics power instead of, woot more processing power and more system resources for smarter AIs, more shit on screen at once, and maybe now we can get stable frame rates.

It's like they all feel that they'll have to make products that push the Hardware's limits instead of experiences that push their own abilities.

Then again most of the AAA's are just bland eye candy so they have reason to worry.

 

[shintakie10]

I don't care about resolutions on consoles. I just want new consoles so advances in things like physics and things like the number of objects that can be rendered at 1 time can be made. There is only so much you can do with 512MB of RAM.

I wouldn't count on them being cracked so soon. Next to no progress has been made on the 3DS and the PS3 was only cracked through a really stupid mistake Sony made (the newest FW hasn't been cracked). I'm not sure if next gen will be so easy.

Thats exactly what Carmack is talking about though. None of those extra physics objects make a lick of difference to gameplay. I don't know if you've noticed just how stale gameplay is these days. Its all I can do to just stay awake when I play a AAA game. Also throwing more processing power at a physics engine isn't going to solve shitty physics.

Physics do not affect gameplay? You have played Crysis and Battlefield BC2 haven't you? How about Red Faction Guerilla?

I have played all three of those games. In the first two, they were nothing but gimmicks that added nothing of value. In Red Faction, it was "Look at me! This is the only thing that sets me apart from other cover shooters, so I am going to make the player use it every 5 seconds." Again it was used as a gimmick, except it was given the spotlight that time. I'd use Red Faction as the poster child, in fact, for why physics gimmicks do not make gameplay. World of Goo uses physics in a more engaging way than any of those titles. All of this is besides the point though, which is this: all three of those games are playable on current gen tech.

Bad Company 2 only used the physics as a gimmick? Do you understand what a gimmick actually is or do you just use words without knowin their meanin?

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

The problem is most devs who want the next generation are scared that people will realize their games are actually bland, boring copycats that use presentation instead of design to whoo people. It's why I wanna smack Cliffy B upside the head and tell him to actually think for once.

 

[likalaruku]

Virtual Reality games: Giving game haters an excuse to further scapegoat the media, allowing them to claim that developers are purposely blurring the line between fantasy & reality to confuse crazy people.

Phone Games: Darwin Awards approved for all the idiots texting while walking or driving hasn't killed off yet. I read an article last week about a city that padded it's lamp & electric posts because texters were walking into them at an alarming rate.

 

[Twilight_guy]

To be fair, of course Carmack says its easy to program. Anything is easy to program for him.

Also, lol at anyone who immediately decrys the statement because it makes their dick waving contests with PC hardware meaningless.

 

[lacktheknack]

THANK YOU! Someone needed to say it without fear of being flamed by insecure P.C. nerds desperately trying to justify their $5000 rig. Graphics are not, and have never been, what gaming is all about. As it stands, we're seeing terrible problems with people trying to recoup costs on the games they've made even with current gen graphics. Maybe once we've got beyond the situation where stuff like this [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/117931-EA-Aims-to-Broaden-Dead-Space-Audience] happens, we can think about graphics. But not before then.

It's not just graphics, though. There's severe limitations on other hardware, such as RAM and CPU speed.

For instance, an Xbox 360 trying to play this,

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0yeT--9fCgY/TlpSXE-2qiI/AAAAAAAABng/XRj-rPNWhS8/s1600/Dwarf_Fortress_Ascii.png

...would still slow to a crawl during an invasion, water routing, volcanic eruption, large explosion, etc. because of the massive amount of calculations it uses.

Then again, it's John Carmack. He'd probably be able to optimize it, if we ignore the zeppelin-crash that was RAGE.

 

[lacktheknack]

This guy hasn't been relevant in YEARS.

In much the same way that the guy who invented fire isn't relevant anymore, I suppose.

 

[matrix3509]

And there is much to improve. And to call BF3 playable is hilarious, you are aware of the cutbacks they had to make to make the game work on consoles compared to PCs?

Uh I said nothing about Battlefield 3. I have not played Battlefield 3, nor will I ever as long as its on Origin, but that is neither nor there. Yes I am aware of the cutbacks they made to the game...in the graphical department. Oh noes! The console version doesn't use as many polygons as the PC version! What will console fanboys do? WHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAA!

You know you could just sit here all day and think how much more you know about hardware than Carmack, or you could just take the man at his word. Hes been in the trenches with the hardware, and he knows just about everything there is to know about said hardware.

 

[matrix3509]

Bad Company 2 only used the physics as a gimmick? Do you understand what a gimmick actually is or do you just use words without knowin their meanin?

In that it added nothing to the game other than making it hard to see things. Boy talk about engaging, I'm on the edge of my seat here.

 

[matrix3509]

I was referring to the way the player count in MP is drastically reduced compared to the PC.

You are strawmanning by saying I think that I know more than him.

You seem pretty angry when it comes to this, you need to chill. Are you angry over what a disaster Carmack made of RAGE? I hear the launch was abysmal.

Dedicated servers fixes that problem. Thats on the developers, not the hardware. Besides, you want to play with MORE twats online? I don't see how that could fit anyone's definition of fun, but whatever.

 

[matrix3509]

Nope, it was the hardware.

http://bf3blog.com/2011/07/dice-explains-why-consoles-are-limited-to-24-players/

I would rather play with 64 players on a map that is made for 64 players, yes.

Ok, firstly that is the most vague excuse I've ever heard in my life. Secondly, after some more research, it was actually the players that had to be limited, and the map size was cut simply to correct for the number of reduced players. So, again, my comment stands. Dedicated servers removes the processing burden the players make off the host system and onto a server specifically dedicated to the task.