Jaffe: "I Couldn't Care Less About Next-Gen"
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I honestly can't see the next generation doing anything more than "just a bit better". And in that case it simply isn't worth my time anymore.
And current gen games already feel crippled by their monsterously bloated budgets, so my stomach turns and even the thought of a next gen.
Might be time to hang up the old controller, and call it quits.
And current gen games already feel crippled by their monsterously bloated budgets, so my stomach turns and even the thought of a next gen.
Might be time to hang up the old controller, and call it quits.
I don't like the transition from generation to generation either.
To me, it is just "Oh god, I have to pay hundreds of dollars to continue getting new games" kind of deal.
To me, it is just "Oh god, I have to pay hundreds of dollars to continue getting new games" kind of deal.
That was my thinking too. Not that I don't think he has a point, but he's really just a less accomplished Peter Molyneux at this point. He's known a heck of a lot more for opening his mouth than he is for designing relevant games that people actually care about.Matthew94 said:
Wow, so many people here really don't get it...
"We need better AI in our games."
As if the problem with piss porr AI is in the consoles,it's not. The consoles we have right now are perfectly capable of COMPUTING everything just fine, the problem comes in when the budget is 50% graphics, 20% voice acting, 20% advertising and marketting, and then trace amount of actually making a decent game with strong mechanics. Gaming's golden age was a few decades back when graphics were shit but everyone was able to make a game because they weren't insanely expensive to produce. Just look at the PS1, there were so many niche and obscure titles being released on a monhtly basis there was a hidden gem around every corner.
These days it's nothing but the mega arms race for polygon count and marketting circle jerking. Gone are the days when a game could come up with its own engine and mechanics. Now we have the cookie cutter engines that are guaranteed to work while outputting the absolute best graphics ratio because using anything else that might be considered anything below *insert spec here* would be lambasted as ancient.
The "Hardcore" pc crowd thinks they're pushing video games forward but they're not, they're only creating a very harsh environment for game makers so that only the "guaranteed" sellers are actually making headway and all the smaller breeds of games people used to enjoy are dying on the wayside. The problem isn't new hardware, the problem is we've created an industry where one can make a "great" game by ticking boxes. "Does it have great graphics?", "Does it have massive market funding?", "Does it have VA by Nolan North?", If yes to all of these congratulations you're guaranteed to sell millions of them. This is NOT the kind of industry we should be encouraging people! Gah I wish I could go back in time and have the PS1/N64/Dreamcast/GameBoy back as the dominant game systems. Sure the graphics were shit but the games were amazing and different as opposed to the constant stream of shit we're being force fed these days.
"We need better AI in our games."
As if the problem with piss porr AI is in the consoles,it's not. The consoles we have right now are perfectly capable of COMPUTING everything just fine, the problem comes in when the budget is 50% graphics, 20% voice acting, 20% advertising and marketting, and then trace amount of actually making a decent game with strong mechanics. Gaming's golden age was a few decades back when graphics were shit but everyone was able to make a game because they weren't insanely expensive to produce. Just look at the PS1, there were so many niche and obscure titles being released on a monhtly basis there was a hidden gem around every corner.
These days it's nothing but the mega arms race for polygon count and marketting circle jerking. Gone are the days when a game could come up with its own engine and mechanics. Now we have the cookie cutter engines that are guaranteed to work while outputting the absolute best graphics ratio because using anything else that might be considered anything below *insert spec here* would be lambasted as ancient.
The "Hardcore" pc crowd thinks they're pushing video games forward but they're not, they're only creating a very harsh environment for game makers so that only the "guaranteed" sellers are actually making headway and all the smaller breeds of games people used to enjoy are dying on the wayside. The problem isn't new hardware, the problem is we've created an industry where one can make a "great" game by ticking boxes. "Does it have great graphics?", "Does it have massive market funding?", "Does it have VA by Nolan North?", If yes to all of these congratulations you're guaranteed to sell millions of them. This is NOT the kind of industry we should be encouraging people! Gah I wish I could go back in time and have the PS1/N64/Dreamcast/GameBoy back as the dominant game systems. Sure the graphics were shit but the games were amazing and different as opposed to the constant stream of shit we're being force fed these days.
This is a perfect example of what I said above. The game wouldn't have been "miles and away better." It would have been the exact same game only it'd have looked better. It'd have had the same bugs, the same shortcomings in the UI department, the same stripping of spells (NIGHTEYE AND WATERWALKING GAH RAGE) etc only the effects would have been "prettier." Stop equating "game looks" with "game quality" because that just creates more of an environment where publishers say "screw the story/mechanics/fun, give us polygons! Everyone knows graphics ARE the fun in games!"KingsGambit said:
Right, dont blame PCs for something that ALL gamers have been crying for.Deshin said:
I can remember the times of the Megadrive and SNES. The big argument wasnt about gameplay, but grapics.
Same with the PSX, N64 and Saturn. All about the graphics, nothing about the game.
So WE ALL made this 'stream of shit', we all wanted better and better graphics. We all wanted more realistic games. Now we have them, we are all acting like spoilt brats and asking for more gameplay.
But hey, what can you do?
I don't think it's so much the current hardware holding those two aspects back, it's just that developers/publishers/whoever you want to blame aren't pushing in that certain direction because it's just easier to make everything look as pretty as it can be. It's a shame, because the hardware is only as useful as how well it's used, and often times it's not.Cowabungaa said:
Really? You've never heard of Jaffe? He's worked on some pretty big titles like God of War n' whatnot. And who says the next generation wouldn't have an equal, if not more, number of 3rd person brown shooters? The Unreal Engine would just have a 4 at the end instead of a 3.KingsGambit said:
Just because our current technology is old doesn't mean that we should just toss it aside just for the sake of "newness". This "technology for technology's sake" is what got us in this predicament in the first place, we need to stretch our current technology to see what it can do other than how detailed it can render the mud, and few developers are really going that route.
And yet, that's only a problem on the consoles.Deshin said:
If people pick up used copies because they can't afford regular pricing, they're hardly going to come to a platform which (wrongly, in my opinion; although admittedly the price of entry is higher) has the perception of being more expensive. And hasn't had a used game market since the beginning of time (or maybe just after).Adam Jensen said:
Better hardware doesn't just mean prettier games. Compare the size of a game environment in a N64 game to size of the game environments in a typical 360 game. Compare the number of game mechanics running at the same time between said games. Compare the physics (or lack thereof).Deshin said:
By your logic, Half-life 2 have been the same game if it'd been limited to 1998 hardware. HL2 came out in 2004 and HL1 in 1998. That's a 6 year difference. This console generation has already gone on for 7. I'm sure you're aware of the fact that the xbox 360 has a measly 512mb of ram (which Epic games had to push for btw, it was originally going to be 256mb). How much does the average desktop have nowadays? 4-6gb?
So in your Skyrim example, Skyrim may very well NOT have been the same. They might have been able to include new game mechanics. Maybe they'd be able to eliminate the loading times when you enter buildings. Maybe they add voxel terrain allowing you to dig tunnels or deform the terrain in real-time. Maybe they could include more varieties of creatures, dungeons, etc. Maybe they can make the world even larger or more detailed. Maybe they could improve the physics. There's a ton gameplay related stuff that could be done with better hardware.
Not at all. What happened with Skyrim in particular, is that the devs had to find workarounds and clever ways to achieve better results with old tech. Rather than spend more time on crafting the world and player experience (which I will admit are both quite polished in this instance regardless), they had to invest time into stuff that would have been easy with current tech.Deshin said:
DX11 has superceded DX9 by a long way, but because of the popularity of Windows XP on PC, and the prevalence of consoles, games are being made for 2004 hardware that is long past its sell by date. Skyrim would not only have been better looking, it would have been more immersive, more engaging and with a lot more potential for creative ideas by both the devs and community.
They need time to hate on consoles and see it as an attack on graphics. I'm going to throw out there, I've had better times, better gameplay, and more gameplay out of older gen games. Not always, but there are some that definitely do that. My favorite games of this generation didn't even push graphics or hardware that much: they delivered a fun experience.00slash00 said:
Bastion is my top (and often pointed out) example of this. Easily one of the best games of this generation. Our indie market in gaming is the greatest champion of what games can really do.
given that i've stopped caring about this generation of games, save like 2, yeah, the next gen isn't even remotely interesting at this point.
and to be perfectly honest, I'd rather love a repeat of the crash from the 80's >
purge the filth from the industry
and to be perfectly honest, I'd rather love a repeat of the crash from the 80's >
purge the filth from the industryI have to agree with "David Jaffe", were all seeing the effects now, as the technology gets better more is demanded, visually or otherwise, as a result more team members have to be added, increasing costs, its ether that or slower development times, go back 20 years and many of the "top titles" were created by individuals now we have dev teams in the hundreds.
Actually, I think developers are to blame about all that. You can't blame releasing a crappy game on a console. It's as if you're baking a cake and it ends up tasting like ass and then you blame it on the oven. Sure, maybe the oven was dirty before you shoved the cake in and now it also tastes like feet, but for the most part, it's your fault.shintakie10 said:
I don't think a great game needs to be up-to-date with technology in order to be awesome anyway. Games like Scott Pilgrim and even Portal are amazing by themselves. If developers are cutting corners is because they either ran out of money or they just want to release the game now or whatever, but that's never an excuse.
Just looking back at the past consoles and how they've evolved should give us all an idea of the kind of improvement one needs to do before releasing a new console:
PS1: Introduced 3Dimentionality at its fullest, integrated vibrating controllers by default and added dual-analog joysticks.
PS2: Introduced a DVD feature by default, started to get into online gaming, USB peripherals mildly introduced.
PS3: Got into online gaming at its fullest and for free, introduced a virtual store plus a free Blu Ray, music, picture and video storage device, introduced the Sixaxis controller and the MOVE (Even if the idea was borrowed from Nintendo), etc.
The same can be said about the other consoles. Sony's just came to mind first.
So I kinda agree with Jaffe, even though the guy's kind of a prick. Unless the next gen. brings more to the table other than what we already have, then we don't need one. And we should stop asking for one when the ones we have are not even that bad. hell, it's not like we're still on the SNES era. Could we improve the current consoles we have? Yes, there is always room for improvement. But I don't think we're at that point where we can launch a new console without making it look like a v2 of the previous one...right, WiiU?
Unless, you know, they introduce virtual reality gaming to its fullest, like those sci-fi shows do. Then that would be something I'd buy.