This. One of the reasons that a lot of Triple A titles seem bland or average is how expensive making a game has become. As a wise man once said, "Death to good graphics!"Irridium said:
Ubisoft: Bring on the PlayStation 4 and Xbox 1492
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Ahead of PCs? Consoles will be at least 1-2 years behind PCs on the day of their retail releases because of their development cycles. The 360 and PS3 weren't even close to PCs on release. PC processors were faster, had RAM measured in gigabytes, not hundreds of megabytes and 2/3s of the processing power. And, unlike PCs, are not upgradeable in any way (in any performance related way). In fact, a brand new XBox360 Slim bought today, despite having a 45nm processor instead of the original 90nm one, is *slowed down* to match exactly the 6 year old original hardware, as they have to run absolutely identically irrespective of the brand, quality or performance of the differing internal chips and components.samsonguy920 said:
To illustrate, Portal 2 on PC had the exact same number of infuriatingly frequent loading screens as the 360 and PS3. Why? The 360 has only 512MB of RAM and the PS3 an even more pitiful 256MB (albeit very fast). PCs now have 4, 6 or even 8GB of RAM and could have loaded practically the entire damn game into memory and never need a single damned loading screen. Instead the PC version has the same 256mb restriction because it's a cross platform game and we have to put up with the same damn number of loading screens. This is another example of just how much game development is being held back by old, outdated tech.
Next gen? I kept my PS2 for 10 years before it broke. My PS3 is only 3 years old. Fuck Ubisoft. I have every genre I would want and I am not gonna spit out more money for another console. No. That money is intended for an Alienware Laptop.
Graphically, we have maxed out for good. Nothing will look better than MGS4 on a console and nothing will look better than Crysis 2 on a PC.
Graphically, we have maxed out for good. Nothing will look better than MGS4 on a console and nothing will look better than Crysis 2 on a PC.
Why are people to obsessed with graphics? Are gamers really so clueless? Unleashing a new console generation would mean more money spent on graphics and less on actual gameplay. Is that what you people really want?
I realize that tis been a while, but people should realize that while we've had the same console for as long as we have, multiple versions of it have been released. When I look back on it, the only "new old software" I can remember is when nintendo started releasing those colored N64s, and when Plastation released the PS2 slim. On top of that, the older generation of consols didn't have updates. You got what you got and that was it.
So even though we've not had a new consol per-say, we've had plenty of system updates that have added (and removed) instances on the consol as well as new versions of the same ones.
So even though we've not had a new consol per-say, we've had plenty of system updates that have added (and removed) instances on the consol as well as new versions of the same ones.
Quick note- the 360 has 512MB ram shared between the system and the graphics chip (a non-standard setup). It basically has the same amount of RAM as the PS3, just more flexibility in how to use it.KingsGambit said:
Just because you have that much in your system, it doesn't mean everyone else does. Valve didn't cut the maps apart just because of the consoles, they can do that separately just fine without affecting the PC version because Valve isn't a big console whore. Valve recognizes that not everyone has a PC that can run the entirety of Crysis 2 on their ubermonolith, as expecting that is frakking unrealistic(even Crytek recognized that with being very generous in adjusting graphics settings). Prices for new PC's have come down these days, but so has the likelihood of people having a job.KingsGambit said:
When the 360 was released, it did have 512mb of RAM. So did most PC's released at that time. The 360 also came with an Nvidia graphics card that was higher tech than what came with most PC's.
Just because you see advertisements on Dell or Newegg for 8-16GB of RAM and Ludicrous speed graphics cards, that doesn't mean that is what people are buying. It is what brings people in the door to where they buy the system with maybe not even half that power for what they can afford.
As I said in the post, 'most PC's.'
tbh, the Wii is broke :/ MS and Sony might not need new consoles yet, but Nintendo has needed a new one ever since the Wii first came out. i cant even imagine how much money they have lost on potential sales for games they the system just couldnt handle. speaking of which, if they release a new system with the same graphical capabilities as the 360 and PS3, Wii owners wont have to settle for the crappy filler games in all the best game series. no more shovelware Ubisoft gamesTeiraa said:
Thank you so much! This is exactly the point i wanted to make.Dexter111 said:If you open this Guide: http://tinyurl.com/FalconGuide about building yourself a PC and compare it with the Technical Specs of the current Consoles we are slowly getting to GameCube/Playstation compared to PC levels of differences again before the more "Advanced" consoles came out.
The Xbox360 for instance is placed somewhere a lot below the "Minimum" Spec with only 512MB RAM and the ATI Xenos (which is a hybrid between R580 and R600 from 2005-2006, those cards aren't even sold anymore for at least 3+ years). It is even below the "Destitute" build in things like Harddrive space, but especially most damning the amount of RAM.
Games on new consoles are going to get new things like Tesselation, Real Time Radiosity Lighting Technology, Bokeh, improved AI routine APIs etc. not to speak from increased resolutions and framerates (the current consoles love running games at or below 720p at ~30FPS) and level of detail/polygons on both models and textures that will make an immediate difference right out of the box.
Ultimately we are heading towards Real Time Raytracing, it might take another 10 or so years now till games will look like Pixar movies and games can be rendered real time to look like this:
For now they are still rendering those type of things on 32Core Supercomputers and it still isn't Real-Time
A new generation has been overdue for a few years at least already...
This is the only thing I hate about console purists. People even if you choose to game from a 360 or PS3, don't just blind yourself to technological development and go around spouting silly claims. I have a 360, a ps3 and a gaming PC, and the tech on the consoles is so far behind right now that it is starting to hurt the industry as a whole.
What I mean by this is that games matter. Part of what drives improvement in graphics cards, pc tech and technology in general is the huge demand for new and better graphics and speeds that the gaming industry pioneers. The console stagnation is starting to hamper that innovation, as developers going for multi-platform can't even fully optimize their games to current tech.
Do what he says and do a little research, the lag for consoles at the moment is astounding. A game released in 2005 (World of Warcraft) won't run on a console because it lacks the required RAM. Yet you can buy 6 freaking gigs of RAM for less than 50 bucks these days. Time to start moving forward.
The only argument I can see for the immediate need for next gen consoles would be to keep up with the technological advances of the PC. However, I am perfectly content with my consoles and they certainly don't appear to be aging to me just yet. In a way, I don't think it would be particularly fair to the console gamers as many have plunked down quite a bit of coin on their consoles and all the accessories. Would I like a console that improves on everything we're enjoying now? Sure, just not right away.
Skyrim's not a good argument there as the Elder Scrolls didn't really become big news until their second one came out. Besides which, Bethesda's starting to gather notoriety as releasing over-buggy games. It's quite possible Assassin's Creed itself has hit its peak with Brotherhood. I have my doubts the next one will really add anything new.laligag7 said:
I'm just about willing to put good money down that this year is going to be the year of the Independents or Small Companies. True Battlefield 3 and MW3 will sell well, teen robots like those games. But when people think of games that came out in 2011, they will think of Minecraft, LA Noire, and Angry Birds to name a few. None of them produced by EA, Activision, or Ubisoft.
As a future college student who just graduated from high school, doesn't have a steady job and is barely able to afford the games he likes right now- HELL NO! If the next console generation starts up I will be left in the dust. Period. The PS3 would probably keep some support I'm sure, (that is if the past is anything to judge it by) but i don't want to lose the functionality I currently have. There would be no way in hell I would be able to afford a new console, even if I sold my old one. This is only the 7th year. Lets try to aim for 10 or 15 shall we?
Well, basically, the only thing that really seems to be missing right now is the real-time radiosity. Tesselation adds something but not as much. It is, afterall, more polygons, in a way. Instead of using all those resources pimping up the detail on each model they should be devoted to being able to handle more objects and better AI. On that point, yes, current console tech is atrocious in their lag. However, as many have stated, it doesn't seem like the AAA developers have actually used the systems beyond pushing graphics. The gameplay aspects of games are just gathering dust and innovations have not come from pixel-pushing resource hoarding games. Perhaps this point of feeling the strain on their development may spark some creativity. We can only hope. Releasing a new console generation (besides the incrediblly bad timing in economic terms) would reset the graphic race to zero and innovation in gameplay and immersion techniques will again be left as an afterthought.Dexter111 said:If you open this Guide: http://tinyurl.com/FalconGuide about building yourself a PC and compare it with the Technical Specs of the current Consoles we are slowly getting to GameCube/Playstation compared to PC levels of differences again before the more "Advanced" consoles came out.
The Xbox360 for instance is placed somewhere a lot below the "Minimum" Spec with only 512MB RAM and the ATI Xenos (which is a hybrid between R580 and R600 from 2005-2006, those cards aren't even sold anymore for at least 3+ years). It is even below the "Destitute" build in things like Harddrive space, but especially most damning the amount of RAM.
Games on new consoles are going to get new things like Tesselation, Real Time Radiosity Lighting Technology, Bokeh, improved AI routine APIs etc. not to speak from increased resolutions and framerates (the current consoles love running games at or below 720p at ~30FPS) and level of detail/polygons on both models and textures that will make an immediate difference right out of the box.
Ultimately we are heading towards Real Time Raytracing, it might take another 10 or so years now till games will look like Pixar movies and games can be rendered real time to look like this:
For now they are still rendering those type of things on 32Core Supercomputers and it still isn't Real-Time
A new generation has been overdue for a few years at least already...
In summary, better graphic fidelity and processing won't make better games. Better resource allocation to processes other than graphics will. If that requires a new console gen, then so be it, but I'm not convinced that's the case.