Wii U, PS4 and "Nextbox".

[Beertaster]

From what I figure, a new console means more graphics, more ram , and more memory. Which means larger games with more stuff going on in them. Only problem I can think of is how will developers create these enormous games that fully utilize all the hardware in these consoles. Will all games rise to $70 a piece and make use of everything, or will it just be select AAA titles that have enough money to make the upgrade?

What I'm trying to get at is how in the past a new console meant more freedom for a developer, like from super Nintendo to N64. But now we may find that new consoles go far beyond what a developer can hope to use in the amount of time they have to make a game.

 

[Pingieking]

With lasers and a toastie maker?
nah, i got nothing xD

Lasers have been in gaming consoles for a while.
You just don't have the secret code that lets you control them and shoot your neighbor's cats with it.

*snip*

I second (or would that be third?) you and Supernova's request for AA.

As for the WiiU's capabilities; is it actually going to outperform the PS3? The PS3 is capable of rendering 2 video streams at 120 fps each to produce "splitscreen" 3D. How much better is the WiiU? How well does the Wii U handle, say, the Frostbite 2? The BF3 demo we saw was the PC version (and it was fucking gorgeous), and I'm curious as to how much of that eyegasm they can port over to the consoles.

If anything I'd be worried that while wii2 will lead the charge for the next 2-4 years. Just as it did prior. It will just fall behind again, just as prior.

That's what I was worried about.

 

[nazzer]

I think that the best advancement Microsoft and Sony could make is focusing on dropping the prices of their consoles.

 

[chocolatekake]

*snip*

And that's well and all. But what more is there to integrate? A television/PS4/Blu-Ray player? At that point it's just a TV/VHS player. No advancement. Just consolidation. Unless there's new technology, it's really not that impressive or even cost effective. Because there's only so much you can integrate before it becomes a market failure because it costs too much for everyone involved.

From what I figure, a new console means more graphics, more ram , and more memory. Which means larger games with more stuff going on in them. Only problem I can think of is how will developers create these enormous games that fully utilize all the hardware in these consoles. Will all games rise to $70 a piece and make use of everything, or will it just be select AAA titles that have enough money to make the upgrade?

This is the kind of thing I'd be excited for. Bigger games. Although with some games being huge already (Just Cause 2) it seems a little daunting. Granted Just Cause 2 was primarily expansive geographically. It was pretty sparsely populated, and there really wasn't all that much that was actually happening most of the time.

What I'm trying to get at is how in the past a new console meant more freedom for a developer, like from super Nintendo to N64. But now we may find that new consoles go far beyond what a developer can hope to use in the amount of time they have to make a game.

This is what I was trying to say earlier. Developers are trying to get as much game in as possible, but are sometimes forced to release before they reach the full potential of the game. The longer it takes, the more money it costs to keep working on. And if things continue on this trend, it seems like we'll just end up with the same games, only they look a bit nicer.

 

[SuperNova221]

Overall performance increase == more possibilities on what can be done ingame. Also, consoles need to use some damn AA. I can't stand the lack of AA. Overall, both 360 and PS3 look completely awful graphically. Partly developers fault, but they keep touting it as life-like when it simply doesn't have the power to be anything near lifelike, so they try to hard to make it realistic and it just looks horrid.

What?

I had the ps2 for 10 year, Playing it constantly before I bought the 360. AND I was amazed by the graphics of the new games, Perhaps Im just not spoiled in the graphics department to expect things to not look realistic and that it hardly matters if it brings you fun. And no I think tghe graphics are fine, I don't understand the push for more. Or perhaps you have confused yourself and are refering to aethstetics, Beacuse that is VERY diffrent.

No. I'm not talking about aesthetic. I'm talking about graphical ability. If I was talking about aesthetic I would have stated so.

If you're impressed by PS2 graphics you are extremely easily pleased, they are just outright awful. Yes, yes, you can still have a good aesthetic with those bad graphics, but with extra graphical power you can do so much more with the aesthetic to make a much more immersive looking experience.

I never expect something to look realistic, I'm complaining that they try to make it look realistic, as if that was a good thing, but I wouldn't mind if it at the very least looked realistic when they tried it. Instead we get bland looking games that are trying too hard to be realistic, when they simply don't. Resulting in a horrible visual aesthetic.

As for the push for more? I'll say again, very low standards. I'll also say that it allows so much more to be done, mechanically and aesthetically, so I don't understand why you wouldn't push for more.

 

[SuperNova221]

Overall performance increase == more possibilities on what can be done ingame. Also, consoles need to use some damn AA. I can't stand the lack of AA. Overall, both 360 and PS3 look completely awful graphically. Partly developers fault, but they keep touting it as life-like when it simply doesn't have the power to be anything near lifelike, so they try to hard to make it realistic and it just looks horrid.

What?

I had the ps2 for 10 year, Playing it constantly before I bought the 360. AND I was amazed by the graphics of the new games, Perhaps Im just not spoiled in the graphics department to expect things to not look realistic and that it hardly matters if it brings you fun. And no I think tghe graphics are fine, I don't understand the push for more. Or perhaps you have confused yourself and are refering to aethstetics, Beacuse that is VERY diffrent.

Uhm, do you not know what AA is?
Basically, it "smooths out" the steps that result from diagonal lines on screen. Take for example a game with a chainlink fence. With AA on, it looks very realistic. With AA off (as on a console) it looks absolutely awful. Here's an image for comparison:

There really isn't any reason why this isn't featured in modern consoles, considering it's been standard on the PC for a decade or so. The reason a performance increase is necessary is that AA isn't exactly easy on the GPU.

Shuold also point out that Super-sampling AA goes beyond improving quality of all edges, it also improves the quality of all textures, by internally rendering at twice the size, smoothing it out then scaling it back down. So even applying such a thing onto current gen games would make them look substantially better.

 

[pretentiousname01]

*snip*

And that's well and all. But what more is there to integrate? A television/PS4/Blu-Ray player? At that point it's just a TV/VHS player. No advancement. Just consolidation. Unless there's new technology, it's really not that impressive or even cost effective. Because there's only so much you can integrate before it becomes a market failure because it costs too much for everyone involved.

Unfortunately my crystal ball is in the shop so I cannot tell the future. However using that integration/consolidation as comparison to the previous generation when there was barley any online presence let alone all the functionality you can get today.

The new tech will come and something else crazy will show up. Which will just put nintendo behind tech again. They may have a small lead with the crazy controller shenanigans coming up but that doesn't seem all that impressive when you look at the vita, or ipad style gaming which could easily be modified to run in a similar way. Especially given as some of the ground work has already been done between the ps3 and psp.

 

[Javarock]

Overall performance increase == more possibilities on what can be done ingame. Also, consoles need to use some damn AA. I can't stand the lack of AA. Overall, both 360 and PS3 look completely awful graphically. Partly developers fault, but they keep touting it as life-like when it simply doesn't have the power to be anything near lifelike, so they try to hard to make it realistic and it just looks horrid.

What?

I had the ps2 for 10 year, Playing it constantly before I bought the 360. AND I was amazed by the graphics of the new games, Perhaps Im just not spoiled in the graphics department to expect things to not look realistic and that it hardly matters if it brings you fun. And no I think tghe graphics are fine, I don't understand the push for more. Or perhaps you have confused yourself and are refering to aethstetics, Beacuse that is VERY diffrent.

No. I'm not talking about aesthetic. I'm talking about graphical ability. If I was talking about aesthetic I would have stated so.

If you're impressed by PS2 graphics you are extremely easily pleased, they are just outright awful. Yes, yes, you can still have a good aesthetic with those bad graphics, but with extra graphical power you can do so much more with the aesthetic to make a much more immersive looking experience.

I never expect something to look realistic, I'm complaining that they try to make it look realistic, as if that was a good thing, but I wouldn't mind if it at the very least looked realistic when they tried it. Instead we get bland looking games that are trying too hard to be realistic, when they simply don't. Resulting in a horrible visual aesthetic.

As for the push for more? I'll say again, very low standards. I'll also say that it allows so much more to be done, mechanically and aesthetically, so I don't understand why you wouldn't push for more.

Why I wouldn't push for more?. Well seeing how I play a game in ASCII, I honestly could care less for graphics. The reason why I wouldn't push for more is for me they don't really impact the game as some other elements that devlopers have ignored before just so they can have better graphics, I prefer store and gameplay over them beacuse those at least from what I view are more important things. And as for haveing low standereds, That is not a bad thing at all, Infact Its better beacuse im less likly to be disapointed by a game, How some couldn't/wouldn't play morrowind due to dated graphics I don't care and I still think its beautiful game. All I really want out of games is story, And if they don't provide that but instead give me a realistic looking game I wouldn't care about it what so ever... Graphics are not everything to a game, (And for me atleast as this is in my opinon) graphics are one of the least important things in a game.

 

[SuperNova221]

Overall performance increase == more possibilities on what can be done ingame. Also, consoles need to use some damn AA. I can't stand the lack of AA. Overall, both 360 and PS3 look completely awful graphically. Partly developers fault, but they keep touting it as life-like when it simply doesn't have the power to be anything near lifelike, so they try to hard to make it realistic and it just looks horrid.

What?

I had the ps2 for 10 year, Playing it constantly before I bought the 360. AND I was amazed by the graphics of the new games, Perhaps Im just not spoiled in the graphics department to expect things to not look realistic and that it hardly matters if it brings you fun. And no I think tghe graphics are fine, I don't understand the push for more. Or perhaps you have confused yourself and are refering to aethstetics, Beacuse that is VERY diffrent.

No. I'm not talking about aesthetic. I'm talking about graphical ability. If I was talking about aesthetic I would have stated so.

If you're impressed by PS2 graphics you are extremely easily pleased, they are just outright awful. Yes, yes, you can still have a good aesthetic with those bad graphics, but with extra graphical power you can do so much more with the aesthetic to make a much more immersive looking experience.

I never expect something to look realistic, I'm complaining that they try to make it look realistic, as if that was a good thing, but I wouldn't mind if it at the very least looked realistic when they tried it. Instead we get bland looking games that are trying too hard to be realistic, when they simply don't. Resulting in a horrible visual aesthetic.

As for the push for more? I'll say again, very low standards. I'll also say that it allows so much more to be done, mechanically and aesthetically, so I don't understand why you wouldn't push for more.

Why I wouldn't push for more?. Well seeing how I play a game in ASCII, I honestly could care less for graphics. The reason why I wouldn't push for more is for me they don't really impact the game as some other elements that devlopers have ignored before just so they can have better graphics, I prefer store and gameplay over them beacuse those at least from what I view are more important things. And as for haveing low standereds, That is not a bad thing at all, Infact Its better beacuse im less likly to be disapointed by a game, How some couldn't/wouldn't play morrowind due to dated graphics I don't care and I still think its beautiful game. All I really want out of games is story, And if they don't provide that but instead give me a realistic looking game I wouldn't care about it what so ever... Graphics are not everything to a game, (And for me atleast as this is in my opinon) graphics are one of the least important things in a game.

Story isn't imporant. There's only about maybe 5 game stories that I can think of off the top of my head that pretty much every game uses then there's a subset of harder to classify ones and the only real difference is setting, characters and a few other little details. What's more important than the story is how it is told. Aethsthetic plays a huge part in that. And graphics serve visual aesthetic. Games can be great without much graphical capabilities, it has never been, and never will be a requirement for a good game. And good graphics will never be an acceptable substitute for a bad game. But with the ability to do more with the aesthetic visually, with more graphical power, you indirectly increase the storytelling possibilities. It's not a case of "It isn't broken, so don't fix it." No. It's a case of "It's not broken, so lets build and improve on what we have to make something even better from it."

 

[Inkidu]

A lot of people seem to be down on the Wii U for the graphics. And how they're only as good as the 360 or PS3. And to be fair, they do have a little catching up to do in the graphical department anyways. But while I'm not in full support of everything about the console, I think it's good that Nintendo is trying to innovate. Even if it's not what people might want, innovation shouldn't be faulted.

But my question is, for the inevitable "Nextbox" and PS4, how are Microsoft and Sony going to go beyond their current consoles? If it's only a graphical upgrade, why bother? With the current financial market not changing much and failing of the PS3 and the financial nightmare it is to make high definition games for it, the next generation could really only be worse.

What are your thoughts? How are Microsoft and Sony going to improve upon themselves?


EDIT: Maybe innovation just for the sake of innovation isn't faultless. But I don't think we can take real strides forward without at least seeing what does and doesn't work.

I don't see it happening for a few years. Why? Because Nintendo is playing catch-up. They might be cheap, and casually fun, but their once good third party support is now... nonexistent.

To put it bluntly Microsoft and Sony are laughing at Nintendo's balls as the vice grows tighter. If Nintendo had promised better graphics than Sony or Microsoft then that would be one thing, otherwise Nintendo has finally entered the current generation from a lot of standpoints.

 

[Daffy F]

With lasers and a toastie maker?

Maybe you should get a job at Microsoft or Sony...... I'd buy it.

 

[josemlopes]

I dont mind the fact that they only improve the graphics, the controls for the Wii werent very good and this new one proves it with the controller tablet to replace most of the gameplay. I dont see this continuing, maybe Microsoft and Sony will do something the same way they did with Kinect and Move to stay on the same track of the Wii but it wont be something that will exist on the next generation of consoles. Sony already said that the Vita can do the same as Wii-U.


Its just a fad.

 

[Korten12]

FIVE HUNDRED AND NINETY-NINE U.S DOLLARS.

Try more like $200 to $300.

 

[Innegativeion]

Quit kidding yourself, 3D is a rich man's fad. Of all the movies that have been shown in 3D in the past couple of years, precious few were actually filmed that way or even look halfway decent that way. No one except the occasional rich idiot is going to fork over the cash for a 3D TV and leave the 3D off during the 95% of the time that he's watching/playing the television shows/movies/internet content/games that don't use 3D.

3D has the potential to be the next "how did we live without this?!" in electronic media, but the technology has to be way farther ahead than it is now.

When we have, say, holograms that don't make you strain your eye sockets looking at them, then I'll look back at all the crappy movies with tacked-on 3D and say it was worth it.

 

[funguy2121]

Quit kidding yourself, 3D is a rich man's fad. Of all the movies that have been shown in 3D in the past couple of years, precious few were actually filmed that way or even look halfway decent that way. No one except the occasional rich idiot is going to fork over the cash for a 3D TV and leave the 3D off during the 95% of the time that he's watching/playing the television shows/movies/internet content/games that don't use 3D.

3D has the potential to be the next "how did we live without this?!" in electronic media, but the technology has to be way farther ahead than it is now.

When we have, say, holograms that don't make you strain your eye sockets looking at them, then I'll look back at all the crappy movies with tacked-on 3D and say it was worth it.

I don't know that the crappy tacked-on 3D does much to support the R&D of true 3D, but I could be wrong (you may know more about this than I do). Certainly Avatar did a lot for the future of CGI in general. But we're so far away that, aside from Avatar, Tron and a handful of 3DS games, all we've seen so far is me-too trendy bullshit. If that attracts more money to 3D of the future, what we used to call virtual reality and never materialized, then so be it.

 

[AtheistConservative]

A lot of people seem to be down on the Wii U for the graphics. And how they're only as good as the 360 or PS3. And to be fair, they do have a little catching up to do in the graphical department anyways. But while I'm not in full support of everything about the console, I think it's good that Nintendo is trying to innovate. Even if it's not what people might want, innovation shouldn't be faulted.

But my question is, for the inevitable "Nextbox" and PS4, how are Microsoft and Sony going to go beyond their current consoles? If it's only a graphical upgrade, why bother? With the current financial market not changing much and failing of the PS3 and the financial nightmare it is to make high definition games for it, the next generation could really only be worse.

What are your thoughts? How are Microsoft and Sony going to improve upon themselves?


EDIT: Maybe innovation just for the sake of innovation isn't faultless. But I don't think we can take real strides forward without at least seeing what does and doesn't work.

I don't see it happening for a few years. Why? Because Nintendo is playing catch-up. They might be cheap, and casually fun, but their once good third party support is now... nonexistent.

To put it bluntly Microsoft and Sony are laughing at Nintendo's balls as the vice grows tighter. If Nintendo had promised better graphics than Sony or Microsoft then that would be one thing, otherwise Nintendo has finally entered the current generation from a lot of standpoints.

Inkidu I completely agree with you, normally a company doesn't rush to argue that its 6 years behind the curve. It took Nintendo 3 years to finally be able to motion capture the way they claimed they could. If the WiiU is just finally entering the current generation of console graphics, then I'm positive that PS4 and NextBox will absolutely destroy it in both graphics and overall power.
Also I think Nintendo is sabotaging themselves with their new controller. I don't see how it won't be more expensive, how it will handle both motion and having a touch screen, and as far as I know, you can't play games with just the controller. I don't think the Wii's audience will really stick around and it won't draw in serious gamers. Basing your company on a casual audience is pretty dangerous. No one would leave Modern Warfare for a facebook game, but I could see something like Farmville drawing Wii players.

 

[Inkidu]

A lot of people seem to be down on the Wii U for the graphics. And how they're only as good as the 360 or PS3. And to be fair, they do have a little catching up to do in the graphical department anyways. But while I'm not in full support of everything about the console, I think it's good that Nintendo is trying to innovate. Even if it's not what people might want, innovation shouldn't be faulted.

But my question is, for the inevitable "Nextbox" and PS4, how are Microsoft and Sony going to go beyond their current consoles? If it's only a graphical upgrade, why bother? With the current financial market not changing much and failing of the PS3 and the financial nightmare it is to make high definition games for it, the next generation could really only be worse.

What are your thoughts? How are Microsoft and Sony going to improve upon themselves?


EDIT: Maybe innovation just for the sake of innovation isn't faultless. But I don't think we can take real strides forward without at least seeing what does and doesn't work.

I don't see it happening for a few years. Why? Because Nintendo is playing catch-up. They might be cheap, and casually fun, but their once good third party support is now... nonexistent.

To put it bluntly Microsoft and Sony are laughing at Nintendo's balls as the vice grows tighter. If Nintendo had promised better graphics than Sony or Microsoft then that would be one thing, otherwise Nintendo has finally entered the current generation from a lot of standpoints.

Inkidu I completely agree with you, normally a company doesn't rush to argue that its 6 years behind the curve. It took Nintendo 3 years to finally be able to motion capture the way they claimed they could. If the WiiU is just finally entering the current generation of console graphics, then I'm positive that PS4 and NextBox will absolutely destroy it in both graphics and overall power.
Also I think Nintendo is sabotaging themselves with their new controller. I don't see how it won't be more expensive, how it will handle both motion and having a touch screen, and as far as I know, you can't play games with just the controller. I don't think the Wii's audience will really stick around and it won't draw in serious gamers. Basing your company on a casual audience is pretty dangerous. No one would leave Modern Warfare for a facebook game, but I could see something like Farmville drawing Wii players.

I concur, that WiiU-mote (thingamabob) has got to top in at at least eighty dollars American. I don't think it was wrong for Nintendo to try and bring a casual base in, but yeah, I think they put too much emphasis on the casual set.

If I ran Nintendo the Wii would have been a motion control graphical equal when it came out and I would have geared the DS to pick up the casual crowd. Seems like they got it a tiny bit backward. Though hindsight is 20/20 so I'm not going to judge them too harshly. I think a world without Nintendo would be worse than a casual, flailing Nintendo.

 

[Inkidu]

Quit kidding yourself, 3D is a rich man's fad. Of all the movies that have been shown in 3D in the past couple of years, precious few were actually filmed that way or even look halfway decent that way. No one except the occasional rich idiot is going to fork over the cash for a 3D TV and leave the 3D off during the 95% of the time that he's watching/playing the television shows/movies/internet content/games that don't use 3D.

3D has the potential to be the next "how did we live without this?!" in electronic media, but the technology has to be way farther ahead than it is now.

When we have, say, holograms that don't make you strain your eye sockets looking at them, then I'll look back at all the crappy movies with tacked-on 3D and say it was worth it.

Just like in the 50s... and then the 80s... and now. Nope, sad to say that 3D will never be good until they can make it require no glasses and be as easily believable and perceptible when you're watching from your kitchen a ways away, as well, as you couch which you've set it up for.

There's far too much rigamarole and hassle to deal with 3D these days. Maybe when it comes around again when I'm fifty they'll finally nail it.