Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ...
4
5
6
7
LastLast
  1. #101
    The Lightbringer UnifiedDivide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    3,752
    Quote Originally Posted by barackopala View Post
    No, it's the fact that companies keep prefering console games due to the high amount of selling numbers and then they try and do shitty ports, affecting computers, consoles will never get to a pinnacle of performance just because they're a stagnant hardware that will never be updated in it's lifespan.

    It's not a "PC is the master race" issue, it's that console gaming is always getting behind of the pc, that's a fact.

    Plus is a bit more complicated to see high quality indie games on consoles (not saying that there aren't)
    Console gaming is ALWAYS going to be behind the PC. That's always been true. A console is expected to be around up to 10 years at a time with no way to upgrade. The PC is pretty much ready to be upgraded every other month. I don't see how there is even discussion about it. Nothing has or will change in this respect until we just do away with consoles altogether.

    Pretty much all games are developed ON the PC then ported over to consoles specs. There really is no reason why any PC "port" should be shoddy imo.

    Rarely updated...

  2. #102
    I'd rather they not increase the visual capabilities and just increase the scale of things the systems can handle at one time. I'd much more enjoy games with current graphics but a larger world rendered. I really can't stand how every game I play, you can see that the world isn't rendered past 30-50 ft of your character, like in Skyrim. The popup from that knocks me out of my disbelief. It would also be nice to see sandbox games that don't just render pedestrians and vehicles based on where you are and then delete them once they are out of your proximity. I'd like to see GTA 6 or Saint's Row 4 have cars and pedestrians either rendered 100% of the time as if they have their own lives and are unique individuals or, at the very least, render them for double the amount of time they are now.

  3. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by Shinzai View Post
    I wouldn't agree with this at all. The CPU is going to be a major concern from next year onwards. Look at games like Watch Dogs and GTA 5. The graphics only do so much, in the end, the CPU is what's going to be driving the massive number of AI's/interactive objects, massive open world and so on and so forth. Graphics can continually be improved on, but we're hitting a point at the moment where most people just don't care that much if they get significantly better shading/water/shadows. We'll be heading into the uncanny valley range quite soon. What people actually want are immersive worlds to play in. Imagine increasing the population of say Skyrim two fold and adding in more interactions/autonomous activities for the characters within that world. That's what people are fascinated by now: Being in a world with hundreds of other people, whether real or AI.
    And? It's already been proven that GPU power does matter. PS3 and 360 games look like ass compared to their PC counterparts, so GPU's do matter greatly. The Wii U port of Mass Effect 3 looks a million times better then the PS3 and 360 versions do, despite the fact that it was coded poorly and has some minor frame rate issues, the textures and actually running in HD make it a superior version. These welfare GPU's in the PS3 and 360 can't handle new games without overloading the CPU to run effectively, and they still look like crap. If the next generation lacks anything more then mid range graphics, they are not going to be able to compete with PC graphics, nor will they be able to run new and more advanced game engines like Unreal Engine 4. CPU speed is only a portion of gaming performance, and part of the problem is that development has become so reliant on CPU speed so the GPU didn't matter as much, moving forward the GPU will have to matter in order to code games to run well. CPU speed wouldn't matter if the GPU could handle advanced textures and rendering effectively, and that is why CPU speed won't matter as much next gen, because games will be putting very little strain on GPU's for the first couple of years.

    Also larger worlds equates to a shit load more bugs. I don't want another Skyrim type of game where you can fall through the world at random or run up the side of cliffs on a near 90 degree angle before hitting a wall and falling to your death. And odds are, if you want all those advanced features of a more open world and more unique characters and things, you won't see it on consoles because consoles have to be affordable and they won't ever have the hardware to render those kinds of features effectively.
    Last edited by Rennadrel; 2012-12-31 at 05:51 PM.

  4. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by Rennadrel View Post
    Also larger worlds equates to a shit load more bugs. I don't want another Skyrim type of game where you can fall through the world at random or run up the side of cliffs on a near 90 degree angle before hitting a wall and falling to your death. And odds are, if you want all those advanced features of a more open world and more unique characters and things, you won't see it on consoles because consoles have to be affordable and they won't ever have the hardware to render those kinds of features effectively.
    It doesn't have to be larger world on detail level of Skyrim or anything. Just something more than:



    A return to the 1990s style of maps instead of modern corridors:



    They should learn from games like Dark Forces 2 and Duke Nukem 3D which both had extremely varied and large maps without pretty much any of the "backpedalling" which stands as major excuse from players whom apparently never actually played any of the old school map type games.

    I'd love to play games with maps like this one from the Episode II of original Doom:



    Looks intimidating? Too labyrinthian? Well, it's filled with secrets and hidden passages but the main route that requires almoust no running back at all unless one is a degenerate and yet the design remains complex and rewarding to explore.
    Last edited by Wilian; 2012-12-31 at 08:50 PM.

  5. #105
    Moderator Remilia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Avatar:鉄花まき
    Posts
    7,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Fortera View Post
    I'd rather they not increase the visual capabilities and just increase the scale of things the systems can handle at one time. I'd much more enjoy games with current graphics but a larger world rendered. I really can't stand how every game I play, you can see that the world isn't rendered past 30-50 ft of your character, like in Skyrim. The popup from that knocks me out of my disbelief. It would also be nice to see sandbox games that don't just render pedestrians and vehicles based on where you are and then delete them once they are out of your proximity. I'd like to see GTA 6 or Saint's Row 4 have cars and pedestrians either rendered 100% of the time as if they have their own lives and are unique individuals or, at the very least, render them for double the amount of time they are now.
    That will require a shit ton of CPU power if you want a whole world in a sand box to do that.
    One example of a game that does do that, however not a lot of objects are in place is the X-Ray engine in STALKER.
    I doubt our current computers can do that, don't know about the 3960x though. Though obviously depends on the scale. Just don't expect Saint's Row or GTA to have that. Too big, too many people / object.

  6. #106
    Quote Originally Posted by Rennadrel View Post
    And? It's already been proven that GPU power does matter. PS3 and 360 games look like ass compared to their PC counterparts, so GPU's do matter greatly. The Wii U port of Mass Effect 3 looks a million times better then the PS3 and 360 versions do, despite the fact that it was coded poorly and has some minor frame rate issues, the textures and actually running in HD make it a superior version. These welfare GPU's in the PS3 and 360 can't handle new games without overloading the CPU to run effectively, and they still look like crap. If the next generation lacks anything more then mid range graphics, they are not going to be able to compete with PC graphics, nor will they be able to run new and more advanced game engines like Unreal Engine 4. CPU speed is only a portion of gaming performance, and part of the problem is that development has become so reliant on CPU speed so the GPU didn't matter as much, moving forward the GPU will have to matter in order to code games to run well. CPU speed wouldn't matter if the GPU could handle advanced textures and rendering effectively, and that is why CPU speed won't matter as much next gen, because games will be putting very little strain on GPU's for the first couple of years.

    Also larger worlds equates to a shit load more bugs. I don't want another Skyrim type of game where you can fall through the world at random or run up the side of cliffs on a near 90 degree angle before hitting a wall and falling to your death. And odds are, if you want all those advanced features of a more open world and more unique characters and things, you won't see it on consoles because consoles have to be affordable and they won't ever have the hardware to render those kinds of features effectively.
    You appear to have completely missed the point. As I said, graphics can always be improved on infinitely, HOWEVER, the general public and gamers at large are no longer that concerned about the number of polygons in a scene. When you reach Skyrim~Battlefield 3~Far Cry 3 levels of presentation, people start to care less about visuals being improved further and want higher levels of interactivity.

    What's the point of having the best graphics in the world if the model's only got a handful of pre-set animations? Why is indie gaming so popular with no graphical benefits over the best of today's A-list games? It comes down to the game world on offer and what you can do in it. Minecraft is insanely popular for such a seemingly simple game, quite simply because of the freedom on offer. Why do you think that corpses and physics objects have to disappear in console games, but tend not to (or at least, not in such a short time) on PC's? The textures only have to be loaded the first time, then it's down to the CPU/Ram to maintain the game world around what the player has done.

    If the GPU and graphics as a whole were what consoles gravitated around, the Wii would've failed.

    Game worlds will become bigger and more interactive, regardless of what you think/want. The CPU has to be able to handle that. Even if the play area isn't as big as some sand box games, it's a simple matter of adding authenticity to the world the player is involved in - increasing the number of animations, more time given to AI cycles, reducing load times, more inventive usage of physics, etc, etc.

  7. #107
    God that image of a 1993 map vs a 2010 is depressing.

  8. #108
    I think it will be great if the new consoles are less powerful than current PC's. Will mean developers won't be able to ignore PC's like they did last cycle.

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-01 at 03:26 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by howdydiddlydoo View Post
    They look better MOSTLY because the PC hardware can push resolutions higher.
    Right, because it's so easy to get a PC monitor that's better than 1080p... PC's have better anti-aliasing, but everyone is stuck at ~1080p until higher res screens become mainstream. Which is pretty pathetic considering CRT monitors had higher resolutions than that 12+ years ago.

    Main thing PC's have is more storage, more memory, more CPU power, um more GPU power... pretty much everything but resolution really. And of course they will benefit when next gen consoles force toolkits and artists to go the to next level.

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-01 at 03:33 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by BeerWolf View Post
    You'd be an idiot to compare consoles to PCs - you can't expect a next-gen console to have the absolute latest in graphics card, or w/e, to computers of today, simply because the timeline of making the console would already set "newest hardware" back a fair bit before it's finally released, making those components kinda outdated by then....
    You too young to remember the xbox and xbox 360 launches or something? They were practically a full generation ahead of the current PC hardware. It's not like they take some off the shelf part when designing the consoles, they're able to target 'the future' just as the people who make the GPU's are.

  9. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by morfraen View Post
    You too young to remember the xbox and xbox 360 launches or something? They were practically a full generation ahead of the current PC hardware. It's not like they take some off the shelf part when designing the consoles, they're able to target 'the future' just as the people who make the GPU's are.
    I think you're the one misremembering. Consoles have never been ahead of the best gaming PCs.

  10. #110
    Quote Originally Posted by morfraen View Post

    You too young to remember the xbox and xbox 360 launches or something? They were practically a full generation ahead of the current PC hardware. It's not like they take some off the shelf part when designing the consoles, they're able to target 'the future' just as the people who make the GPU's are.
    Doom 3 was out on PC at the time and Doom 3 on Xbox 360 looked noticeably worse. Also we were playing Battlefield 2, while the 360 chugged trying to handle CoD 2.
    Last edited by Shinzai; 2013-01-01 at 05:17 PM.

  11. #111
    As long as the fable series ends on the 360 im not fussed

  12. #112
    Quote Originally Posted by Festisio View Post
    God that image of a 1993 map vs a 2010 is depressing.
    Players have gotten used to the new map system. Going back to an old one, no matter how much more "rewarding" it might feel, is going to put off a huge amount of players.
    Quote Originally Posted by High Overlord Saurfang
    "I am he who watches they. I am the fist of retribution. That which does quell the recalcitrant. Dare you defy the Warchief? Dare you face my merciless judgement?"
    i7-860 @2.8GHz | Radeon HD 7770 | 8GB DDR3-1333MHz | Corsair CX 430W |

  13. #113
    Bloodsail Admiral Libram's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Delta Quadrant
    Posts
    1,189
    Well I'm not disappointed completely in what will be the next gen. It's been PC over Console when it comes to graphics/physics/resolution/shading/frame rate for as long as I can remember. Anyhow i'm just in it for Mario, Zelda, and Halo. Everything else I either don't care about or could buy for half the price on Steam, so no big deal here. :S
    I guess you could pull out the consoles holding back PC's card though.
    Last edited by Libram; 2013-01-01 at 05:58 PM.
    I make Trance, let me know what you think! SoundCloud YouTube


  14. #114
    Bloodsail Admiral Giants41's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    New York, United States of America
    Posts
    1,067
    I have a Wii U and i love it personally. I can get all my Mario/Zelda games with hope for new metroid games... I don't plan on getting a 720 or PS4 unless of course kingdom hearts 3 comes out exclusive to PS4, then i might have to buy it...
    Wow <3 Korra<3 Giants<3

  15. #115
    Legendary! Blueobelisk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,815
    *looks at the posts in this thread*

    You guys are smart. Where did you guys learn about all this console technology stuff? Anywhere you want to point out to me? I plan to google some stuff and look but if you have a specific place to guide me, I'd love to educate myself on this topic.

  16. #116
    Even if the jump in technology isn't that high, consoles aren't going anywhere any time soon. They'll continue to be mainstream for at least 10 more years, IMO. PC gaming was on life support for quite a while there, and if it wasn't for programs like Steam and PC exclusive games like League of Legends, it would have all but completely died. PC gaming may be seeing a much-appreciated recent boost in popularity, but it's still nowhere near as popular as console gaming.

  17. #117
    Immortal Sigma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Just outside of Wigan, England.
    Posts
    7,313
    Cant wait for the PS4 to be released.
    Means the price of PS3's will drop even further and then ill think about buying one =)

  18. #118
    Quote Originally Posted by morfraen View Post
    You too young to remember the xbox and xbox 360 launches or something? They were practically a full generation ahead of the current PC hardware. It's not like they take some off the shelf part when designing the consoles, they're able to target 'the future' just as the people who make the GPU's are.
    I... Uhhh... Err... Wut? O.o

    Full generation ahead of current PC hardware on launch? Did you live in some paraller universe or something? By what outlandish standards they were one generation ahead in their launch?

  19. #119
    The PS Omni is the Gimmick, it turns all TV's into 3d Tv's.

    The PS Omni is the name of the next Playstation.

    There's source for this somewhere, I'll have to look for it again.

    Edit: And source has been delivered.

    http://www.psu.com/a017730/Rumor--PS...September-2013

  20. #120
    Quote Originally Posted by Rekenna View Post
    The PS Omni is the Gimmick, it turns all TV's into 3d Tv's.

    The PS Omni is the name of the next Playstation.

    There's source for this somewhere, I'll have to look for it again.

    Edit: And source has been delivered.

    http://www.psu.com/a017730/Rumor--PS...September-2013
    Seems fair enough to be believable. I can't see Sony putting together a console that they're losing as much as they did per sale as the PS3, so this seems reasonable to me.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •