Are we EVER going to get new consoles?

[BD2003]

Yes they are. Games are developed on budgets. You can split the budget between graphics and gameplay (and sound and music all the rest of what goes into making a game) however you choose but adding to one necessarily takes from another.

By that logic, tetris or basically any 8/16-bit game is necessarily a worse game that even the poorest 360 game. But we all know that isn't true.

Great gameplay doesn't require a budget, it requires inspiration. There is obviously a money factor in being able to execute on that, but I simply don't believe they're mutually exclusive.

Not to mention there's plenty that better hardware can do for "free" that isn't contingent on the budget or time constraints of the developer - namely resolution, frame rate and load times.

 

[FeathersMcGraw]

Not to mention there's plenty that better hardware can do for "free" that isn't contingent on the budget or time constraints of the developer - namely resolution, frame rate and load times.

A game's quality can be brought down by performing poorly in the factors that you cite, but having those things won't necessarily make a game better.

The idea that you get those things for "free" also assumes that newer and better hardware doesn't also carry any additional baggage in the way of tools (expertise or cost) or architectural changes to leverage the new features. Even if your engine development cycle can be reduced, someone's got to build all those polygons that your shiny new hardware is capable of displaying (or make software that will do it for you).

I'm still trying to figure out which games you think in this generation are being held back by the limits of hardware.

 

[BoberFett]

By that logic, tetris or basically any 8/16-bit game is necessarily a worse game that even the poorest 360 game. But we all know that isn't true.

Great gameplay doesn't require a budget, it requires inspiration. There is obviously a money factor in being able to execute on that, but I simply don't believe they're mutually exclusive.

Not to mention there's plenty that better hardware can do for "free" that isn't contingent on the budget or time constraints of the developer - namely resolution, frame rate and load times.

So Tetris is your example of a game with great gameplay AND great graphics?

 

[BD2003]

So Tetris is your example of a game with great gameplay AND great graphics?

No, it's an example of a great game that cost very little to develop, demonstrating that budget isn't a constraint on good gameplay.

 

[BD2003]

A game's quality can be brought down by performing poorly in the factors that you cite, but having those things won't necessarily make a game better.

The idea that you get those things for "free" also assumes that newer and better hardware doesn't also carry any additional baggage in the way of tools (expertise or cost) or architectural changes to leverage the new features. Even if your engine development cycle can be reduced, someone's got to build all those polygons that your shiny new hardware is capable of displaying (or make software that will do it for you).

I'm still trying to figure out which games you think in this generation are being held back by the limits of hardware.

In a sense, any game that isn't running at 1080p/60fps is in some way being held back by hardware.

Any game with real time cutscenes featuring humans is most certainly held back by the inability for current gen consoles to reproduce convincing human faces. This also ties into the quality and emotionality of the characters. Current gen human characters are about as expressive as muppets right now.

Any game with any sort of physics or destructibility underlying the gameplay - red faction or bad company come to min - they could certainly use more horsepower to make the destructibility more realistic.

Or imagine GTA with hundreds of people and cars on the city streets, like there is in real life. This could fundamentally change the experience.

Or if you've played fallout 3 on a high end pc and the 360, you'd just feel how much more immersive the experience is with everything turned up, being able to see detail far in the distance, and there being little to no load times. It makes it a fundamentally better experience, but the only difference between the two is hardware capability.

Or simply, imagine if call of duty didn't have to run at lower than 720p just to maintain a high frame rate.

I could go on and on, but those are some solid examples. It's not that I think current gen games are really lacking, but I don't want to see it stop at good enough. They can do better, and faster hardware is needed in order to take it to the next level. Good enough isn't good enough!

 

[dougp]

In a sense, any game that isn't running at 1080p/60fps is in some way being held back by hardware.

Any game with real time cutscenes featuring humans is most certainly held back by the inability for current gen consoles to reproduce convincing human faces. This also ties into the quality and emotionality of the characters. Current gen human characters are about as expressive as muppets right now.

Any game with any sort of physics or destructibility underlying the gameplay - red faction or bad company come to min - they could certainly use more horsepower to make the destructibility more realistic.

Or imagine GTA with hundreds of people and cars on the city streets, like there is in real life. This could fundamentally change the experience.

Or if you've played fallout 3 on a high end pc and the 360, you'd just feel how much more immersive the experience is with everything turned up, being able to see detail far in the distance, and there being little to no load times. It makes it a fundamentally better experience, but the only difference between the two is hardware capability.

Or simply, imagine if call of duty didn't have to run at lower than 720p just to maintain a high frame rate.

I could go on and on, but those are some solid examples. It's not that I think current gen games are really lacking, but I don't want to see it stop at good enough. They can do better, and faster hardware is needed in order to take it to the next level. Good enough isn't good enough!

I think you're forgetting that the majority of console gamers don't own or play on an HD TV or resolution. Everything you mention, they don't care about - and probably can't experience it. Take a PC that's the age of the 360 or PS3 and see if you can make current gen games like MW2 look as good as they do on the console.

 

[arredondo]

^^^ He doesn't want to get it. What good is a 1080P game to most people? Unless you sit right up close (monitor) or have a super large display and are within 8-10 feet it does not look hardly any different than 720P. And this is coming from someone who HAS a 60 inch HDTV for my PC/PS3 combo. No one else I know has a configuration that takes advantage of 1080P except at a computer desk.

Also, we are nowhere near being able to financially support the production costs necessary for the kind of next-gen gaming he describes. The companies are only now getting regular good returns on their multi-million dollar investments this gen, and he wants them to actually spike up the R&D costs even more for ultra-slick productions? That's not living in reality.

This is especially ignorant when you consider that it's the low-tech handheld and portable phone/pad market that's showing all of the profit growth. The 3DS is the next mega-major platform release whether tech heads want to believe it or not. It's not for me, but I don't simply ignore that it'll be huge in the industry.

In any case, the graphics being done now for games like Uncharted 2, God of War 3, etc are looking FANTASTIC - there is no need to introduce any new HD machines for at least 3-4 years. A new Wii HD? That I can understand. But not a PS4 or X720 in the near future. The days of new console releases every five years is officially over.

 

[BD2003]

So the solution is to cater to the lowest common denominator rather than aspire towards greater possibilities? I'm going to have a hard time accepting that kind of mindset.

You can't take a PC from 2005 and make MW2 look good. That's also my point. When consoles first cone out, they're ahead of their time for the price. But years later, pc hardware catches up and surpasses...usually about 3 years in or so. We're now pushing year 5 on the 360...I'd gave hoped to be able to purchase a console that's again ahead of it's time this holiday season, but it doesn't seem like anything is even on the horizon.

 

[RagingBITCH]

So the solution is to cater to the lowest common denominator rather than aspire towards greater possibilities? I'm going to have a hard time accepting that kind of mindset.

You can't take a PC from 2005 and make MW2 look good. That's also my point. When consoles first cone out, they're ahead of their time for the price. But years later, pc hardware catches up and surpasses...usually about 3 years in or so. We're now pushing year 5 on the 360...I'd gave hoped to be able to purchase a console that's again ahead of it's time this holiday season, but it doesn't seem like anything is even on the horizon.

No, the solution is to launch it when its viable (from a financial standpoint) and the market demands it. #1 is driven by #2. If they were to release a new console now, a few adopters would purchase it, but they'd be cutting the life of a not yet mature generation of consoles out.

 

[BD2003]

I'm not ignorant of these costs. I'm just apparently part of a small minority willing to pay extra for a superior experience, but the industry is not providing me with the outlet to do so. In a world of yearly iPod refreshes and a constant march forward in pc hardware, I would have hoped that console progress would have accelerated rather than decelerated. That shouldn't seem crazy to people.

I just hope that the next generation, even if it's a decade from now, provides some sort of outlet for a premium experience for those willing to pay for the premium. Right now practically the only differentiating factor is HDD size, which is positively ridiculous.

 

[RagingBITCH]

Well aren't you basically making my point for me? The technology is so old that off the shelf parts of today can easily compete.

I'm not saying it's easy, all I'm saying is that I'm surprised no one seems to be trying to do it at the point in the cycle where we'd normally start hearing about them.

Instead we're getting kinect and move pushed on us, both huge investments, both bound to be failures IMO. I'd rather have new consoles in the traditional sense next year.

How am I making your point? Off the shelf parts at the time it was released could easily compete if not outsurpass it. You're bringing the PC fanboi argument in that "PC is superior and will always be because you can upgrade it at anytime and squeeze out another billion frames per second with a $250 graphics card upgrade." Seriously, when is that argument going to die? To stay on the cutting edge in PC terms is a minor investment.

On a closed platform like the PS3/Wii/360, that's not possible. Millions of dollars were spent in R&D in the hardware and software. Software development houses spend thousands of dollars training to develop for that software, and then the thousands on the development of the code, graphics, music, etc. Like I said in my previous post, no one is pushing or rushing to get the next gen out when overall consumer spending is down and millions of Americans are still out of a job.

And I agree with you to an extent on Kinect/Move, but the capital investment in those projects are not even 1/50th of what it takes to build a new console.

And finally, development on PS4/Xbox (whatever) is already taking place. It's no secret - Google it. Development has been shelved for financial and economical reasons. Like anything in business - it's all about the $. If MS/Sony/Nintendo all thought now was the time to make gamers dish out money on a brand new platform, games, accessories, etc, then their accountants would be screaming at them to bring it to market. But simply put, profits leaving the current gen consoles out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> profits launching a new console now. Financial forecasting 101. If you can't understand the fact that everything is driven by the benjamins, then I don't know what else to tell you.

 

[RagingBITCH]

I'm not ignorant of these costs. I'm just apparently part of a small minority willing to pay extra for a superior experience, but the industry is not providing me with the outlet to do so. In a world of yearly iPod refreshes and a constant march forward in pc hardware, I would have hoped that console progress would have accelerated rather than decelerated. That shouldn't seem crazy to people.

I just hope that the next generation, even if it's a decade from now, provides some sort of outlet for a premium experience for those willing to pay for the premium. Right now practically the only differentiating factor is HDD size, which is positively ridiculous.

Alright well glad you said that. 🙂 There's always someone out there willing to spend money. But again, iPod refreshes? What's significantly different about the iPod? It doesn't play music any better or wow you with high def audio. Other than adding what, a camera, how else has it progressed? And that's like adding Kinect to the 360 - it's only adding additional functionality to what it's core function is - a music player. It's not a totally new music player - it still plays the same MP3, AAC, etc files the first generation does.

So no you're not crazy - but PC hardware is not a closed end platform. It's separate components for a machine built to compute. Gaming is secondary. Part of the benefit of a console is not forcing everyone to upgrade just to play a game - I don't want to have to buy a new $100 part just to play a game b/c the leading edge adopter (you) wanted to, but the majority doesn't. We're all on a level playing field. Want to upgrade? Buy a gaming PC.

 

[BD2003]

Again, I'm not ignorant of the costs or economics surrounding it. Im not an idiot. Im just disappointed at the state of progress, and the general ambivalence towards the next gen by apparently everyone but me.

If it helps you make sense of where I'm coming from, I've been a PC gamer since the late 90s when 3d accelerators first hit the market. I dabbled in consoles but haven't really been a total convert till this gen, due to superior online infrastructure and a total implosion on the quality front when it comes to PC games.

I miss being able to upgrade my hardware when it's age started to show. Having a single platform to code to is an inherent advantage of consoles, but coming from
PC gaming I know for a fact it isn't that cut and dry. They could provide upgradeable consoles provided that was considered from the start, without giving up the advantages of having a unified platform.

 

[BD2003]

Perhaps iPod touch/iPhone refreshes is a better analogy. Each gen is faster and nicer than the last, but all can run the same software/games, at different resolutions and/or frame rates. It's not a single unified platform like consoles, but not infinitely variable like PCs. The architectures are similar enough that optimizing for all of them is not too difficult a task. That's what I want to see consoles do, and the sooner the better.

 

[lupi]

Again, I'm not ignorant of the costs or economics surrounding it. Im not an idiot. Im just disappointed at the state of progress, and the general ambivalence towards the next gen by apparently everyone but me.

If it helps you make sense of where I'm coming from, I've been a PC gamer since the late 90s when 3d accelerators first hit the market. I dabbled in consoles but haven't really been a total convert till this gen, due to superior online infrastructure and a total implosion on the quality front when it comes to PC games.

I miss being able to upgrade my hardware when it's age started to show. Having a single platform to code to is an inherent advantage of consoles, but coming from
PC gaming I know for a fact it isn't that cut and dry. They could provide upgradeable consoles provided that was considered from the start, without giving up the advantages of having a unified platform.

wii and ps3 still relatively new to the scene and given the loses m$ has taken to get a decent version out doubt they are in a hurry to just scrap it all.

 

[Fallen Kell]

We get it, after how many years its obvious that you don't care for the Wii, that doesn't change the fact that its the market leader by a long shot, and that the other consoles have since attempted to copy the Wii's innovation.

It doesn't matter whether or not it works or works well, what matters is that it sells consoles and games.

The world doesn't revolve around you.

*Ding Ding Ding* We have a Winner Folks!

And not only are the the market leader by far, in number of consoles. They are also the market leader in profit from the gaming division. Unlike MS and Sony, Nintendo doesn't sell anything at a loss, so they make money on everything that goes on the market. So they don't have to sell 30-40 games to someone before they make back the money they lost on the hardware they sold you.

As for the games, unfortunately, the third party studio's have only just started to "get it" when it comes to the Wii, in that they can't just port over the games they make for the other consoles and "wii-ify" them by tossing in some random waggle the remote to do something. But that isn't the Wii's fault that those studio's can't be bothered to do it right. Most of Nintendo's own content uses incredibly accurate and fine-tuned controls. It is that level of control that makes the Wii so enjoyable.

And yes, Sony and MS are very late to the party called motion controls. That is one of the things that makes Nintendo, Nintendo. They actually innovate on the game experience, which is what this is all about. You can put a faster, flashier, whatever for the video and audio output, but when all is said and done, you are still playing the same games the same way you did 10 years ago (which is probably why the major game studio's love that, since they don't need to change anything or take risks with the unknown. All they have to do is have their graphic art at a higher resolution and use some of the extra/new lighting/pixel effects and they can make the same game they made last year and release it again).

 

[dougp]

*Ding Ding Ding* We have a Winner Folks!

And not only are the the market leader by far, in number of consoles. They are also the market leader in profit from the gaming division. Unlike MS and Sony, Nintendo doesn't sell anything at a loss, so they make money on everything that goes on the market. So they don't have to sell 30-40 games to someone before they make back the money they lost on the hardware they sold you.

As for the games, unfortunately, the third party studio's have only just started to "get it" when it comes to the Wii, in that they can't just port over the games they make for the other consoles and "wii-ify" them by tossing in some random waggle the remote to do something. But that isn't the Wii's fault that those studio's can't be bothered to do it right. Most of Nintendo's own content uses incredibly accurate and fine-tuned controls. It is that level of control that makes the Wii so enjoyable.

And yes, Sony and MS are very late to the party called motion controls. That is one of the things that makes Nintendo, Nintendo. They actually innovate on the game experience, which is what this is all about. You can put a faster, flashier, whatever for the video and audio output, but when all is said and done, you are still playing the same games the same way you did 10 years ago (which is probably why the major game studio's love that, since they don't need to change anything or take risks with the unknown. All they have to do is have their graphic art at a higher resolution and use some of the extra/new lighting/pixel effects and they can make the same game they made last year and release it again).

I don't think Sony or MS are "late" to the party - if anything, they're revitalizing their products. Those of us here might not enjoy it - but then again, think of how many games you actually play on your Wii. Both the 360 and PS3 have an established dominance on multiple genre's, and even arguably on the console platformer genre, which has been Nintendo's largest success (Mario, Kirby, Metroid.) What this does is turn the 360/PS3 from a teen / young adult device and crosses generations in a sense. Now the youngest kids in the family and the parents can all play. When they don't want to, the device is used by the actual gamer. I honestly don't know anyone who plays single player games on the Wii - mostly for when people come over.

 

[gar655]

i'd much rather the consoles be able to power similar gen tvs at full resolution with fluid framerates.

But, they do. I haven't seen a problem yet and if there are problems with games not running fluidly (60fps consistantly) at full HD then it's a problem with lazy coding and not with the hardware.

Both the 360 and PS3 are fully capable of running games at full HD.

Gene

 

[BD2003]

*Ding Ding Ding* We have a Winner Folks!

And not only are the the market leader by far, in number of consoles. They are also the market leader in profit from the gaming division. Unlike MS and Sony, Nintendo doesn't sell anything at a loss, so they make money on everything that goes on the market. So they don't have to sell 30-40 games to someone before they make back the money they lost on the hardware they sold you.

As for the games, unfortunately, the third party studio's have only just started to "get it" when it comes to the Wii, in that they can't just port over the games they make for the other consoles and "wii-ify" them by tossing in some random waggle the remote to do something. But that isn't the Wii's fault that those studio's can't be bothered to do it right. Most of Nintendo's own content uses incredibly accurate and fine-tuned controls. It is that level of control that makes the Wii so enjoyable.

And yes, Sony and MS are very late to the party called motion controls. That is one of the things that makes Nintendo, Nintendo. They actually innovate on the game experience, which is what this is all about. You can put a faster, flashier, whatever for the video and audio output, but when all is said and done, you are still playing the same games the same way you did 10 years ago (which is probably why the major game studio's love that, since they don't need to change anything or take risks with the unknown. All they have to do is have their graphic art at a higher resolution and use some of the extra/new lighting/pixel effects and they can make the same game they made last year and release it again).

Nintendo's success here is what scares me. As much as I admire the games they put out, their production values are equivalent to the best of 2001. It looks like the Zelda they're putting out in 2011 won't even have voice acting. In 2011!

If you had told me in 2005 that in 2011 the top selling system will be putting out games that look like they're from 2001, I'd have laughed in your face. But that's actually what's happening.

Now if MS and Sony take too much of a cue from nintendo, and make their next systems in 2012 basically two of their old consoles duct taped together and let that ride for another 6 years, then in 2018 we'll basically be playing games with 2006-level production values. That would be a crying shame, but I'm starting to get the impression that I'd be the only person that wouldn't be alright with that.

 

[boomhower]

I am still happy with what we have. The current generation of games are good enough for me. I don't feel the need to spend another $400+ on a new system at this point. But I am a casual gamer at best so take it for what it's worth.

I would be surprised if we get anything before 2013.

 

[Fallen Kell]

Nintendo's success here is what scares me. As much as I admire the games they put out, their production values are equivalent to the best of 2001. It looks like the Zelda they're putting out in 2011 won't even have voice acting.

Actually, I am extremely HAPPY they didn't include voice acting! There has yet to be a single game that I have played where the voice acting didn't get in the way of the game. There are plenty of those moments where it is just plain HORRID acting and completely destroys the moment in the game. There are extremely few games which have good voice acting, and even then, it is only during major cut-scenes where the acting even has a chance to work. But that is just it, with the Zelda games, there are historically very few cut scenes, maybe 2-3 per game, or they are extremely short (just enough to push the storyline). I mean, just look at how bad the voice acting is in the last few Final Fantasy games!

 

[smackababy]

Nintendo's success here is what scares me. As much as I admire the games they put out, their production values are equivalent to the best of 2001. It looks like the Zelda they're putting out in 2011 won't even have voice acting. In 2011!

If you had told me in 2005 that in 2011 the top selling system will be putting out games that look like they're from 2001, I'd have laughed in your face. But that's actually what's happening.

Now if MS and Sony take too much of a cue from nintendo, and make their next systems in 2012 basically two of their old consoles duct taped together and let that ride for another 6 years, then in 2018 we'll basically be playing games with 2006-level production values. That would be a crying shame, but I'm starting to get the impression that I'd be the only person that wouldn't be alright with that.

Which proves that people prefer gameplay over graphics. Who cares about voice acting? I grew up without it, and most of the time, it isn't very good. There are very few examples of good voice acting in games, and even fewer of good main character voice acting. The fact that altering the budget to focus more on implementation of new mechanics and gameplay ideas over stupid flashy garbage is what makes good games.


But then again, I am in the minority when I say I still actually read and enjoy a good story. Go watch your AVATAR movies and stay away from any creative career.

 

[BD2003]

That's not an argument against voice acting, that's an argument against bad voice acting.

Forgive me for wanting to move past the 16-bit era. I hadn't realized that every game I've enjoyed in the past two decades was a shadow of what it could have been if every single dollar devoted to something other than game mechanics or text writing actually detracted from the experience. I was under the impression that more than 256 colors is a good thing, and that one could actually appreciate the art of the graphics and the soundtrack. I've been cheating myself with great games such as mass effect 2, when instead I should be playing a text adventure for the 80s. Oh, all that wasted time I could have spent playing Zork instead....woe is me!

 

[purbeast0]

The Uncharted series should be the standard for QA as far as voice acting goes. By far the best voice acting in any game. Nothing really even comes close.

 

[BD2003]

The Uncharted series should be the standard for QA as far as voice acting goes. By far the best voice acting in any game. Nothing really even comes close.

I dunno man, I bet that game would have been so much better if they had spent all the money that they did to make it look and sound cool on gameplay. Because it's impossible to do both at the same time...the director on that game should be fired and blacklisted from having a creative career of any sort.