Will new gen consoles be able to keep up with PC graphics when released?

[diesbudt]

No. But I don't really even think that's the point anymore. With the success of the Wii, Kinect, and Move, the goal now seems to me to get experiences that aren't possible on a PC or smartphone.

This, consoles are starting to realize, that with each Gen, they can only add so much more graphics or processing speed. So the new trend and direction consoles will be going is in "additions" to gaming you won't find elsewhere.

Kinect, All virtual Downloads for games, and maybe down the line Virtual reality type games.

However, graphics wise, since AMD and Nvidia are constantly increasing the strength and making better cards, even if a console was on par with a computer at release, within 3-4 months a computer can be upgraded with a better part, while a console cannot.

 

[diesbudt]

Mmm, that may be true, but all the press I've read on E3 2012 suggests that smartphone and especially tablet gaming took a big chunk out of Nintendo's marketshare. Nintendo posted losses for the first time in decades. Either they need to create games for hardcore gamers (not likely) or they need to team up with a manufacturer like HTC and release a Nintendo phone!

You may want to research why they took such a loss.

the new 3DS had a lame and small library, and wasn't worth purchasing for the most part. However in the past few months, and next few months to come, the 3DS library has some major game titles coming, and the sales for the 3DS and greatly increased because of this. Especially in Japan.

(Next week a 3DS, tactic driven Pokemon title will be released. That will help increase sales also)

 

[Sonikku]

I suspect they will. Not so much for having comparable hardware, but because most PC games today are ports of the lowest common console denominator, with a couple cutesy video enhancements plopped on top as an after thought.

There was a day when PC gaming was a full generation ahead of gaming consoles in terms of graphics. And that was when we had 1280x1024p resolutions to consoles 480i, or in some cases 240p in the mid 90's. Today the gap is no where near as colossal, on either front. Ironically, PC gamers tend to rage more about how AWFUL 720p is on consoles to their PC's 1080p more now then they did about 480i rest to their XGA+ resolutions.

 

[ncstateguy87]

As graphics become more powerful, consoles will continue to add things that pc gaming cannot (kinect, motion control, etc). I think this upcoming generation will focus on lower cost and not be a large graphics update.

 

[BlockheadBrown]

PCs continue to stay ahead of the curve.

 

[zerocool84]

PCs continue to stay ahead of the curve.

They always will because new parts come out all the time for it.

 

[gorcorps]

Right now, "The Last of Us" on the six-year-old PS3 rivals the majority of PC games. Same is true for the next God of War release on that system.

I think the consoles will be fine next gen.

You have not obviously played a good PC exclusive then (or something properly coded for DX11). Even if you ignore the fact that E3 gameplay videos always look gussied up compared to real gameplay, those current gen console games just can't get there in resolution, texture quality, or AA. Jagged edges is one of my biggest pet peeves on the PS3 and those games don't look much different.

 

[frumply]

Raw power-wise not a chance. Not unless one of the current big 3 decides to load up their next console with a 500W PSU. You'd be delusional thinking otherwise. As far as whether people will care or not, we'll have the same folks we have now crying foul over it, and the masses will largely ignore this and buy whatever they want/is popular. WiiU is destined to be behind the other two when they come out, and even then it should be a nonissue. The most powerful console has never won the hardware war before anyway.

There was a day when PC gaming was a full generation ahead of gaming consoles in terms of graphics. And that was when we had 1280x1024p resolutions to consoles 480i, or in some cases 240p in the mid 90's. Today the gap is no where near as colossal, on either front. Ironically, PC gamers tend to rage more about how AWFUL 720p is on consoles to their PC's 1080p more now then they did about 480i rest to their XGA+ resolutions.

True that. TIE Fighter, MW2, NASCAR, GLQuake... Easily crushed console games of the time in terms of graphics. I think there was a large enough hurdle for PC gaming back then that petty arguments between PC and consoles never came up though.

 

[exdeath]

Does it really matter? How much power does Call of Duty 19 1/2 and Rockband 31 really need? How much more realistic can "boobs and splosions" get?

I'll take real honest games again over new hardware, instead of today's cheesy lowest common denominator casual mass market 3 month product cycle rehashed franchised nickel and dimed DLCed to death GARBAGE.

Seriously how does a straight line point A to point B while following the big giant arrow that tells you where to go, while blowing up red barrels and shooting the same rag dolls over and over, and having all the gameplay of Centipede, generate record sales sequel after sequel? "Gamers" today are ADHD retards.

I think I bought more mint boxed SNES games this year than PC/360/PS3 games.

 

[Veliko]

Seriously how does a straight line point A to point B while following the big giant arrow that tells you where to go, while blowing up red barrels and shooting the same rag dolls over and over, and having all the gameplay of Centipede, generate record sales sequel after sequel? "Gamers" today are ADHD retards.

I always love it when people come out with this nonsense.

A 15-year old playing Unreal or Doom back in the 90s is fine.

A 15-year old playing Call of Duty in 2012 is ADHD.

 

[exdeath]

I always love it when people come out with this nonsense.

A 15-year old playing Unreal or Doom back in the 90s is fine.

A 15-year old playing Call of Duty in 2012 is ADHD.

The market and business forces at play where a lot different between 1990 and 2012.

Unreal and Doom didn't deprive the market of other genres or stifle creativity.

Today with gaming being a billion dollar enterprise driven solely by corporate quarterly statements, if a crappy game like Call of Duty sells en masse, nobody makes *anything* else except more Call of Duty and every other game maker hops on the bandwagon to make their games play exactly like Call of Duty because that's where the money is (eg: Capcom & Resident Evil for example).

In 1990 Blizzard had no motivation for making Star Craft play like Doom and Square didn't make Final Fantasy play like Unreal. Every genre flourished.

But today, game development is nearly monopolized by giant empires like EA and Activision going casual mainstream for maximum dollar signs. If Call of Duty 9 makes a billion dollars in the first hour of sales, you can bet that Final Fantasy 19 and Resident Evil 8 are going to employ the "Call of Duty formula": 3 month product cycle with linear point A to point B on rails shooter that takes less than an hour to beat and is so simple and mindless even your dog can pick up a controller and start playing.

It's 2012 and I'm SICK of everthing trying to be watered down casual Call of Duty. I didn't seem to have that problem in 1990. Tens of dozens of genres in fact thrived for more than a decade after 1990 on the 16 and 32 bit platforms despite the release of Doom and Unreal.

Sure you had a fair share of sequels and copy cats. But today they aren't even trying anymore, it's just an all out cash grab for the least amount of effort. Amazing how a 8 MB 16 bit game would take 3 years to develop, provide 100+ hours of game play, and having ending sequences longer than it takes to beat most games today. We don't see that anymore because mouth breathing casual masses are ruining gaming by opening their wallets for their 3 months of ADHD fix every time somebody whispers Call of Duty.

Next gen consoles are irrelevant unless you are into Madden and Call of Duty and like paying a monthly fee for... well... everything eventually. Add $10 a month per controller? $5 a month if you want to save? $20 a month if you want to be able to join games? Hey forget about FINDING and CREATING weapons in a game, just buy them for $10 each now, and don't forget the accompanying achievement that requires having all the weapons... or the limited durability that keeps you coming back to buy them again and again. Treasure boxes and supply crates are obsolete; they don't generate endless revenue for publishers.

We have more problems to worry about right now than what the graphics on next gen consoles are going to look like.

 

[Veliko]

The market and business forces at play where a lot different between 1990 and 2012.

Unreal and Doom didn't deprive the market of other genres or stifle creativity.

Two points:

This has nothing to do your comment about modern players having ADHD.

You are also completely wrong, because even back then everyone was complaining about unimaginative FPS's filling the marketplace.

It's 2012 and I'm SICK of everthing trying to be watered down casual Call of Duty. I didn't seem to have that problem in 1990. Tens of dozens of genres in fact thrived for more than a decade after 1990 on the 16 and 32 bit platforms despite the release of Doom and Unreal.

Yawn, same old argument that has been trotted out ever since the dawn of computer games.

Where is the watered down CoD element in something like The Witcher? Or Civilisation 5? Or Amnesia: Dark Descent? Or Portal? Or Hearts of Iron? Or Crusader King? Or Europa Universalis? Or Minecraft?

We have more problems to worry about right now than what the graphics on next gen consoles are going to look like.

I completely agree; the current economic climate, for example.

Or was that not what you meant?

We have the marvellous ability to do more than one thing at once.

 

[Sulaco]

Where is the watered down CoD element in something like The Witcher? Or Civilisation 5? Or Amnesia: Dark Descent? Or Portal? Or Hearts of Iron? Or Crusader King? Or Europa Universalis? Or Minecraft?

That's a pretty horrendously weak argument there.

First, it's hilarious you use "Civilization 5" as an argument AGAINST how gaming has been dumbed down, as it's easily the DUMBEST of the real series, WIDELY decried by fans, and admitted by the developers it was an attempt to get people who don't usually play strategy games interested; hence, they had to "dumb it down". Just search for any of the MYRIAD threads on Civ V and the hate it's received.

Second, 3 of the remaining 7 games are Paradox Interactive games, a studio that survives by it's dedicated, HARDCORE audience, and enjoys little in the way of mainstream success.

Amnesia was a small studio production which was championed by online forum users and hardcore fans of the genre precisely because it was such a departure from the piles of mindless drivel that populates the genre today.

Minecraft was a single-man project-turned-indie-game.

Really, the only games you mention that helps your point is Portal and The Witcher 2.

Exdeath still makes an excellent point; and that is, the gradual condensing and homogenization of genres the last several years is startling, and you simply are being a contrarian or willfully ignorant if you can't see it.

Naming off a literal handful of games, when there are literally TWO counterexamples for every one of your examples, doesn't change that. Sure, there will be a few games that break the mold, that's not the point. The point is what direction is the industry as a whole trending towards, and as a whole, especially with larger studios, we're seeing the LCD factor more and more and more. Some examples:

Resident Evil series
Silent Hill series
Hitman series
Splinter Cell series
Rainbow Six series
Final Fantasy series
Elder Scrolls series
Ghost Recon series
Civilization series
Mass Effect series
Dragon Age series
Aliens vs. Predator series
Silent Hunter series
Flight Simulator series

.those are just personal favorite series that I can think of off the top of my head. That does not include abandoned series (like STALKER) or series that were morphed into something else (Jedi Knight--->Force Unleashed, KotoR-->TOR)) or X-Wing Alliance.

 

[Veliko]

That's a pretty horrendously weak argument there.

First, it's hilarious you use "Civilization 5" as an argument AGAINST how gaming has been dumbed down, as it's easily the DUMBEST of the real series, WIDELY decried by fans, and admitted by the developers it was an attempt to get people who don't usually play strategy games interested; hence, they had to "dumb it down". Just search for any of the MYRIAD threads on Civ V and the hate it's received.

Second, 3 of the remaining 7 games are Paradox Interactive games, a studio that survives by it's dedicated, HARDCORE audience, and enjoys little in the way of mainstream success.

Amnesia was a small studio production which was championed by online forum users and hardcore fans of the genre precisely because it was such a departure from the piles of mindless drivel that populates the genre today.

Minecraft was a single-man project-turned-indie-game.

Really, the only games you mention that helps your point is Portal and The Witcher 2.

My point was that there are hordes of games out there that are not CoD dumbed down at all.

The fact that some of them are indie, single-man projects or made by the same developer is completely irrelevant.

I cite Amnesia as an example of something that isn't dumbed down, yet you say it doesn't count because, well, it isn't dumbed down; an obscure argument at best.

Exdeath still makes an excellent point; and that is, the gradual condensing and homogenization of genres the last several years is startling, and you simply are being a contrarian or willfully ignorant if you can't see it.

Naming off a literal handful of games, when there are literally THREE counterexamples for every one of your examples, doesn't change that. Sure, there will be a few games that break the mold, that's not the point. The point is what direction is the industry as a whole trending towards, and as a whole, especially with larger studios, we're seeing the LCD factor more and more and more.

Once again; nothing that Exdeath or you are saying is a new phenomenon. I remember during these 8-bit and 16-bit days that you seem to hold in such a high regard, that there were far more than three lots of dross for every high-quality game.

The direction that the industry is heading in, is one of an increase in the amount of indie games coming to the fore.

The games that I am playing today are leagues ahead of whatever I was playing years ago. Anyone who claims otherwise either has very narrow tastes, or doesn't actually remember what things were like back in the old days.

 

[Sulaco]

I cite Amnesia as an example of something that isn't dumbed down, yet you say it doesn't count because, well, it isn't dumbed down; an obscure argument at best.

I say Amnesia doesn't count because it's in no way indicative of the industry trend or direction at all, which, as far as I'm concerned, is what this discussion is about. You can throw out one or two or three examples and say, "Look, everything's fine. Here's a good game", but that doesn't prove your point. What's happening to games as a whole is the point, and one good, obscure game doesn't change that.
My point is, there should be A LOT more than one or two examples to throw out if your argument had merit. Instead, you have one or two to hold aloft of the sea of crap.
Bad games have always existed, but there were usually ALWAYS at LEAST several, different examples of truly quality games in specific genres. That just isn't the case now. Genre lines are being blurred, and whole ones are disappearing, to be more streamlined and marketable.

Once again; nothing that Exdeath or you are saying is a new phenomenon. I remember during these 8-bit and 16-bit days that you seem to hold in such a high regard, that there were far more than three lots of dross for every high-quality game.

The direction that the industry is heading in, is one of an increase in the amount of indie games coming to the fore.

The games that I am playing today are leagues ahead of whatever I was playing years ago. Anyone who claims otherwise either has very narrow tastes, or doesn't actually remember what things were like back in the old days.

And I remember having this debate with you before, where you essentially claimed that anything modern you've played is leagues ahead of classic games of yesteryear, almost to a title.
I went ahead to provide about 30 or so more counter-examples to you, showing older games actually widely considered to be SUPERIOR to their current, modern counterparts...and not bad counterparts, at that. Often, very good. That debate went nowhere, but you couldn't deny my points of their quality, and often superiority to their modern sequels.

 

[Veliko]

I say Amnesia doesn't count because it's in no way indicative of the industry trend or direction at all, which, as far as I'm concerned, is what this discussion is about. You can throw out one or two or three examples and say, "Look, everything's fine. Here's a good game", but that doesn't prove your point. What's happening to games as a whole is the point, and one good, obscure game doesn't change that.
My point is, there should be A LOT more than one or two examples to throw out if your argument had merit. Instead, you have one or two to hold aloft of the sea of crap.
Bad games have always existed, but there were usually ALWAYS at LEAST several, different examples of truly quality games in specific genres. That just isn't the case now. Genre lines are being blurred, and whole ones are disappearing, to be more streamlined and marketable.

I listed nine games, yet you disregarded most of them completely for entirely arbitrary and inane reasons.

One direction that the games industry is taking, is the increasing presence of indie games, yet you disregarded two games because they were indie games. You talk of directions without actually understanding those directions.

And I remember having this debate with you before, where you essentially claimed that anything modern you've played is leagues ahead of classic games of yesteryear, almost to a title.
I went ahead to provide about 30 or so more counter-examples to you, showing older games actually widely considered to be SUPERIOR to their current, modern counterparts...and not bad counterparts, at that. Often, very good. That debate went nowhere, but you couldn't deny my points of their quality, and often superiority to their modern sequels.

If your updated post above is anything to go by, it sounds like you stuck only to specific franchises with your comparisons, which is a false equivalence.

 

[diesbudt]

We have more problems to worry about right now than what the graphics on next gen consoles are going to look like.

The fact that I swear 3 in every 5 new games is a FPS is a problme I worry about now.

And from the doom days the formula has not changed much, beyond graphics and processing speed/"physics of game world" and the story most FPS games have very similar structures.

 

[exdeath]

This has nothing to do your comment about modern players having ADHD.

There is no other explanation for why the same simple retarded game can keep selling millions with every rehash every couple months. "MOAR GUNS AND SPOLSIONS YAY!"

 

[Veliko]

There is no other explanation for why the same simple retarded game can keep selling millions with every rehash every couple months. "MOAR GUNS AND SPOLSIONS YAY!"

Sorry, you are going to have to expand on this. Specifically which game is rehashed every couple of months, and sells millions?

 

[BD2003]

There is no other explanation for why the same simple retarded game can keep selling millions with every rehash every couple months. "MOAR GUNS AND SPOLSIONS YAY!"

You're missing the entire point of why COD (and other popular games) sell. It's not the single player campaigns, it's the multiplayer. People aren't buying a story, they're buying a sport. Sports dont need to radically change year to year, and they dont get stale if the core mechanics are solid. The campaign is an afterthought.

 

[msparrow88]

no.

 

[zerocool84]

I too am getting sick of all the FPS's but it could be that I've been primarily a PC gamer for most of my life and have been playing them since forever.

 

[Sulaco]

I listed nine games, yet you disregarded most of them completely for entirely arbitrary and inane reasons.

Again, from my perspective, the discussion is about the trending of the industry and direction of gaming as a whole. You holding up some Paradox games and the DUMBEST of the dumbed down Civilization series (which actually only aided my argument) to show that all is well does NOTHING to change that. You are arguing everything's fine and dandy because these fringe titles exist on the periphery. That doesn't change the fact that the rest of the industry, by and large, is dumbing down their games, making them easier, dumber, and inexcusably linear. Pure and simple.

One direction that the games industry is taking, is the increasing presence of indie games, yet you disregarded two games because they were indie games. You talk of directions without actually understanding those directions.

The indie scene is a great development, and a wonderful breath of fresh air. But I hold that mostly separate from this discussion, because, again, maybe we're talking past each other, but I'm speaking more of the state and direction of the industry as a whole. I mean, even semantically, "Independent" games are not going to be representative of the trend of the this hobby. Indie games aren't really changing the big publisher's homogenization of gaming genres. They're mostly separate from the mainstream trend of the industry as a whole. Still, if you want to consider part of the discussion, I'll grant you that point. The indie scene is one of the success stories of recent gaming.

If your updated post above is anything to go by, it sounds like you stuck only to specific franchises with your comparisons, which is a false equivalence.

I use those games because as a gamer, those are specific series that I have followed and played for years, and can personally testify to the drastic changes they've experienced. What more do you want?
I just listed nearly FIFTEEN of some of THE most popular, visible series in gaming, across multiple genres. As well as more obscure ones. Stop being pedantic. That's 15 odd series alone, with often times MULTIPLE games in each series that have been effected.
How many do you need? How many does it take? I think you're arguing for arguing's sake, but my list stands.

 

[Veliko]

Again, from my perspective, the discussion is about the trending of the industry and direction of gaming as a whole. You holding up some Paradox games and the DUMBEST of the dumbed down Civilization series (which actually only aided my argument) to show that all is well does NOTHING to change that. You are arguing everything's fine and dandy because these fringe titles exist on the periphery. That doesn't change the fact that the rest of the industry, by and large, is dumbing down their games, making them easier, dumber, and inexcusably linear. Pure and simple.

Stop getting your knickers in such a twist you hysterical loon. I haven't argued that everything is fine and dandy at all; however, you are the one who is arguing that everything was fine and dandy 15+ years ago.

You keep talking about directions without actually understanding what the direction is. The games industry is getting larger, which means more games and more players. Now whilst the market share for these intellectual games you talk about might be shrinking, there is growth for them overall.

It doesn't matter that CoD is selling in the millions and Paradox games are comparative minnows, the market for those are entirely separate. How many copies of Civilisation sold for the PC in 1991? How many copies do the Paradox games sell in 2012?

What does 'inexcusably linear' even mean, it's a complete nonsense statement that assumes that linear is inherently bad.

The indie scene is a great development, and a wonderful breath of fresh air. But I hold that mostly separate from this discussion, because, again, maybe we're talking past each other, but I'm speaking more of the state and direction of the industry as a whole. I mean, even semantically, "Independent" games are not going to be representative of the trend of the this hobby. Indie games aren't really changing the big publisher's homogenization of gaming genres. They're mostly separate from the mainstream trend of the industry as a whole. Still, if you want to consider part of the discussion, I'll grant you that point. The indie scene is one of the success stories of recent gaming.

If you are going to talk about the gaming industry as a whole, then by definition you have to include the indie scene.

I use those games because as a gamer, those are specific series that I have followed and played for years, and can personally testify to the drastic changes they've experienced. What more do you want?
I just listed nearly FIFTEEN of some of THE most popular, visible series in gaming, across multiple genres. As well as more obscure ones. Stop being pedantic. That's 15 odd series alone, with often times MULTIPLE games in each series that have been effected.
How many do you need? How many does it take? I think you're arguing for arguing's sake, but my list stands.

Your list stands only as examples of franchises that have changed. Nothing more.

Once again, you think you are talking about the bigger picture, but you are doing exactly the opposite.

 

[Sulaco]

What does 'inexcusably linear' even mean, it's a complete nonsense statement that assumes that linear is inherently bad.

I wondered how long we'd go before you resorted to childish ad hominem. Good job.

First off, do you play, or have you played ANY of the series I listed? No? For more than one or two entries? I'm guessing not.
Because if you have, you wouldn't have to ask that question. It would be self-apparent. It would be obvious. Go listen to any of the HUNDREDS of rants about FFXIII, about the dumbing down of Civ 5, about the complete overhaul of the R6 and Ghost Recon games, about the bastardization of FS to Flight!. I could go on at length. It's not rocket science, it's not even opinion. These are real, measurable, quantifiable alterations to largely successful series, made for no other reason than to expand the market to include casual, largely uninterested gamers in a genre they're not actually interested in. Studios have essentially admitted this. Usually failing miserably. You have no ground to argue that, it's black and white.


If you seriously have to ASK how FFXIII is linear compared to previous entries, you need to leave this discussion now. If you seriously need to ASK how something like Mass Effect 3 or Dragon Age 2 was dumbed down, GTFO. And if you don't know what linear is, you are, for all intents and purposes, a dolt.
Of course, you're not. You're just playing dumb and smug, but you know exactly what we mean. Just as in that previous thread, where virtually everyone was disagreeing with you and offering counter examples, you continue to argue for arguments sake.

Your previous quote gems, when talking about classic RPGs;

It is because of the fact that the menus are fumpy, the graphics are meager and a lack of voice-acting that means I can't get engrossed and immersed in the story. It all detracts from the overall experience.

...I feel just sad for you. I'm just now playing through System Shock 2 for the first time, a game you couldn't get into by your own admission because it wasn't "up to scratch", and it's still miles better than the majority of shooters out there. That's not nostalgia talking, I never played the game when it was new.
But I suppose if there's enough voice acting, enough slick menus, and shiny graphics, that will make up for the fact that today's games, by and large, are becoming so painfully easy, so brain dead linear, and so hand-holdingly bland that they essentially plays themselves.

Sorry bud, you've had this discussion before, and been outnumbered. The examples are legion. Plenty of people have provided them to you.
You disagree, that's fine. Please keep giving your money to whatever's the shinest and prettiestestest, but to say there hasn't been devolution is just slapping on the blinders and putting your fingers in your ears.

Next.

Your list stands only as examples of franchises that have changed. Nothing more

Um. Yes.

Games that have changed...by becoming more dumbed down.

Which is the entire fucking point of this discussion.

You're really brilliant.