What do you expect from next gen consoles in terms of graphics?
- Thread starter Swagnificent
- Start date
The main leg up computer games have is mods.
So let's say "Game A" comes out on console and PC. Looks great on console. On PC there is generally a whole community of people, for virtually any half way popular game, that will sit there and tweak every aspect of the graphics you can think of. You can't mod console games. They are basically "as is".
Same goes for the hardware. A 360 is a 360 for 8 years. If you run the same game on a 360, and a computer with a GTX 690, the PC version is gonna blow the console one out of the water. The only thing developing specifically for PC would do is widen the gap.
Fred.
Yes I understand I know all about PC gaming and the community but all I am saying is that if it wasn't for the consumer interest in the console market these PC games would be looking amazing but they are bench marked a little.
I (mostly) agree with what's being said in this thread, as far as console graphics continuing to get better.
Having said that, I've been gaming since the early 80s. And tech heads in general, and console makers specifically, have a long history of taking the best case scenario and making it seem like it's inevitable. In the 1980s people thought we'd have flying cars in the 90s.
For example, the N64 was supposed to produce "Toy Story" level graphics. The PS2 was gonna have photo realistic graphics. Hell, I still got all the old gaming mags ("Next Gen", "EGM", "Gamer's Republic", "Gamefan", etc.) that said all this crazy shyt. It's right there in black and white.
Do I think they were intentionally lying? No. But like I said, they looked at current tech, and tried to gauge where future tech would be, which is usually never accurate for a number of reasons.
Fred.
Having said that, I've been gaming since the early 80s. And tech heads in general, and console makers specifically, have a long history of taking the best case scenario and making it seem like it's inevitable. In the 1980s people thought we'd have flying cars in the 90s.
For example, the N64 was supposed to produce "Toy Story" level graphics. The PS2 was gonna have photo realistic graphics. Hell, I still got all the old gaming mags ("Next Gen", "EGM", "Gamer's Republic", "Gamefan", etc.) that said all this crazy shyt. It's right there in black and white.
Do I think they were intentionally lying? No. But like I said, they looked at current tech, and tried to gauge where future tech would be, which is usually never accurate for a number of reasons.
Fred.
I'm sorry but this takes the cake for retarded comments in this thread. Can you provide a single shred of evidence that we have reached a point of diminishing returns? Computational power is the one thing in life that has so far seemed to defy this law of diminishing returns. Moore's law continues to give us more powerful computers that make tasks that were impossible just 10 years ago, ubiquitous today.
Compare video games of today to those of 10 years ago and tell me we've reached a point of diminishing returns. I'm not that old but I've lived thru the PS1 to PS3 transitions and it has been nothing short of astounding. Computing power continues to advance exponentially. CGI in movies today are immensely better than those of 10 years ago. There is no reason to believe that it won't continue to get better. Everyone and their mama has been calling for the death of Moore's law for almost 50 years now but it keeps chugging away. DARPA is now planning to build an exascale supercomputer by 2018. That is a computer 1,000x faster than the fastest supercomputer of today. That work will have the effect of making laptops and consoles in 2020, 1,000x faster than they are today. You don't need to be brain surgeon to realize that we are far from the point of diminishing returns.
Don't bias reality with the fact that we haven't had a new system in 7 years. The only reason it looks like not much has happened lately is because developers have been working on hardware that is 7 years old. We have yet to see serious developers work with technology as advanced as what will be available in the new playstation and xbox. Lets wait until the new games come out before you start making declarations that have no basis in fact.
True. We already know the Oculus Rift is heading to developers next month. And there were leaks that Microsoft was looking to release something similar for the new Xbox in 2014.
2014 will be to Augmented/Virtual Reality what 2007 was for smartphones. We'll see an explosion of an entirely new industry. Google Glass and the Oculus Rift are both supposed to debut that year. And we'll probably see similar products being released by many competitors.
You don't game on the PC to be talking like this.
In terms of graphics we have hit a bit of a wall. The most important things that is being focused on is after effects such as physics, consistent 60 fps, and mechanics. We have reached a level in terms of what can be done in terms of graphics that art is becoming more of a factor than anything else. I think Jeff Gerstmann, Ryan Davis, and the rest of the Giant Bomb crew hit it best. Take for example car games...cars have looked great since GT3 on the PS2 and have somewhat reached a point in where not much improvement can be made. So what is there to focus on then? After effects such as smoke when you do a burn-out, lighting effects when you are driving on a sunny day, weather efffects...and I am not talking about making the water/ice look pretty.
The last game that truly wowed me was probably Sleeping Dogs on the PC. that game looks
on the PC. Before that? I think it was Crysis 1...which was over 5 years ago already.
Insensitive
Superstar
I remember carmack had it right.
This generation visually is going to be insane.
Yea. But its a logical fallacy to say that because they were wrong in the past they will be wrong today. I'm not saying that we'll have Avatar/Life of Pi like graphics in the next gen systems. That computational power simply doesn't exist at an affordable price today. But it isn't a stretch to say that it will be available by the mid-2020s. Its simple extrapolation of what we already know with what we know is possible.
People in the 80s and early 90s were making predictions based on very little data. We have alot more data today and we know how much computational power it takes to produce photorealistic graphics. Its simply a question of cost right now. You could get consoles that can produce games with graphics like we see in movies, but those games would cost millions of dollars. However, we know that because of Moore's law, what is millions of dollars today will be hundreds of dollars in a decade. That is why I think predictions of today can be relied on more confidently than predictions of the past.
Let me make this clear.
If PC was the leading gaming source of competition and everyone had the necessary funds to support it as number 1. The comments posted on this thread will be irrelevant. Console game is good because it makes gaming affordable and convenient to the population. With that in mind there are plenty of downfalls to gaming with consoles. I suggest companies will have dedicated or Cloud Video Gaming instead of the box system.
Just my 2 cents
If PC was the leading gaming source of competition and everyone had the necessary funds to support it as number 1. The comments posted on this thread will be irrelevant. Console game is good because it makes gaming affordable and convenient to the population. With that in mind there are plenty of downfalls to gaming with consoles. I suggest companies will have dedicated or Cloud Video Gaming instead of the box system.
Just my 2 cents
You don't game on the PC to be talking like this.
In terms of graphics we have hit a bit of a wall. The most important things that is being focused on is after effects such as physics, consistent 60 fps, and mechanics. We have reached a level in terms of what can be done in terms of graphics that art is becoming more of a factor than anything else. I think Jeff Gerstmann, Ryan Davis, and the rest of the Giant Bomb crew hit it best. Take for example car games...cars have looked great since GT3 on the PS2 and have somewhat reached a point in where not much improvement can be made. So what is there to focus on then? After effects such as smoke when you do a burn-out, lighting effects when you are driving on a sunny day, weather efffects...and I am not talking about making the water/ice look pretty.
The last game that truly wowed me was probably Sleeping Dogs on the PC. that game looks
Has CGI in movies hit a wall? No. You can't tell me that movies like Life of Pi are not 100x more impressive than anything we saw 10 years ago. Just because some developers say we have hit a wall doesn't mean its a truth. People have continually made predictions about the rate of computational power slowing down for decades only to be proven false.
I'm a believer in the math. You can't tell me that people can't figure out how to do something useful with computing power that is 1000x more powerful than what we have today. Exponentials are what makes the impossible possible in as little as 10 years. In the mid-2020s, consoles will be able to perform petaflop calculations and will have terabytes of memory not gigabytes. You can't tell me that developers won't be able to do some astounding things with computational power that overwhelming. The reason I know it can be done, is because $100 million Hollywood blockbusters are doing that today. All the video game industry needs is for this technology to become cheap enough so it can be made ubiquitous.
True. However, the problem with cloud gaming right now is bandwidth. The US is really a third world country when it comes to wireless internet bandwidth. If the entire country had Google Fiber, then cloud gaming would become a reality. That is probably what will make this the last generation of console gaming.
Insensitive
Superstar
While I think there a couple issues with rage,
I enjoyed it's fun (but short) campaign.
I think it's a beautiful game that suffered from being
to ambitious.
So Carmack is still in good in my books too.
courtdog
Drinks Blood from a Boot
Could you provide a link to that, cuz I think you misremembered
Crysis 3 they said could be done on THIS GEN, not next gen. But they pulled it off, and I have to agree Crysis 3 on 360 looks
Your not 100% right or wrong here. But consoles don't set any "clear" benchmarks. If they want a game to look a certain way, thats what they'll do
On consoles, it can't be vastly different than its console competitors without costing too much for the company itself
On PC, every game looks vastly better already. And if it didn't, it does after a short period of time. So everything your talking about gets reached in a quick amount of time on every occasion...
Tru Story
The problem with your thinking is these companies are not worried about the "few" w/out High Speed internet. Those ppl don't make the world go round.
People here like to preach like they do matter, but reality is if you don't even have high speed internet? You don't have a next gen console.. simple as that.
If you own a Ferrari, you probably don't live in a trailer park
If you Bill Gates.. you got 76million systems out there.. 50million of them are paying XBL customers. You think the next xbox wouldn't have cloud gaming because there are rural areas in the world who can't have High speed internet
Internet speeds are more than fast enough, who here downloads EVERYTHING by a raise of hands
You cell phone can download at faster than DSL speeds, tether that bytch and call it a day
http://www.gamesradar.com/future-xbox-cloud-centric-gaming-microsoft/
