Support NeoGAF

[Zyrusticae]

If anything, tools improved this gen from last gen and yet costs still increased dramatically.

There are many reasons for this.

The previous generation (PS2/Xbox/Gamecube) had considerably less voice acting, less complex assets (things like normal mapping and physics objects didn't really become commonplace until this generation), and a much smaller focus on marketing. Hell, a huge chunk of Call of Duty's budget is exclusively for marketing.

Not all of that increased cost comes from asset generation.

 

[Black_Stride]

BF3 and Witcher 2 still don't run at 60FPS on a GTX 680 and they don't look anywhere near as good as Agni's.

What? A 680 can't run BF3 at 60FPS locked absolutely maxed out, that was my point, you can't just take effects out of the equation and still say it does.

Are you being dead serious?

At sub-4K resolutions a GTX680 will lock Battlefield 3 paired with a decent processor.
At 4K resolutions a GTX680 will atleast 30fps it.

Even at 2560 x 1440 which is still quite a rare resolution Battlefield 3 is locked at 60 on a 680, 670 and probably a 660ti and i mean on absolute Ultra even though MSAA is quite a waste in BF3.

At 1080p a GTX680 will triple digit Battlefield 3.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[UrbanRats]

Great critique!

Ok, first tell me what metric did you use to arrive at the conclusion that, HW between a Wii and a PS3, was capable of producing "any game we could dream up", and what does that even mean? I'm also gonna need a bit more detail on how you decided the point at which the budgets "became unsustainable", because that really depends on what company we're talking about and what business strategy we're fine with as consumers.
The "sumblimely rich experiences" line doesn't mean much, too.

So again, i don't understand the logic behind this image at all.

Not to mention that the differences in power between the various platforms are hardly represented with realistic proportions.

 

[i-Lo]

I wrote a blog post about this topic recently in fact.

I am curious, how do you define this "sublimely rich experience" factor? Is this is a quantifiable and measurable experiences that other sources can back up? Because otherwise, it's an opinion piece and yours is as valid as the opinions of others on what constitutes a "sublimely rich experience" or "Point at which we could make any game we could dream up". For some people it's about the details.

 

[Zyrusticae]

Wow, were we watching the same video? The entire thing was a reconstruction of every single Hollywood cinematographic trope that exists.

Hmm, no. There were plenty of cinematic tropes in there, for sure. Of course. It was a cinematic. And some of those tropes just work well.

But I was referring to the actual look of it, which is nothing like any CG movie that's ever come out of Hollywood, nor is the setting something you'll ever see coming out of there.

We've heard that one before. History indicates otherwise.

Tim Sweeney also thinks you're wrong.

See above post.

 

[test_account]

Tim Sweeney also thinks you're wrong.

Was that about games in general or only about Epic's own games? From the link you posted, i understand that he is specifically talking about Epic's games:

"Epic Games chief technology officer Tim Sweeney said he expects Epic to be able to build next-gen titles for “only about double the cost” of games from the start of the current generation."

How much did Epic's games cost in this generation? I know that Gears of War 1 was about 10 million dollars, but that doesnt cover the costs of Unreal Engine 3. If Gears of War 2 and 3 was around that 10 million dollar mark as well, then we're looking about maybe $25 - $30 million tops for Epic's next generation games. We have already seen several of games in this generation with that budget, so the increase for games in general might not be sky high in the next generation.

 

[LeleSocho]

I wrote a blog post about this topic recently in fact.

I think i never seen something more ridiculous than that graph
"Point at which we could make any game we could dream up"
we could dream up ahahahaha oh god

 

[RoboPlato]

That graph is fucking hilarious. What's it from?

 

[Vulcano's assistant]

There are still a myriad of games (mostly physics based) that are very difficult to make with current tech, dream bigger.

 

[sniperpon]

Not all of that increased cost comes from asset generation.

You're pretty optimistic, there are forty-odd years of history against you.

My prediction is that in five or ten years the "triple A" gaming model-- represented by the values in tech demos like this-- will have finished the already-occurring collapse under its own weight, and will be totally supplanted by a model where the average game will be what we call an "indie" game today. Their price tags will be 20-30 USD. And they will be gameplay focused, not cinema focused, like this tech demo.

I think there is more substance behind my prediction than yours. In fact, my prediction is already coming true; just look at the massive consolidation of triple-A publishers-- all because of unsustainable game budgets-- and the mass migration of developers away from Hollywood cinema-style games, and towards indie development.

But none of us can truly see the future, so I suppose we'll just have to wait and see.

Ok, first tell me what metric did you use to arrive at the conclusion that, HW between a Wii and a PS3, was capable of producing "any game we could dream up", and what does that even mean?

Oh, you were upset by a pseudo-scientific looking graph that didn't label its metrics. I can see how that would bother some people, you a Myers-Briggs "S" perchance? I'm more of an "N"; I'm not usually as concerned with specific metrics as I am with understanding big picture trends and patterns. And I think the concept behind my graph is spot-on.

I was merely trying to represent a thought construct with a picture. It worked-- you understood what I was getting at via the picture. Try not to be so hung up on the sizes of the bars, and focus more on the principle of what I'm saying.

Personally, I like where I drew my lines, but they are somewhat subjective (I don't think you can argue the "unsustainable game budgets" line much, but the other two are mostly opinion). Where would you place them?

But I was referring to the actual look of it.

I see. And I was more getting at the "why are we celebrating what is essentially a clip from an action film that shows zero gameplay and probably cost 10 million dollars to make, when that very approach is driving half of our industry bankrupt, both in terms of financials and creativity".

 

[Rawket Lawnchair]

I don't care if the final game looks even better than that, if it is the same FF13 clusterfucking corridors all over again.

 

[Salsa]

Are you being dead serious?

At sub-4K resolutions a GTX680 will lock Battlefield 3 paired with a decent processor.
At 4K resolutions a GTX680 will atleast 30fps it.

Even at 2560 x 1440 which is still quite a rare resolution Battlefield 3 is locked at 60 on a 680, 670 and probably a 660ti and i mean on absolute Ultra even though MSAA is quite a waste in BF3.

At 1080p a GTX680 will triple digit Battlefield 3.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

to be fair, this is true 90 percent of the time. Go to one of the bigger maps, stand on a tall surface where you can watch the whole map, and if you're playing 64 players you're likely to get dips into the 50s

 

[Zyrusticae]

You're pretty optimistic, there are forty-odd years of history against you.

My prediction is that in five or ten years the "triple A" gaming model-- represented by the values in tech demos like this-- will have finished the already-occurring collapse under its own weight, and will be totally supplanted by a model where the average game will be what we call an "indie" game today. Their price tags will be 20-30 USD. And they will be gameplay focused, not cinema focused, like this tech demo.

I think there is more substance behind my prediction than yours. In fact, my prediction is already coming true; just look at the massive consolidation of triple-A publishers-- all because of unsustainable game budgets-- and the mass migration of developers away from Hollywood cinema-style games, and towards indie development.

But none of us can truly see the future, so I suppose we'll just have to wait and see.

Again, there are many reasons for this.

Most particularly, those big-budget game development studios often have awful corporate cultures with unsustainable crunch times that bleed developers incredibly fast. Ask any game dev on GAF and they'll tell you much the same.

Dev team bloat (throwing more devs at a problem doesn't necessarily fix a problem faster) and mismanagement in general can contribute further to the issue.

It's been said before, but game development is software development - good software development practices will generally produce a better product. Unfortunately, many studios just don't follow good development practices.

By the way, there are some indie games that have visuals on-par with big-budget current-gen games - Hawken and Natural Selection 2 come to mind here.

I see. And I was more getting at the "why are we celebrating what is essentially a clip from an action film that shows zero gameplay and probably cost 10 million dollars to make, when that very approach is driving half of our industry bankrupt, both in terms of financials and creativity".

Actually, plenty of folks have been questioning that aspect of it.

I'm more interested in the technology side, that's all.

 

[Durante]

That graph is fucking hilarious. What's it from?

It's not just fucking hilarious, it's also fucking stupid. I can "dream up" a game in 10 seconds flat that is not doable on current hardware.

 

[LeleSocho]

Personally, I like where I drew my lines, but they are somewhat subjective (I don't think you can argue the "unsustainable game budgets" line much, but the other two are mostly opinion). Where would you place them?

This is the point, your vision stand still only if the game that "we could dream up" is below the "unsustainable game budget" or below the power of the console, thing that obviously is not true and the result is that your graph and your inappropriate use of "we" is totally ridiculous. I sincerely find difficult how you can't understand why it's insane.
You want an example? if i wanted an open world game like GTA that looks like real life, of course i could only dream a game like this if we only have the power of an Xbox or of a Wii... hell not even the Ps3 can provide me such a thing.
There's a long way to go of being able to make a game that everyone can dream... there are people that want ray tracing in games but that won't happen for a loooooooong time

 

[Refreshment.01]

You're pretty optimistic, there are forty-odd years of history against you.

Well kind of, but there are other things we need to consider. These spendthrift developers at least grew wiser this generation. Remember, in the previous cycle to 360 it was still common for developers to build custom engines for a game and not even share internal resources among their teams. Not many middleware was used. Now, all this practices became common.

Big productions are hardware not asset limited. Basically with the same content, the increase in processing muscle would allow significantly better looking product at almost the same cost, and this even maintaining the same engines.

So save for tangential stuff to production and mismanagement, costs will not raise up to stratosphere levels in the PS4/Xnext geneartion. Or at least not because the increase of specs.

 

[i-Lo]

At 1080p a GTX680 will triple digit Battlefield 3.

According to reviews the average is around 70 fps. Of course, not only is BF3 max'd out but the resolution 1920x1200 with 4AA instead of 1920x1080. So there will be some performance gain.

 

[sniperpon]

Again, there are many reasons for this.

Again, we'll see. You could be right; maybe Sony and Microsoft's next consoles will essentially just run what-are-today's triple-A games at higher resolutions and with anti-aliasing-- developers will deliver better looking games "for free" (or, at the same unsustainable cost level they deliver them today).

I don't see how we're going to reverse the consolidation/"only game that succeeds is Call of Duty"/lack of creativity trend though. To me, that will be the ultimate demise of today's triple-A gaming model.

It's not just fucking hilarious, it's also fucking stupid.

Please try to raise the quality of the discourse. I like Neogaf-- it's slightly more intellectual than most gaming forums that I peruse-- but you're letting me down a bit.

What I was going for with the "any game we can dream up" line is this: there has not yet been a video game made that couldn't have been done on the Xbox, albeit with lower polygon counts/fewer special effects. This despite the fact that the hardware today is many times more powerful than the Xbox's was.

We did Morrowind on the Xbox, and in the over ten years since Morrowind we have not seen a game surpass it in terms of ambition. If anything, Morrowind was more ambitious, and definitely more gameplay/sandbox-focused, than any contemporary open-world game.

It's an assumption of mine that Morrowind represents the theoretical pinnacle of ambition. Perhaps it doesn't. But I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.

It's possible that ambition is still constained by hardware. But that point is moot, since we can't deliver software that leverages new hardware without bankrupting the industry (we're already passed that threshold-- the point my picture is trying to make). Perhaps "dream up" is the wrong term-- "realistically deliver" is more like it.

And by ambition, I'm not talking about graphics-- I'm talking about gameplay models.

 

[RoyalFool]

Wow, hadn't seen the video yet - looks bloody great, really love how it seems to mix a modern world with mystical in a believable fashion.

As for if next generation could run it, it really depends. I expect towards the start of the life cycle then no way will either system reach that fidelity, at least not without severe compromises. But once they optimise their rendering line and we get the tech equivalent of UE3 (which does impossible things on 7 year old hardware) then sure, why the hell not.

To give any sort of definite answer is impossible seeing as neither machine even has a final spec, I guess my counter-question would be does the next '360 launch with a kinect sensor? because if so you know they are going to have to save those costs on the machines raw specs. If they are planning another 7 year cycle I really hope they don't and just go all out on specs.

 

[Durante]

It's possible that ambition is still constained by hardware.

It obviously is. Really, I don't even see a point in arguing this. If it isn't, then show me an RTS with 100s of units that features game play-relevant realtime terrain deformation and destruction.

But that point is moot, since we can't deliver software that leverages new hardware without bankrupting the industry

This I will argue, but just because it's such a common misconception. You can easily leverage hardware without increasing production costs at all. You can even leverage hardware to decrease production cost. In fact, the only major ways to use additional hardware capabilities that do in fact increase costs are tied intrinsically to "cinematic experiences", and the associated costs in asset creation. There are tons of areas you can use more hardware capabilities in that do not cause such costs.

 

[sniperpon]

You can easily leverage hardware without increasing production costs at all.

Then why aren't game developers doing that? I see a net decrease in ambition, despite the increased hardware power.

 

[LeleSocho]

What I was going for with the "any game we can dream up" line is this: there has not yet been a video game made that couldn't have been done on the Xbox, albeit with lower polygon counts/fewer special effects. This despite the fact that the hardware today is many times more powerful than the Xbox's was.

We did Morrowind on the Xbox, and in the over ten years since Morrowind we have not seen a game surpass it in terms of ambition. If anything, Morrowind was more ambitious, and definitely more gameplay/sandbox-focused, than any contemporary open-world game.

It's an assumption of mine that Morrowind represents the theoretical pinnacle of ambition. Perhaps it doesn't. But I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.

It's possible that ambition is still constained by hardware. But that point is moot, since we can't deliver software that leverages new hardware without bankrupting the industry (we're already passed that threshold-- the point my picture is trying to make). Perhaps "dream up" is the wrong term-- "realistically deliver" is more like it.

And by ambition, I'm not talking about graphics-- I'm talking about gameplay models.

Dead Rising on Ps360 and Dead Rising on Wii is your response totally unplayable on Wii because lack of processing power to handle hundreds of zombies at the same time like the hd version... and like i said in the other thread power always make evolution in gameplay. Think a game that relies its entire gameplay on physics, it surely can't be made on todays hardware or else just think of the Kinect and how it works, it uses a lot of 360 CPU's power... without that power you can't make any game with Kinect gameplay.
Sorry your point don't stand still.

 

[SapientWolf]

Again, we'll see. You could be right; maybe Sony and Microsoft's next consoles will essentially just run what-are-today's triple-A games at higher resolutions and with anti-aliasing-- developers will deliver better looking games "for free" (or, at the same unsustainable cost level they deliver them today).

I don't see how we're going to reverse the consolidation/"only game that succeeds is Call of Duty"/lack of creativity trend though. To me, that will be the ultimate demise of today's triple-A gaming model.




Please try to raise the quality of the discourse. I like Neogaf-- it's slightly more intellectual than most gaming forums that I peruse-- but you're letting me down a bit.

What I was going for with the "any game we can dream up" line is this: there has not yet been a video game made that couldn't have been done on the Xbox, albeit with lower polygon counts/fewer special effects. This despite the fact that the hardware today is many times more powerful than the Xbox's was.

We did Morrowind on the Xbox, and in the over ten years since Morrowind we have not seen a game surpass it in terms of ambition. If anything, Morrowind was more ambitious, and definitely more gameplay/sandbox-focused, than any contemporary open-world game.

It's an assumption of mine that Morrowind represents the theoretical pinnacle of ambition. Perhaps it doesn't. But I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.

It's possible that ambition is still constained by hardware. But that point is moot, since we can't deliver software that leverages new hardware without bankrupting the industry (we're already passed that threshold-- the point my picture is trying to make). Perhaps "dream up" is the wrong term-- "realistically deliver" is more like it.

And by ambition, I'm not talking about graphics-- I'm talking about gameplay models.

Well, this is false.

 

[Durante]

Then why aren't game developers doing that?

Some are. The majority of "AAA" publishers aren't doing it much, because -- surprise -- "cinematic" sells.

 

[sniperpon]

If it isn't, then show me an RTS with 100s of units that features game play-relevant realtime terrain deformation and destruction.

Meant to paste this in with my previous post.

You can easily do that on the Xbox. Heck, you can do that on the Genesis. You'd just use sprites, and have them be small enough and use few enough colors to fit in RAM.

That was the point of my picture-- you can make any game you can possibly imagine on the Xbox, or perhaps even less than that. You just won't have hundreds of millions of polygons-- you'd use sprites instead, for instance.

 

[sniperpon]

Some are.

Yes, but as a net industy trend, I don't think technology is advancing gameplay. If anything, it's the opposite. Our values are wrong (what prompted me to post in this thread to begin with).

 

[LeleSocho]

Meant to paste this in with my previous post.

You can easily do that on the Xbox. Heck, you can do that on the Genesis. You'd just use sprites, and have them be small enough and use few enough colors to fit in RAM.

That was the point of my picture-- you can make any game you can possibly imagine on the Xbox, or perhaps even less than that. You just won't have hundreds of millions of polygons-- you'd use sprites instead, for instance.

oh god that's so stupid... what if i "dream" of a game that doesn't look like pieces of colored paper one on top of the other?

 

[Durante]

Meant to paste this in with my previous post.

You can easily do that on the Xbox. Heck, you can do that on the Genesis. You'd just use sprites, and have them be small enough and use few enough colors to fit in RAM.

That was the point of my picture-- you can make any game you can possibly imagine on the Xbox, or perhaps even less than that. You just won't have hundreds of millions of polygons-- you'd use sprites instead, for instance.

You seem to have ignored my point about terrain deformation and destruction. Obviously the gameplay would need to be 3D, and you would require the performance to calculate the physical impact of 100s of shots in real time.

Yes, but as a net industy trend, I don't think technology is advancing gameplay. If anything, it's the opposite. Our values are wrong (what prompted me to post in this thread to begin with).

"AAA" publishers' "values" are what they are because that's what sells.

Hardware capabilities are not at all intrinsically linked to cinematic presentation. And people are starting to use them differently.

 

[UrbanRats]

What I was going for with the "any game we can dream up" line is this: there has not yet been a video game made that couldn't have been done on the Xbox, albeit with lower polygon counts/fewer special effects. This despite the fact that the hardware today is many times more powerful than the Xbox's was.

...

And by ambition, I'm not talking about graphics-- I'm talking about gameplay models.

See this is just because you chose to selectively consider things you are personally interested in.
Games like Red Faction Guerrilla, Just Cause 2 and Red Dead Redemption were not possible on previous generations not just because of graphics, but also because an Xbox could barely mantain a sloppy framerate with Morrowind, that had no physics engine and a ridiculous draw distance (which does impact gameplay).

And even if it were true (and it's not) it still doesn't explain the quote you used in your graph, as, like the others have said, you can clearly imagine a more ambitious and grandiose game, not doable on current HW.

 

[Reiko]

Dead Rising on Ps360 and Dead Rising on Wii is your response totally unplayable on Wii because lack of processing power to handle hundreds of zombies at the same time like the hd version... and like i said in the other thread power always make evolution in gameplay. Think a game that relies its entire gameplay on physics, it surely can't be made on todays hardware or else just think of the Kinect and how it works, it uses a lot of 360 CPU's power... without that power you can't make any game with Kinect gameplay.
Sorry your point don't stand still.

No it just means Capcom didn't downgrade Dead Rising enough on the Wii

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAPkLyZBOhQ

Closest comparison lol

 

[Phoenixazure]

Meant to paste this in with my previous post.

You can easily do that on the Xbox. Heck, you can do that on the Genesis. You'd just use sprites, and have them be small enough and use few enough colors to fit in RAM.

That was the point of my picture-- you can make any game you can possibly imagine on the Xbox, or perhaps even less than that. You just won't have hundreds of millions of polygons-- you'd use sprites instead, for instance.

By your argument, why have video games, what you're claiming can be done as a substitute can be done on pen and paper. Play board games at that point.

 

[Refreshment.01]

Meant to paste this in with my previous post.

You can easily do that on the Xbox. Heck, you can do that on the Genesis. You'd just use sprites, and have them be small enough and use few enough colors to fit in RAM.

That was the point of my picture-- you can make any game you can possibly imagine on the Xbox, or perhaps even less than that. You just won't have hundreds of millions of polygons-- you'd use sprites instead, for instance.

No, imagine if i wanted to make that strategy game with 100's of units but my game design also includes the hability for the player to pass from a commander pov (strategy game interface) to a soldier in a the battlefield (shooter mechanics). Using sprites would complicate or limit the desgin a lot.

Oh, if you are asking about games that aren't doable on Xbox, first thing that came to my mind is Planetside 2. A free to play game btw, done by a relative "unknown" team. I meant if you compare it to the big teams at Activition or Ubisoft for example.

 

[sniperpon]

what if i "dream" of a game that doesn't look like pieces of colored paper one on top of the other?

A-hah, breakthrough! You get what I'm saying now! And it doesn't have to look like "pieces of colored paper"-- some of the most beautiful games I've ever seen came out on 16-bit hardware. Streets of Rage 2 is a much better looking game than Skyrim, for instance.

If we can stop being so obsessed with technology, and focus on gameplay and quality of aesthetics/artwork instead, then there is no point to new, more powerful hardware. That's what my picture/graph was trying to say.

In fact, that path is leading huge parts of our industry to bankruptcy and lack of creativity. This tech demo, and the people fawning over it, are the reason.

We can already reach for the stars in terms of ambition with the hardware we have, we just need to shift the focus towards gameplay and art, and away from polygon counts/shaders.

 

[Zyrusticae]

One game series that comes to mind that needs powerful hardware is the Supreme Commander series.

You can have hundreds of units on-screen at once, all of whom are firing physically simulated projectiles and have their own individual unit AI. Even if you completely removed all the fancy graphics, the physics alone just kill anything less than a powerful dual-core CPU (actually, even worse - it's STILL not possible to play the game smoothly on a 4.5GHz quad-core with 8 AI opponents and a high unit limit, the game just slows down to a crawl, simply because it only utilizes the two cores and can't get enough FLOPs).

That being said, even with the current visuals it's possible to get the game to look MUCH better just by messing with the shaders, and not touching the assets at all. That is why I don't believe that "next-gen" necessitates monstrously increased budgets.

 

[RoyalFool]

What's all this talk about bankruptcy? Just because a machine can do x and y doesn't mean every developer has to. Sure, it'll mean generic shooting war game might be monopolized by whoever can afford to make the biggest explosions (Activision...) but hopefully it'll just encourage diversity from the smaller developers. Iconic characters and solid gameplay as just as strong a tool as having the best looking game on the market.

 

[sniperpon]

you can clearly imagine a more ambitious and grandiose game

I doubt that-- you'd just scale the concept down to use graphics that are at a sustainable budget level. Which, in turn, would run on older hardware.

 

[Durante]

If we can stop being so obsessed with technology, and focus on gameplay and quality of aesthetics/artwork instead, then there is no point to new, more powerful hardware. That's what my picture/graph was trying to say.

So basically, you're going to ignore all the gameplay ideas people just brought up that would be decidedly impossible without the requisite hardware performance and retreat to your same "technology = devil" talking point?

What's all this talk about bankruptcy? Just because a machine can do x and y doesn't mean every developer has to. Sure, it'll mean generic shooting war game might be monopolized by whoever can afford to make the biggest explosions (Activision...) but hopefully it'll just encourage diversity from the smaller developers. Iconic characters and solid gameplay as just as strong a tool as having the best looking game on the market.

Wii U has been confirmed to not be a technological powerhouse. Therefore, "finally real HD!" is out and it's time for round 2 of the "gameplay > graphics" and "powerful hardware kills developers" rhetoric.

 

[Reiko]

I seriously doubt the Ninja Gaiden Black that Itagaki envisioned would be possible on the Dreamcast.

 

[Dice]

Looks on the level with something like Max Payne 3 on PC, so I'm not shocked. The main difference of impressiveness is the talent of the artists and animators, then to a lesser extent the lighting.

 

[UrbanRats]

A-hah, breakthrough! You get what I'm saying now! And it doesn't have to look like "pieces of colored paper"-- some of the most beautiful games I've ever seen came out on 16-bit hardware. Streets of Rage 2 is a much better looking game than Skyrim, for instance.

If we can stop being so obsessed with technology, and focus on gameplay and quality of aesthetics/artwork instead, then there is no point to new, more powerful hardware. That's what my picture/graph was trying to say.

In fact, that path is leading huge parts of our industry to bankruptcy and lack of creativity. This tech demo, and the people fawning over it, are the reason.

We can already reach for the stars in terms of ambition with the hardware we have, we just need to shift the focus towards gameplay and art, and away from polygon counts/shaders.

You can already do that if you want.
What you're asking for is just to chain people ideas to your personal views.

Hotline Miami came out in 2012 and everybody love it, great! That doesn't mean we should not want to play GTAV that, again, would not be physically possible on an Xbox.

 

[sniperpon]

firing physically simulated projectiles

I haven't played the series. Sounds like a gimmick, just like the tech demo that spawned this thread. But perhaps that somehow evolves gameplay for you, it's very subjective.

Just because a machine can do x and y doesn't mean every developer has to.

I totally agree! My posts in this thread are recognizing the trend away from triple-A, unsustainable budgets, to the exact models from which your post draws inspiration-- gameplay-focused, not graphics-technology focused.

 

[Haunted]

:lol


add this to the stupid graph pile we keep on GAF

 

[LeleSocho]

A-hah, breakthrough! You get what I'm saying now! And it doesn't have to look like "pieces of colored paper"-- some of the most beautiful games I've ever seen came out on 16-bit hardware. Streets of Rage 2 is a much better looking game than Skyrim, for instance.

If we can stop being so obsessed with technology, and focus on gameplay and quality of aesthetics/artwork instead, then there is no point to new, more powerful hardware. That's what my picture/graph was trying to say.

In fact, that path is leading huge parts of our industry to bankruptcy and lack of creativity. This tech demo, and the people fawning over it, are the reason.

We can already reach for the stars in terms of ambition with the hardware we have, we just need to shift the focus towards gameplay and art, and away from polygon counts/shaders.

Well i'm seriously thinking that you are a troll at this point
your opinions≠facts and so streets of rage2 isn't much better looking than skyrim not even in billions of years
You are avoiding some posts because you obviously cannot answer them
you cannot make a game with physics gameplay on the xbox or genesis
you cannot make a game with kinect gameplay on the xbox or genesis
you can make a good game without horse power
you cannot make any games you want without power
the lack of power limits innovation on gameplay
This is my last response directed to you because obviously you are either a troll or are entirely closed into your idea and you will not accept that someone says otherwise.

 

[inky]

:lol


add this to the stupid graph pile we keep on GAF

It's really something else, hahaha.

 

[sniperpon]

ignore all the gameplay ideas people just brought up

The "Agni's Philosophy" tech demo is not a gameplay idea. I haven't heard a gameplay idea yet that couldn't be done on the Xbox (like my picture indicates). With the possible exception of the "independent physics per bullet", but that seems like a dubious/gimmicky idea to me anyway.

 

[seattle6418]

People are so underestimating next gen consoles it's kind of fun. Of course this game will run on PS4/720. The whole tech demo was made with this in mind. It's not like it's a PC only thing.

And it has to be that and some to be a big step compared to current gen.

I'm not buying the whole theory of next gen consoles being gimped compared to PC's. Last time there was this huge discrepancy between PC and console was back in the 16bit era. I don't think this trend is coming back.

 

[Vulcano's assistant]

Love it or hate it, you cannot do Kinect games on the first Xbox.

 

[Durante]

The "Agni's Philosophy" tech demo is not a gameplay idea. I haven't heard a gameplay idea yet that couldn't be done on the Xbox (like my picture indicates). With the possible exception of the "independent physics per bullet", but that seems like a dubious/gimmicky idea to me anyway.

You still haven't even responded to my initial point about a large-scale RTS with physics-driven terrain deformation and destruction. At this point, your selectiveness is starting to seem like trolling.

And it's convenient that all gameplay concepts that undoubtedly do require powerful hardware appear to be "dubious" or "gimmicky".

2) You're failing to persuade me that I'm wrong

It's hard to persuade someone that
1) selectively ignores arguments
2) when they can no longer do the above, moves the goalposts by calling the presented ideas "dubious"

 

[sniperpon]

This is my last response directed to you because obviously you are either a troll or are too close into your idea and you will not accept that someone says otherwise.

Don't get angry, I'm enjoying the debate!

I'm not a troll, nor am I "too close" to my idea. We're...

1) Having an open, honest intellectual disagreement
2) You're failing to persuade me that I'm wrong
3) You're getting mad about number 2

Just because I have an opinion that you disagree with doesn't make me a troll!

 

[Reiko]

Well i'm seriously thinking that you are a troll at this point
your opinions≠facts and so obviously streets of rage2 isn't much better looking than skyrim not even in billions of years
You are obviously avoiding some posts because you obviously cannot answer them
you cannot make a game with physics gameplay on the xbox or genesis
you cannot make a game with kinect gameplay on the xbox or genesis
you can make a good game without horse power
you cannot make any games you want without power
the lack of power limits innovation on gameplay
This is my last response directed to you because obviously you are either a troll or are entirely closed into your idea and you will not accept that someone says otherwise.

Let me add... This is what you get without additional power.