Hari Seldon
Member
After the last few boring as shit E3s, next year is going to be ridiculous.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Remedy : Next-Gen consoles are a quantum leap
- Thread starter ekim
- Start date
Consoles don't need to be as powerful as PCs to produce impressive graphics.
PS3 has the tech of a 2005 PC and yet it gives us stuff like this:
tkscz
Member
I don't see anyone bringing up the Wii but you, hmmm....
Fun can come from more than once source (ie controller). A fun game comes from a good imagination from a good developer and team. Tech can help some, but others don't need OMEGA LEVEL TECH in order to make a good game. The problem is, those tech based games might sell better than the fun ones.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
PCs and console specs can't be compared 1:1. At PS4 and 720 launch an equivalent PC able to run the same next-gen games at the same fidelity would cost well over a thousand dollars. Why even bring this up? A tiny minuscule % of gamers have very high-end PCs like that.
Also this
Yeah that's what I mean, they can't be compared like that.Consoles don't need to be as powerful as PCs to produce impressive graphics.
PS3 has the tech of a 2005 PC and yet it gives us stuff like this:
I don't think there will be this gen. Console multiplats will be on PC and they'll be better, at the very least on the high end. Quite simply, 500 W > 200 W, even with the mythical "console optimization".
This is meaningless reductionism. Being stuck at a 2008 power level is very different from being stuck on 2011 hardware.
You're ignoring a huge part of the audience that buys games. The average consumer would rather save up the 80-100 dollars to buy the next iPad or something, rather than buy a vidoegame. Used game, or discounted games make up a large part of gaming sales, showing that people don't want to pay 60. Devs and publishers know this, which is why we hear the rumors of used games being blocked.
Metalmurphy
Member
I don't think there's anything mythical about it. Just see what hardware from 2006 is doing nowadays and compare that to the PC side.
Lovely Salsa
Banned
Thunder Monkey
Banned
That's... you realize I'm not arguing against the increase of capability right? Just arguing that console gamers are the last people to be arguing about "power". Considering they will see a fraction of what is capable.
And this coming gen you'll likely get console games that far exceed the capability of PC's made last year. With every year after running the same code, at higher resolution, higher fidelity of effects.
I'm not really seeing it, outside of particularly bad PC ports. It's not often talked about since no one cares to run their PC games at 30 FPS, 1280x720 with little or no AA, but 5 year old gaming rigs are still pretty good at that!
So you don't care in the slightest how well future games will run, or how much better they will and could look, or how much bigger the worlds are that developers can create when it comes to console games? All because you can potentially have it run even better on the monitor on your desk, if the game even comes to the PC, that is?
What kind of an argument is that? Let other people decide what is and isn't important to them, instead of calling them all fools.
Only when you talking about ports, show me something better then mario galaxy in platformers? I like to think some one could make a good n64 game, and any one playing it would see it as the good game it is.
They more to a game then how it look
*sigh* well i know not every one into game the same way Iam
Barack Lesnar
Banned
It's also disingenuous to mention these high-end PCs being better because it implies that most PC gamers are running a monster rig, or even semi-monster. The overwhelmingly vast majority of PC gamers won't be able to run PS4 and 720 games at the same fidelity in the first couple years of this gen. Just because a small % can doesn't mean it should be used in this argument over and over again in an all-encompassing way.
Metalmurphy
Member
Closer to 6 then 5, or even 7 if you count the 360, and I think you're wrong. I've been gaming on PC since forever and I've always noticed the difference.
Sentenza
Member
Well, sorry, but who cares? That's just your problem.
And to be honest I don't get the whole "Weeh, stop bringing PC in this thread while we are making console wars".
How does it make any sense? Isn't the PC a more-than-viable gaming platform exactly like any Nintendo's, Microsoft's or Sony's console?
If people are arguing about what platform will be the most powerful or versatile or whatever, how does the PC exactly become an inappropriate argument to bring into the discussion?
Yeah... No.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
Sho_Nuff82
Member
Yeah, this argument was tired back in 2007. "If devs really want more power than Wii, why don't they make games exclusive for my 4870?"
Because the number of people with a top of the line graphic card is dwarfed by people with mid-range cards, and the number of people with mid-range cards is still dwarfed by people with consoles. High end consoles offer a decent compromise. Which is why PC gamers should be excited about more powerful next gen consoles - 90% of AAA PC titles now are simply up-ported games designed for the PS360's constraints.
If the PS4 and 720 are substantially more powerful than the PS3 and 360, new gameplay (and graphics) possibilities will open up, and the PC will receive better looking versions of those games as well.
Because it's an automatic win. If five normal high school guys are in a race with the fastest man in the world, first place isn't an interesting discussion.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
Now this is the perfect way of looking at it.
I'm not seeing your point here.
Nobody thinks that a game can't be fun unless it runs on a powerful system, but having a lot of power DOES open up new possibilities.
Something like Red Dead Redemption, with Euphoria, wouldn't have been possible on Ps2 (infact, GTASA would actually broke up PS2s and it looked like shit).
I know fans of open world games like i am, can't get enough processing power, because there's still a lot of potential in the genre.
The same may not apply to all genres (such as platformers) though that also is a limited view of things, because more advanced physics interactions could work very well in a 3d platformer for example.
Also seeing SMG on dolphin in 1080p+4xSSAA actually points out how wasted that game is on Wii, visually speaking.
Well said.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
Well said. In this argument, which has been had for years like you said, they always use the extreme to back their point, while ignoring the fact that genuine high-end rigs are dwarfed in numbers by mid and lower range gaming setups, which is why it's disingenuous.
tkscz
Member
Well, nothing. I would like to say more open world, but Skyrim is huge, more tech would mean less fade in, but if they detail a open world with too much (which is kinda what everyone here is asking for), you'd still need to use fading textures and what not. There is better AI, I suppose, but AI this gen isn't completely idiotic unless the developers who made it are bad at programming AI. Better physics, but unless it's a game where the physics play a huge role, that wouldn't amount to more than whats been done now. More stuff on screen, but do we really need more enemies/allies/NPCs on screen at once? Most games don't really take advantage of that now. Really, it is only high graphical detail.
Let's be honest here, a good percentage of games we consider to be great gameplay wise this gen, could've easily been done last gen. I can't remember what dev said it (think it was ID), but games are getting to a point where advancing in hardware won't be enough (some speculate we're already at that point).
Metalmurphy
Member
Because it's not a console? This thread is about next gen consoles.
And seriously, it's silly to just say they're the same thing...
True.
Now, how many PC games can look as good as this in my 2005 PC?
Who isn't looking at the next generation of consoles like this? I don't see people claiming to blow PC's out of the water anywhere. You are trying to mock people that do not really exist.
Metalmurphy
Member
Sentenza
Member
StuBurns's answer was far more convincing.
Yours isn't telling me anything useful.
Not being strictly a console doesn't mean shit, especially if you are arguing about how you should orientate for your next purchase.
The point is if it's a gaming platform or not and how does it compete with the others.
Being necessarily focused on a console and nothing else isn't a medical prescription, it's something you choose to do, for whatever reason, when going next gen.
Yeah, and that's exactly where he's wrong.
P.S. maybe you didn't notice but "history", regardless how poorly you remember it, isn't exactly going to "repeat" itself this time. Meaning = the gap will be greater than ever.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
Now he or someone else will counter with "well the ATI XMonstercard was out then and could run all 2005-06 360 and PS3 games with ease", ignoring the fact that an extremely tiny % of PC gamers would have a setup like that. It would be more fair to take the average PC gamer specs at the time.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
Different era my friend.
Neither the PS3 nor 360 were far behind comparative year PC's. They probably had more RAM, but if you were willing to buy they had GPU's and CPU's of similar capability.
Orbis or PS4 is likely to have the most advanced GPU of the generation. It will be really weak in comparison to top end PC GPU's.
Those acting like this coming generation will be a "quantum leap". Again in only the area of consoles it is very true. Huge leap. But not anywhere close to the power possible.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
Therefore you're saying the vast majority of PC gamers' setups in 2005 could run PGR3, Kameo, and PDZ at the same fidelity as the 360. Well, you're dead wrong.
My point is that a 1:1 comparison between consoles and PCs makes no sense.
Sentenza
Member
What I can tell you is that with a 2004's PC I played most of this gen's early multiplatform games (Oblivion, Gears of War, etc) better on PC than on console.
You on the other hand are trying to make your point with games I couldn't try on PC even today, cause it's the only trick you have to not be proven wrong.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
...that barely any PC gamers will own, making it a disingenuous point. Not sure why this is a hard concept to grasp. Just look at the Steam users' PC specs stats Valve releases.
AllIsOneIsNone
Banned
Just remember, the majority of neogaf was saying a short time ago they wouldn't have more than 2gb of RAM. Lets see how that turns out.
thomasmahler
Member
More than ready for a quantum leap!
Proelite
Member
They majority of Gaf also thought they were going with fast ram.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
If developed for one set of PC's? It'd be possible. Barring huge system inefficiencies. But that never happened so arguing it is asinine.
We know Orbis GPU is a 1.8t eraflop card. No matter what is in place this is a fraction of the capability possible. My argument was never that this power increase doesn't matter. Just that in comparison to prior generations Orbis and Durango will be so weak in comparison to a modern gaming PC as to be comical.
And yet they will still set the standard for the coming generation. That doesn't make them weak or powerful. That makes them a mid tier standard that Nintendo should have shot for.
tkscz
Member
I'm going over the article again and thinking, what counts as a quantum leap? Like, wouldn't going from the 360's GPU to say a GPU based off a HD Radeon 5000 series be a quantum leap? It would be capable of A LOT more than the Xenon. Or how about from the CPU of the 360 to say a Power6 based quad core. Still would be a hell of a lot better than what the 360 currently uses. And how about 2 GBs of GDDR5? That would still be way over the 512MBs of GDDR3 in the 360. So what counts as a quantum leap?
Consoles don't need to be as powerful as PCs to produce impressive graphics.
PS3 has the tech of a 2005 PC and yet it gives us stuff like this:
Notice it's rendering nothing in the background.
Dreamcast did the same with Shenmue face demos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE2gPFEXIvA
Metalmurphy
Member
You mean Stuburns answer shared your point of view on how PCs always win and mine doesn't?
Not being a console means ALOT on the subject of this thread about, you know, CONSOLES.
Yes, the PC is a gaming platform, and a good one at that, but it isn't a console, some people don't want to buy PCs, they want to buy consoles, they want to buy a system that doesn't require upgrades, where games released for it will always work well without configuration, where they have a company behind that console that develops great games, or simply because they're freaking fanboys, it doesn't matter whatever reasoning is behind them.
So you're saying the vast majority of PC gamers WILL be able to run PS4 and 720 games at the same fidelity when said consoles release?
You are delusional.
lol, that's just a small section, there's an entire city area behind her.
Maybe because all next-gen threads lately are just PC gamers talking how mid-end PCs today are most powerful than any next-gen consoles will ever be and things like that, when a lot of people really want to see is how next-gen consoles compare to the current-gen consoles?
As a PC gamer I know that a console will never reach the level of a high-end PC and most console player already know it, so why lower even more the already low expectations they have?
FalsettoVibe
Member
Consoles don't need to be as powerful as PCs to produce impressive graphics.
PS3 has the tech of a 2005 PC and yet it gives us stuff like this:
Forgive me for asking but, what game is this?
Proelite
Member
8 core intel,
8 GB of system ram
dual gpu
obviously if every individual key tech rumors are to be believed.
I still think the PS4 is going to come out a year later with the leap that we're all waiting for. 2014 is when the new microprocessor techs, 3d transistors, stacked memory, etc really gets kicked off.
Metalmurphy
Member
I don't believe you.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
I never said anything different.
Does it help that I agree with both of your points, but still find it an asinine assertion?
I'm arguing that calling any console a powerhouse in this era is as asinine as calling WiiU a powerhouse. Just because it's truly the most powerful console released yet means nothing. It definitely doesn't mean it's powerful.
Especially when you look at all hardware for context.
Proelite
Member
Consoles don't need to be as powerful as PCs to produce impressive graphics.
PS3 has the tech of a 2005 PC and yet it gives us stuff like this:
Is this pre-rendered in engine? If it's real-time, then it's impressive. Otherwise, not really.