Support NeoGAF

[nkarafo]

Ratchet would be impossible on the slow PS4, as all the next gen games that explore the SSD will. Also, CPU heavy games, with advanced physics and destruction will be impossible as well.

Ratchet needs to load the high quality assets fast. Reduce the quality and you don't need such fast loading. Also the transitions could be masked with, dunno, a warp effect for a couple of seconds. The rest of the game would be the exact same on PS4, same gameplay, same look, same level design. The only difference is the transition effects. And again, instant transitions isn't something new. I could say the same thing Nintendo said about Super Mario 64 or Acclaim about the original Turok. Both games would be impossible on the PS1 because they would have to stop to load assets. And we are talking about same generation consoles here. But the reality is, both games would be possible with some added loading screens or "transition corridors" and the occasional graphical downgrade.

Speed of loading has changed several times in the past, there was a huge, even bigger jump in that department when the transition from home computers to consoles happened. The case where i felt this had a huge impact on game design was with games like Super Metroid. That game would be impossible on Amiga disks because of it's free roaming nature, it would be impossible to predict where the character will go next so you would change disks every few seconds (it would have to be a 3 or 4 disks game assuming it was ported). Otherwise they would have to reduce the graphical assets and animations to a huge degree and cut down the map a bit in order to be able to fit in 1 disk. Or make it available only on hard disk but that was an expensive luxury. I don't think games will have such big differences that will absolutely require faster loading times or else the whole game design falls apart. But we will see i guess.

In all cases, the speed of loading was never advertised (as much as it is now) as a big feature to define a new generation. Nobody even cared about N64's faster loading, they were all too busy claiming it was even a step back. Magazines didn't care because the Playstation was all the rage so gamers didn't care. But everyone suddenly does care now because there's nothing else to advertise.

As for advanced physics and destruction, these games are usually possible in last gen by reducing number of particles or making the mesh surfaces affected bigger. At least that's how it works on PC games when you try to play newer games with heavy physics on older CPUs. The difference is usually small enough that you have to actively look for it to notice. Personally, i haven't felt a game being affected too much by it's advanced physics for a long time. I can only remember Waverace on the N64, where the waves actually affected things like speed, momentum, angle, etc and the Red Faction games. Most newer games with advanced physics only use them for graphical effects, like explosions, particles, cloth physics and hair. That means nothing that affects game design or gameplay. Though, i'm pretty sure there are plenty of indy games that go for physics based games. Do gamers care that much though?

 

[JimmyRustler]

For me the big jump in the past gen was more HDR than than the consoles themselves (seriously, playing Horizon with HDR wowed me in the same way if not more than when I was booting MGS2 back in the days), so perhaps the next jump may also come from the TV sector, who knows?

I think that from the perfespective of the consoles themselves we have reached a point where there will never be a moment any more that you can boot the first game and be blown away by just how it looks. Games just look way too good for that out of the box already. Now it's either about the game design (wowed over time) or everything around the console (TV, input device aka controller or sonmething like VR).

I mean, before OLED and HDR came along I never expected to be wowed by game through something like this but there you go. I'm confident someone will come up with something to wow me again in the coming generation. But no, I do not expect it to be one of the launch games for sure. Even if that is Demons Souls.

 

[Michael Hawk]

Of course we'll see games that can't run (well) on PS4/X1/Switch. Heck I'm guessing any cross-gen game coming out in 2022 and beyond is probably going to be a shitshow on last-gen machines.

Humongous PS4 installbase + samey AMD architecture = makes sense to have cross-gen games. Once PS5 + Series X are in the millions and once raytraced eyeballs become standard, you're going to see the PS4 and Series S left behind.

 

[Stiflers Mom]

We have had 25 years of 3D graphics games now, while the whole 2D games period lasted only around 15 to 20 until replaced with 3D.
There is just a natural end to what you can achieve with better tech.

 

[Rudius]

..or not, depends on the developers and that has ALWYAS been the case. The NES could run games at 60 FPS.

It has not always been the case. In the PS3 to PS4 transition many crossgen games still ran at 30fps on the new consoles due to the weak CPUs. Remember Assassin's Creed Black Flag: 1080p30 on the brand new PS4. Now Valhalla runs at 60, despite being a CPU intensive game.

 

[Rudius]

Games run at 60fps ever since the Atari 2600. The Atari also has zero input lag on top of that. The majority of games on the NES, MS, Genesis, SNES, PC Engine run at 60fps. They also all had zero loading because they were using solid state ROMs for instant access. That leap of higher frame rates and fast loading was the exact same in Europe, during the transition from old home computers (C64, Spectrum, Amstrad) to consoles. So no, it's not new to these current consoles, unless you were born 10 years ago.

Even if we take later 3D capable consoles in mind, there were a lot more 60fps games on the PS2 compared to the PS3. Just compare all racing games in both consoles and see how many run at a smooth frame rate. You will be surprised. 60fps isn't a hardware feature, it's a developer's choice 100%. Otherwise, the puny PS2 CPU would have to be declared faster than PS3's Cell, which doesn't make sense.


The better CPU argument and how it's going to improve AI is something i'm hearing since the jump from the PS2 to PS3. Remember how The Cell was the 9th wonder or something, a CPU to end all CPUs. Technically it kinda was but the true obstacle for better AI isn't the hardware, it's the code. It's hard to code good AI no matter the hardware. I mean, the hardware was good enough in 2005, i player F.E.A.R just fine on my old Pentium 4 and that game is still one of the most advanced in terms of AI so far. Today, even a Raspberry has better CPU than a Pentium 4 but all these years we haven't seen any major strides in AI. So again, like the frame rate argument, it's not about the hardware, it's about the developers.


Yeah but you jumped like 3 generations ahead. Obviously 3 generations can add up and look like a huge leap.


Launch titles on the older generations would show a clear, massive leap. Rogue Leader 2 on the Gamecube (for instance) was a launch title. Would you ever hear anyone thinking "there isn't a big difference" compared to anything on the N64 or the argument "give it time" then?

Those games on cartridges were miniscule, so they had very little to load. They still loaded, but it was fast. From the PS1 forward they got larger due to optical media and later HDDs, but we got loads. Now for the first time we have the best of both worlds.

And performance should be judged relatively to the time. PS2's CPU was at least 10x better than that of PS1, same with PS2 to PS3, so a 30 PS2 game could easily run at 60 on the PS3. The PS4 generation was the first in which the CPU barely improved and many games, including remasters, had to run at 30fps. They could reach 60 with extra work (Last of Us remaster), but with a real CPU jump that is not necessary.

Finally, better CPUs can do much more then AI, just like better storage will be much more than faster loading. Look at past games like GTA 4: much more interactive and dinamic than PS2 GTAs, more NPCs, better physics; very CPU heavy and impossible on PS2.

 

[HE1NZ]

Jump from sub-30 fps to 60 in every title is what's going to define next gen (hopefully). It's more significant than Gen 7 to Gen 8.

 

[ZywyPL]

We have reached a point there the graphics look so damn good already, I mean, cars in racing games in photomode already look lifelike, people even question whether RT effects are really worth it when ordinary rasterization techniques can look this good, without tanking the performance.

And that's one of the reasons we don't see such a huge jump anymore, the RT implementation is simply premature, and that's one of the very few things that can push the visuals even further. It's not an issue on PC where new GPUs come out every 2-3 years, but in consoles, that what we will have to deal with with for another 7-8 years. If we really wanted to get that "WOW" effect once again, then the consoles should skip RT all along and go fully into RT in 7-8 years one another ganeration shows up, when it will be way more capable.

Not to mention 4K is a hog when it comes to performance, add 60FPS on top of it and there's barely any additional power left to push the graphics beyond of what we saw on PS4/XB1. Which again, given the x86 nature, it was a given back in 2013 already that from now on the generation transitions will be almost seamless, and that most titles will be cross-gen.

 

[kuncol02]

Also the transitions could be masked with, dunno, a warp effect for a couple of seconds.

There already is masked loading when you jump beetwen levels and there is no reason to think that warping around level would be a problem. Portal and Prey did than years ago already.

 

[nkarafo]

Jump from sub-30 fps to 60 in every title is what's going to define next gen (hopefully). It's more significant than Gen 7 to Gen 8.

Already happened in the jump from 5th to 6th gen. 60fps games were rare on the PS1/N64 but very common on DC/PS2/GC/XBOX.

 

[daninthemix]

I agree completely OP. The new machines are quality, "safe" upgrades but not transformative in any way. As you say, even the SSD will only result in faster loading in most if not all cases. Anyone who says otherwise is just an excitable fanboy who needs his milk and dummy to calm down.

 

[HE1NZ]

Already happened in the jump from 5th to 6th gen. 60fps games were rare on the PS1/N64 but very common on DC/PS2/GC/XBOX.

Not really. Mostly platformers and action games. I think Timesplitters is the only shooter to target 60.

 

[Rudius]

For people saying there is no graphical jump, watch this video of Demon's Souls vs Dark Souls 3.





And Dark Souls 3 is likely running on a PC, since it performed like ass on PS4.

Notice the pop up on Dark Souls 3. SSD is not just loading.

 

[nkarafo]

Those games on cartridges were miniscule, so they had very little to load. They still loaded, but it was fast.

And performance should be judged relatively to the time.

Then storage should be judged relatively to the time as well. These "minuscule" games you are talking about weren't minuscule at the time. A few hundreds of KB of ROM space was good enough in the late 80's. 1 MB or ROM space was good enough in 1991. 4MBs was good enough in 1993. CDs changed the medium and did make a huge jump in cheap storage but it came too early. Developers didn't even know how to use that extra space. Shitty FMVs, real (crappy) voice acting and redbook audio was mostly used but the actual game content wasn't changed much compared to what ROMs had, until the 32bit machines made use of texture maps.

Really, the only problem ROMs had wasn't the technology itself or their space, it was the cost. You already had huge 100+ MB roms in arcades and the neo-geo console, way before CDs became mainstream. These games weren't "miniscule", they were actually huge, with tons of data and animation frames (that sometimes had to be cut in CD ports to reduce the loading) yet there wasn't any loading on Roms. So your premise that ROM games only loaded fast because they were small is false. CDs didn't really became industry favorites because they had plenty of space. That was achievable with Roms. They replaced Roms because they were FAR cheaper. Otherwise Roms trump any optical or mechanical device in every single department.

 

[nkarafo]

Not really. Mostly platformers and action games. I think Timesplitters is the only shooter to target 60.

Um, even Metroid Prime on the GC (that was one of it's prettiest games) run at 60.

Also, most (if not all) racing games were 60fps.

In any case, the percentage of 60fps games during that period is huge compared to the N64/PS1. Only a small fraction of games would run at 60fps on PS1/N64/Sat.

 

[Rudius]

Then storage should be judged relatively to the time as well. These "minuscule" games you are talking about weren't minuscule at the time. A few hundreds of KB of ROM space was good enough in the late 80's. 1 MB or ROM space was good enough in 1991. 4MBs was good enough in 1993. CDs changed the medium and did make a huge jump in cheap storage but it came too early. Developers didn't even know how to use that extra space. Shitty FMVs, real (crappy) voice acting and redbook audio was mostly used but the actual game content wasn't changed much compared to what ROMs had, until the 32bit machines made use of texture maps.

Really, the only problem ROMs had wasn't the technology itself or their space, it was the cost. You already had huge 100+ MB roms in arcades and the neo-geo console, way before CDs became mainstream. These games weren't "miniscule", they were actually huge, yet there wasn't any loading. So your premise that ROM games only loaded fast because they were small is false. CDs didn't really became industry favorites because they had plenty of space. That was achievable with Roms. They replaced Roms because they were FAR cheaper. Otherwise Roms trump any optical or mechanical device in every single department.

NeoGeo shows what is possible when you combine fast+large storage: the best of both worlds, at the expense of price (literally). I think PS5 will be like that, at least for exclusives.

 

[HE1NZ]

Um, even Metroid Prime on the GC (that was one of it's prettiest games) run at 60.

Also, most (if not all) racing games were 60fps.

In any case, the percentage of 60fps games during that period is huge compared to the N64/PS1. Only a small fraction of games would run at 60fps on PS1/N64/Sat.

Forgot Metroid Prime, yeah. But Mario Sunshine and Zelda titles were all 30. I think it's 50/50 on GC. More games ran at 30 on Xbox, cause they were pushing shaders and other advanced stuff. On PS2 almost every game has framerate issues, even if they target 60. And I think PS2 doubled framerate through interlaced shenanigans (60 fields per second, not frames). Not applicable.

 

[nkarafo]

NeoGeo shows what is possible when you combine fast+large storage: the best of both worlds, at the expense of price (literally). I think PS5 will be like that, at least for exclusives.

I agree, i'm just saying the PS5 SSD is not the first time gamers experience this. I would argue this has happened already twice in the past.

- Once when home computer users made the transition to consoles. Cartridges were both order of magnitudes faster than any cassette or floppy disk and with enough space to house "next gen" games at the time. More expensive, sure, but the visual experience (mostly in animation frames) paid off.

- Once Hard Disks became a standard part for PCs. Hard Disks might not be the fastest medium ever and even Roms at the time were probably faster but they were still much faster than floppies or CDs. Thus, big games were pretty comfortable on PCs for a long time until this generation where SSDs are replacing them.

Forgot Metroid Prime, yeah. But Mario Sunshine and Zelda titles were all 30. I think it's 50/50 on GC. More games ran at 30 on Xbox, cause they were pushing shaders and other advanced stuff. On PS2 almost every game has framerate issues, even if they target 60. And I think PS2 doubled framerate through interlaced shenanigans (60 fields per second, not frames). Not applicable.

Still, it was a huge improvement over the 5th gen consoles. I still remember how, with the Dreamcast, we could finally get perfect arcade ports that run at 60fps. And that was the case for many games. With PS1/N64 30fps was almost unavoidable in 99% of cases. I know the N64 library inside out and out of the 303 games released in US, less than 5 games run at 60fps and a few more have unlocked frame rates that can sometimes reach that number. The PS1 has 5 times as many games but also 5 times as larger library. The percentage of 60fps games was way too small during that generation. 6th gen also brought a lot more 60fps games and "arcade perfect" ports.

In fact, that was the time where arcades started to decline, because consoles were no longer lagging behind the "state of the art" Arcades were representing.

 

[cireza]

They were real jumps. We did not get a really big jump since the PS360 era in my opinion. Everything is more or less the same, with some improvements in resolution, framerate, visual effects or animation, but nothing that feels like a major jump.

 

[Chastten]

Absolutely. I haven't been really excited by hardware releases for a very long time.

The PS5 and XSX give me the same games as the PS2 and Xbox did, but with shinier graphics, somewhat faster loading times and some more enemies on screen. As much as I appreciate these quality of life improvements, they don't really excite me as something like seeing Super Mario 64 for the first time did.

 

[Zog]

It has not always been the case. In the PS3 to PS4 transition many crossgen games still ran at 30fps on the new consoles due to the weak GPUs. Remember Assassin's Creed Black Flag: 1080p30 on the brand new PS4. Now Valhalla runs at 60, despite being a CPU intensive game.

That's because developers didn't make it happen, it's not because the machines were not capable of 60 fps.

 

[EverydayBeast]

Surprising thread certainly given how everyone wants backwards compatibility, consoles feel like they’re PCs now and that’s how they’re thinking internally.

 

[diffusionx]

These new consoles going forward are just going to be iterative. I don’t think 30fps->60fps is something worth getting excited over, considering that 60fps games have existed from the beginning and we actually had a good amount of titles at that frame rate last gen and of course on PC we’ve all been playing games at least at 60fps for a good decade at this point.

That said there can still be “next gen” type games, like Flight Sim 2020 this year, which of course isn’t on Xbox for some reason. Overall though I would have to say that the true next gen is VR, and of course it is still very early.

 

[kingpotato]

From my perspective, Astro's Playroom is the only title I have that delivers on the next gen promise so far.

It's not just the fast loading, it's being able to instantly jump into any point of the game. This coupled with the new features on the ps5 blew my mind last night.

I was playing demon's souls when I started getting notifications one of my friends was beating my speed run times in Astro's Playroom. The notifications told me who and what level they beat me on. From there I could launch directly into that level from the notification. So within 3 seconds I was already back in the game in that level trying to reclaim my place on the leaderboards! This is in addition to the ultra high quality audio the system puts out and the amazing controller features.

I know it feels like less of a leap from game trailers, but that experience last night was awesome.

 

[butane bob]

Do you think we will ever see new experiences not possible on previous gens?

I doubt it personally. The "diminishing returns" factor is just far too high now, that and gaming budgets have absolutely spiralled out of control since we shifted into the HD era. It's a real shame.