Support NeoGAF

[EviLore]

This thread is sorely lacking pics of these games that are supposedly a gen ahead. I'm not being a dick, I just want to see them!!

It's unfair to judge a game by direct framebuffer screenshots. You need to take a photograph of your TV set to vivid mode and downsampled to 320x240 to really see what a game looks like, or even better an off-screen video converted to an animated gif. Unfortunately, PC gamers don't have TVs -- or couches to sit on to take pictures from. You'll just have to take our word for it.

 

[DieH@rd]

It's unfair to judge a game by direct framebuffer screenshots. You need to take a photograph of your TV set to vivid mode and downsampled to 320x240 to really see what a game looks like, or even better an off-screen video converted to an animated gif. Unfortunately, PC gamers don't have TVs -- or couches to sit on to take pictures from. You'll just have to take our word for it.

Everybody. Quote this man.

 

[Firestorm]

This thread is sorely lacking pics of these games that are supposedly a gen ahead. I'm not being a dick, I just want to see them!!

http://deadendthrills.com/

 

[Mr.Potato Head]

Just 1 generation ahead?

umm..you arent trying to say its more then 1 generation ahead are you? Dont be retarded, pal.

I believe the problem is the entire recipe of things.. the cost of needing a high end pc, consoles saturated most of the gaming market, piracy, and the ease of use and other factors as well, not a single one like so many in here claim..its the combination of them. These things litterly hinders pc exclusive games from becoming born.

 

[Nemo]

Oh hush. So you and some random guy take an internet meme personally. Get over yourself. That's a personal problem and has NOTHING to do the the actual workings of the console and PC gaming market.

You seem to be putting words into my mouth. I never insinuated anything of the sort.

It's a forum problem, and by eliminating that problem we go a step further into making this place a better gathering where we discuss games. Isn't that what we are supposed to work to according to the mods? I am all in for that, but for that to happen the immaturity needs to stop, you can't have both ways or else it fails:

It's unfair to judge a game by direct framebuffer screenshots. You need to take a photograph of your TV set to vivid mode and downsampled to 320x240 to really see what a game looks like, or even better an off-screen video converted to an animated gif. Unfortunately, PC gamers don't have TVs -- or couches to sit on to take pictures from. You'll just have to take our word for it.

While this sarcastic comment is much lighter in tone compared to other fanboy comments it is the closest example of what I said in my previous post.

 

[Darkman M]

I could have told you that.

 

[SonOfABeep]

[EDIT]The op, not crytek stated that silly "creative expression" limited by consoles nonsense.

Cause bigger special effects always make movies better too, and books with pictures > books without pictures.

Also every generation of graphics hardware has apparently had more "creatively expressive" games than the last.. etc.

That's fine if you prefer developing for the platform that gets you more direct revenue per sale and allows you to have a handle on quality control, but clearly the market prefers a cheaper, longer lasting console despite lower graphics spec.

And don't try to hide your company's selfish motives of not wanting to have to fork over licensing fees to console makers and spend money porting your technologically bloated games to console behind "creative expression".

One of the dumbest quotes of the year right here. Better graphics are always welcome but if you can't accomplish your "creative vision" with the current HD console graphics spec I think your studio needs help elsewhere. Of course the PS3/360 aren't top spec anymore, but I really can't think of any game that would be helped first and foremost just by adding more horsepower. Pacing, level design, sound design, script writing, voice acting, animation, and a hundred other things need attention before graphics.

 

[water_wendi]

That crytek stated creative expression is tied directly to graphics fidelity shows their own lack of creativity.

Cause bigger special effects always make movies better too, and books with pictures > books without pictures.

Also every generation of graphics hardware has apparently had more "creatively expressive" games than the last.. etc.

That's fine if you prefer developing for the platform that gets you more direct revenue per sale and allows you to have a handle on quality control, but clearly the market prefers a cheaper, longer lasting console despite lower graphics spec.

And don't try to hide your company's selfish motives of not wanting to have to fork over licensing fees to console makers and spend money porting your technologically bloated games to console behind "creative expression".

One of the dumbest quotes of the year right here. Better graphics are always welcome but if you can't accomplish your "creative vision" with the current HD console graphics spec I think your studio needs help elsewhere.

:lol

 

[Fredescu]

That crytek stated creative expression is tied directly to graphics fidelity shows their own lack of creativity.

They said the opposite. "the quality of the games beyond Crysis 2 and other CryEngine developments will be pretty much limited to what their creative expressions is, what the content is. You won't be able to squeeze more juice from these rocks."" That is, creative expression is the only future development available to that hardware.

And don't try to hide your company's selfish motives of not wanting to have to fork over licensing fees to console makers and spend money porting your technologically bloated games to console behind "creative expression".

One of the dumbest quotes of the year right here. Better graphics are always welcome but if you can't accomplish your "creative vision" with the current HD console graphics spec I think your studio needs help elsewhere.

They're making console games, so I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[SonOfABeep]

They said the opposite. "the quality of the games beyond Crysis 2 and other CryEngine developments will be pretty much limited to what their creative expressions is, what the content is. You won't be able to squeeze more juice from these rocks."" That is, creative expression is the only future development available to that hardware.


They're making console games, so I'm not sure what your point is.

Ah i was confused by reading the OP's quote and then this from the OP:

if you want creative expression to progress, start buying pc games. quit holding the rest of us back.

Crytek did state as you said, so I was wrong.

Anyways I know they're developing for consoles but the tone of these statements seems bitter about the console development process.

I honestly can't understand why any developer would be so eager to spend more money on making games more cutting edge that fewer people can play when the console and common PC spec has reached a level that allows for such a varied range of experiences.

It's like every time we get done building a reliable, familiar camera people want a new one built and to start over again.

Although I enjoy crytek's games, if all they had to go on was creative expression, I could see why crytek would be concerned.

 

[Nirolak]

That crytek stated creative expression is tied directly to graphics fidelity shows their own lack of creativity.

Cause bigger special effects always make movies better too, and books with pictures > books without pictures.

Also every generation of graphics hardware has apparently had more "creatively expressive" games than the last.. etc.

That's fine if you prefer developing for the platform that gets you more direct revenue per sale and allows you to have a handle on quality control, but clearly the market prefers a cheaper, longer lasting console despite lower graphics spec.

And don't try to hide your company's selfish motives of not wanting to have to fork over licensing fees to console makers and spend money porting your technologically bloated games to console behind "creative expression".

One of the dumbest quotes of the year right here. Better graphics are always welcome but if you can't accomplish your "creative vision" with the current HD console graphics spec I think your studio needs help elsewhere. Of course the PS3/360 aren't top spec anymore, but I really can't think of any game that would be helped first and foremost just by adding more horsepower. Pacing, level design, sound design, script writing, voice acting, animation, and a hundred other things need attention before graphics.

Suck it down, World of Warcraft.

No one wants to play your shitty "can't fit within console RAM limits" game anyway.

 

[SonOfABeep]

Suck it down, World of Warcraft.

No one wants to play your shitty "can't fit within console RAM limits" game anyway.

maybe it's just my experience hearing things from friends that used to play wow but I have to doubt that the number of people paying to play that game are what they were a few years ago. Not that blizzard would ever want to publish diminishing numbers. Who knows. It may be that it's more popular than ever.

I always thought the thing was a fad. A long lasting fad, but a fad on the level of the non-browser based casual game.

 

[Lonely1]

If a game design can't fit in 64Ks, is not worth developing.

 

[BobsRevenge]

[EDIT]The op, not crytek stated that silly "creative expression" limited by consoles nonsense.

Cause bigger special effects always make movies better too, and books with pictures > books without pictures.

Also every generation of graphics hardware has apparently had more "creatively expressive" games than the last.. etc.

That's fine if you prefer developing for the platform that gets you more direct revenue per sale and allows you to have a handle on quality control, but clearly the market prefers a cheaper, longer lasting console despite lower graphics spec.

And don't try to hide your company's selfish motives of not wanting to have to fork over licensing fees to console makers and spend money porting your technologically bloated games to console behind "creative expression".

One of the dumbest quotes of the year right here. Better graphics are always welcome but if you can't accomplish your "creative vision" with the current HD console graphics spec I think your studio needs help elsewhere. Of course the PS3/360 aren't top spec anymore, but I really can't think of any game that would be helped first and foremost just by adding more horsepower. Pacing, level design, sound design, script writing, voice acting, animation, and a hundred other things need attention before graphics.

Fact is, the limitations of technology puts a ceiling on creative expression. It says you can only go this far, but within that limit, do whatever. But pushing technology forward increases creative possibilities very directly.

 

[SonOfABeep]

If a game design can't fit in 64Ks, is not worth developing.

Wasn't an OP here recently saying that people should move away from these kind of snarky, defensive, exaggerated responses for attention towards an actual discussion?

Maybe you should try that.

 

[SonOfABeep]

Fact is, the limitations of technology puts a ceiling on creative expression. It says you can only go this far, but within that limit, do whatever. But pushing technology forward increases creative possibilities very directly.

That's right, but I don't think "better technology" should be the first or even in the top 10 of problems that games as a medium need to address at this time.

 

[EviLore]

maybe it's just my experience hearing things from friends that used to play wow but I have to doubt that the number of people paying to play that game are what they were a few years ago. Not that blizzard would ever want to publish diminishing numbers. Who knows. It may be that it's more popular than ever.

I always thought the thing was a fad. A long lasting fad, but a fad on the level of the non-browser based casual game.

I...guess you're serious and this isn't satire?

 

[Hazaro]

maybe it's just my experience hearing things from friends that used to play wow but I have to doubt that the number of people paying to play that game are what they were a few years ago. Not that blizzard would ever want to publish diminishing numbers. Who knows. It may be that it's more popular than ever.

I always thought the thing was a fad. A long lasting fad, but a fad on the level of the non-browser based casual game.

wat.

How many quotes? I'll guess 6.

 

[Future PhaZe]

Can we expect the next gen consoles to be as good as high tier pc's available today in terms of hardware?

 

[Lonely1]

Wasn't an OP here recently saying that people should move away from these kind of snarky, defensive, exaggerated responses for attention towards an actual discussion?

Maybe you should try that.

Is stating just the fact that setting an arbitrary limit to technology development and human creativity is, well, arbitrary.

 

[SonOfABeep]

I...guess you're serious and this isn't satire?

http://seekingalpha.com/article/193148-blizzard-s-world-of-warcraft-the-china-growth-story

It's all a guess and of course activision/blizzard isn't going to comment on negative press for world of warcraft, but some people seem to think that 4 to 6 million of those 12 million subscribers blizzard bragged about recently come from the chinese launch, and do not pay the standard $15/mo subscription fee. Chinese subscribers still pay a smaller per hour fee, but it's not the kind of revenue stream that the monthly people generate.

That would put the amount of regular subscribers down significantly from 2009's 11.5 million number. But like I said, who knows. It may be more popular than ever.

 

[SonOfABeep]

Is stating just the fact that setting an arbitrary limit to technology development and human creativity is, well, arbitrary.

Well, nobody here said to put an arbitrary limit on technology.

What was proposed was using what's already in 40 million+households to refine your craft in areas not related to buying new graphics hardware.

 

[Hazaro]

Can we expect the next gen consoles to be as good as high tier pc's available today in terms of hardware?

No.

 

[EviLore]

Can we expect the next gen consoles to be as good as high tier pc's available today in terms of hardware?

Factors:

-When the next generation starts
-Whether either Sony or MS are actually willing to debut a console at a loss anymore
-Emphasis on gimmicks (waggle etc.) over straight tech advancement

It's looking like this will be the longest console generation by far, and Sony and MS have lost billions by using the PS2 business model this gen while Nintendo has made billions by discarding it and going with hardware profit and waggle. MS and Sony are both pursuing waggle hard at the moment.

...I would expect to be disappointed by the specs.

 

[Lonely1]

Well, nobody here said to put an arbitrary limit on technology.

What was proposed was using what's already in 40 million+households to refine your craft in areas not related to buying new graphics hardware.

Why not use what's in 120+ millions households then?

 

[Opiate]

maybe it's just my experience hearing things from friends that used to play wow but I have to doubt that the number of people paying to play that game are what they were a few years ago. Not that blizzard would ever want to publish diminishing numbers. Who knows. It may be that it's more popular than ever.

I always thought the thing was a fad. A long lasting fad, but a fad on the level of the non-browser based casual game.

Blizzard just announced last month that WoW has reached 12 million users, a new high. I'm not sure exactly when something stops being a fad, but surely six-years-and-still-growing is long enough? How long, precisely, would WoW need to last before it is no longer stratified as a "fad" for you?

As a side note, I strongly agree that equating graphics with artistic possibilities is indicative of limited vision. However, most people avoid this discussion because it doesn't end with "therefore, 360/PS3 have just as much artistic possibility as the PC," but can then also be applied to Wii, or to handhelds, or to iPhones. That's not something most people want to admit, because most people who argue in threads against the PC are really PS3/360 enthusiasts, not people who genuinely want to argue that artistic merit is independent from technical power. They just co-opt that argument because it is temporarily convenient for their cause.

Wii people do the same to iPhone (I've even seen some Wii proponents argue against the relevancy of technology regarding the PS3/360, then argue for the relevance of technology when discussing the iPhone in a single thread), and everyone picks on handhelds here on GAF.

On the other hand, if you want to argue that artistic merit does matter in regards to, say, the DS -- that is, you want to argue that the DS limits the artistic potential of developers relative to the PS3/360 -- then you must also admit that the disparity between the PS3/360 and the PC matters, too (albeit to a lesser degree, because the difference is smaller technologically).

Or, you could be a hypocrite and argue that technology stopped mattering at the precise level the PS3/360 are at.

 

[JADS]

but I really can't think of any game that would be helped first and foremost just by adding more horsepower. Pacing, level design, sound design, script writing, voice acting, animation, and a hundred other things need attention before graphics.

3D games could use some extra juice.

 

[Hazaro]

Better AI, larger and more interactive levels, physics (should be in everything), more detailed faces, 60FPS, real 3D, realistic lighting, real 4xAA, etc.

Consoles have always used 'cheating' methods to scrape performance and looks. It's fantastic see what performance they can wrangle out of a system, but more horsepower is always better.

 

[SonOfABeep]

well, i would have argued the same thing with PS2/Xbox/Cube and PC hardware at the time.

I think the only time it was a significant difference in terms of creative capability between PC and Console was in the PSOne/N64/Saturn time and earlier.

Looking at the Black Ops Wii port for example vs the HD versions it's a very similar experience. Removal of a few killstreaks and some online functionality (not really related to the hardware power) isn't a significant difference.

It's a hard comparison to make though because at the same time something like GTA4 or Stalker or Red Dead would be significantly impaired on Wii.

 

[SonOfABeep]

Why not use what's in 120+ millions households then?

The "generation ahead" PCs that crytek is talking about are most certainly not in 120 million households.

 

[SonOfABeep]

Better AI, larger and more interactive levels, physics (should be in everything), more detailed faces, 60FPS, real 3D, realistic lighting, real 4xAA, etc.

Consoles have always used 'cheating' methods to scrape performance and looks. It's fantastic see what performance they can wrangle out of a system, but more horsepower is always better.

Any console developer can make their game 3D if they remove enough effects. They can make their game have better AI if they tone down textures. They can implement 4xAA if the framerate takes a hit. It's all a balancing act. Just because that happens at the developer's end instead of in a video setup menu on the user's machine based on their own hardware spec doesn't mean that consoles are inferior.

You pay for those features either way - by sacrifices made on consoles or by having more expensive hardware to flip those switches all to max on PC.

I just don't see it as being a big deal between PCs and consoles. Back when I was playing Quake 3 on PC at huge resolutions and framerate at the same time Quake 2 struggled to run on PSX and N64, yeah, it was a big deal. Not so much today.

 

[Opiate]

It's a hard comparison to make though because at the same time something like GTA4 or Stalker or Red Dead would be significantly impaired on Wii.

Then how could you not agree that some types of games are being similarly impaired by the PS3/360? Simple and obvious examples: RTS, MMOs. More complex examples: open world FPS (corridor FPS are much easier to produce with the limited RAM of PS3/360), competitive gaming (low frame per second is not conducive to competitive play).

Then, we need to consider what we do not see -- that is, games which do not exist because the consoles we presently have cannot support them. This is very similar to how open world games could not exist on a practical level until approximately PS2-era graphics.

 

[Fredescu]

The "generation ahead" PCs that crytek is talking about are most certainly not in 120 million households.

Pretty sure he's talking about the PS2 there.

 

[SonOfABeep]

Pretty sure he's talking about the PS2 there.

well, in that case it's a mixture of what people are buying software on and how many are in homes. If people have passed it by and aren't interested in buying software on it it doesn't matter how many it's sold.

 

[SonOfABeep]

Then how could you not agree that some types of games are being similarly impaired by the PS3/360? Simple and obvious examples: RTS, MMOs. More complex examples: open world FPS (corridor FPS are much easier to produce with the limited RAM of PS3/360), competitive gaming (low frame per second is not conducive to competitive play).

Then, we need to consider what we do not see -- that is, games which do not exist because the consoles we presently have cannot support them. This is very similar to how open world games could not exist on a practical level until approximately PS2-era graphics.

Those types of games are absolutely possible on console spec hardware. Fallout is as open a world as Stalker or any other PC rpg. It uses lower fidelity graphics as a compromise, but the core experience is intact.

I think the thing is that with the success of games like CoD and Halo Reach publishers see the market as asking for more effects at the expense of image quality and framerate. (see the diminished console performance between CoD4 and MW2 and Blops)

And RTS and MMO games could exist on the consoles if not for console maker requirements regarding input devices and licensing.

 

[Fredescu]

well, in that case it's a mixture of what people are buying software on and how many are in homes. If people have passed it by and aren't interested in buying software on it it doesn't matter how many it's sold.

God of War 2, the last major first party PS2 release, sold really well on it didn't it? It also took several years for a current gen console to overtake PS2 Madden sales.

 

[SonOfABeep]

God of War 2, the last major first party PS2 release, sold really well on it didn't it? It also took several years for a current gen console to overtake PS2 Madden sales.

That was also 3 years ago. I'm sure someone could see good success releasing on PS2 in 2011.

 

[Fredescu]

That was also 3 years ago. I'm sure someone could see good success releasing on PS2 in 2011.

The PS2 wasn't superceded because of software sales, which were quite good.

 

[ultim8p00]

OH MY GOD I DID NOT KNOW THIS

 

[John]

but I really can't think of any game that would be helped first and foremost just by adding more horsepower.

there's a horsepower -> watts -> power supply -> watts -> system failure joke in here somewhere

 

[les papillons sexuels]

even last generation consoles were holding back PC's, just look at how similar a jump in visuals occurred in PC visuals at the beginning of this generation as opposed to last generation.

 

[EviLore]

Those types of games are absolutely possible on console spec hardware. Fallout is as open a world as Stalker or any other PC rpg. It uses lower fidelity graphics as a compromise, but the core experience is intact.

The Strip.

 

[iam220]

It's a hard comparison to make though because at the same time something like GTA4 or Stalker or Red Dead would be significantly impaired on Wii.

Exactly! ... and something like X would be significantly impaired on the ps360.

edit: beaten badly, probably should have kept reading before hitting reply. :lol

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Those types of games are absolutely possible on console spec hardware. Fallout is as open a world as Stalker or any other PC rpg. It uses lower fidelity graphics as a compromise, but the core experience is intact.

I think the thing is that with the success of games like CoD and Halo Reach publishers see the market as asking for more effects at the expense of image quality and framerate. (see the diminished console performance between CoD4 and MW2 and Blops)

And RTS and MMO games could exist on the consoles if not for console maker requirements regarding input devices and licensing.

You clearly have no idea how much of a difference RAM makes. EL mentioned The Strip already so I'll just say that if you think WOW would ever run on current generation consoles you're mental. Ask Square about how free and creative they felt when they were cutting and pasting whole areas of the landscape in FFXIV to fit it into the crippled RAM of the PS3.

 

[DodgyGeezerFella]

Didnt the developers of Far Cry 2 say that the respawning checkpoints were because of memory limitations ?

Spoiler

Just throwing that one in there

 

[-tetsuo-]

Beep is trolling and you guys are falling for it. Don't fall for it.

 

[Stallion Free]

Didnt the developers of Far Cry 2 say that the respawning checkpoints were because of memory limitations ?

Spoiler

Just throwing that one in there

If that's the case holy shit. Fucking consoles. I'm going to give them some dirty looks now. Fucking worthless apart from the exclusives.

 

[slamskank]

Gee good on you for telling us Cervat, so tell us, why does Crysis 2 look like a step back from the first?

 

[jim-jam bongs]

The Fallout example is also pretty funny to me, because my roommate plays it on my 360 on the same TV I play the PC version on. And as far as loading times, draw-distance and image quality are concerned the PC version on high settings at 60 fps looks more than a generation ahead. He saw me playing on The Strip and almost wept at the fact that my PC was keeping areas in memory and just blinking between them while he had to wait 45 seconds between each.

Beep is trolling and you guys are falling for it. Don't fall for it.

Oh so now with your fancy tag you're an expert?

Spoiler

 

[I <3 Memes]

Didnt the developers of Far Cry 2 say that the respawning checkpoints were because of memory limitations ?

Spoiler

Just throwing that one in there

That's funny because I took this whole interview as Crytek preemptively trying to explain why the levels in Crysis 2 are going to be so tiny compared to Crysis 1. They have spent the entirety of their development time saying that the game would not be compromised for consoles when it has been obvious that it has. The level sizes we have seen are pathetically small compared to Crysis.