Support NeoGAF

[forknknife]

I just had a talk with a friend working in a game for the next Xbox console and he says they are doing quite amazing stuff with the kits but that in terms of power it's basically at the level of a top PC of today so I guess we will see a jump in quality from previous gen but not the kind of generational leap we had in previous one's. I think I might go PC only next gen unless wiiu really brings something. new to the table

 

[Drago]

And is on par with tech from 8 years ago.

360 came out in 2004?

Also, the tech is better. Not a whole lot better, but more than 'on par'

 

[Hoo-doo]

360 came out in 2004?

Also, the tech is better. Not a whole lot better, but more than 'on par'

Let's not get this debate started again. For some people it is on par, I don't care.

 

[Drago]

Let's not get this debate started again. For some people it is on par, I don't care.

Yeah, I agree.

Just felt like calling out the '8 years' part

 

[dank0723]

Yeah, I agree.

Just felt like calling out the '8 years' part

If you are referring to the 360, yes the tech is 8 years old. The hardware specs were finalized in 2004.

 

[teh_pwn]

I just had a talk with a friend working in a game for the next Xbox console and he says they are doing quite amazing stuff with the kits but that in terms of power it's basically at the level of a top PC of today so I guess we will see a jump in quality from previous gen but not the kind of generational leap we had in previous one's. I think I might go PC only next gen unless wiiu really brings something. new to the table

A top of the line PC is capable of this today. If that's next gen consoles, I'll be extremely happy with that performance. I may even play consoles half of the time for a year or two.

 

[forknknife]

A top of the line PC is capable of this today. If that's next gen consoles, I'll be extremely happy with that performance. I may even play consoles half of the time for a year or two.

Yup, I would bet they will get to do something like this, for sure

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dynyXWIAKQ8&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

[thuway]

Yup, I would bet they will get to do something like this, for sure

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dynyXWIAKQ8&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Anything about Sony and Orbis?

 

[squidyj]

No, whats going on is there are a ton of people who dont understand habituation and how it works. A good example of habituation is when you wake up in the morning and smell coffee brewing. At first its like a punch in the face, but after awhile you barely notice it. Thats because nature designed pleasure to be fleeting.

When a new console comes out, everyone shits their pants at how great it looks graphically, and the visuals are some kind of revolution, but then after awhile, its the same old crap over and over and people are complaining for new better graphics.

But wait a minute... werent those games so great just a bit ago? Werent they so amazing and exciting like a punch in the face? What happened? People got habituated to them and the thrill wore off and now its standard.

So some people, like me, look deeper at games and entertainment. I dont care how something looks if it plays like the same old game ive always played, but with a shiny new coat of paint that lasts me until the next coat of paint. Companies like Nintendo try to avoid habituation as much as they can within reason by introducing new elements that change how playing the game feels. They attempt to startle you with the gameplay itself, the concepts, the way the game "feels". Not just how it looks.

So no i dont think its crazy to look out into the future and see the pattern of crying until shiny new toy then crying until shiny next toy then crying until the next next shiny toy.

I want a toy that is fun to play with at its core of cores, that way it never truly gets old. Screw shiny new paint jobs thats not enough for me.

I want to thank you for trying to speak seriously about the subject and not just being a troll/shit disturber, although points off for the condescending "looking deeper" comment.

What you said is just as true of 'gameplay' as it is of graphics in a continuum but at the same time I'm not expecting graphics to 'punch me in the face' I'm expecting them to be able to carry more information than they used to be able to, to be able to further ground me in the reality the game is trying to sell me. That's not even to say that enhanced horsepower will only provide 'a new coat of paint' as you put it when it has the potential to be applied to ares like AI and physics simulations.

I want to see graphics upgrades because graphics aren't nearly good enough, animations aren't nearly fluid enough etc. Not, as you seem to be suggesting, because I want to be wowed by an upgrade like a punch in the face. Furthermore there is nothing the Wii U that is going to make it inherently immune or resistant to getting used to being punched in the face, in any aspect.

 

[LastNac]

What do you mean by greed? The reason why publishers 'want COD numbers' is because they have systematically destroyed the middle. Games like maximo, herdy gerdy, blinx, rygar etc. are all not feasible today because of how things went down this generation. You know the sad part is that the Wii could have been home to 'B-tier' games had the publishers put in the required effort.

A profit should be a profit, the mind set these days is that a basic profit in itself isn't enough anymore. Lets say hypothetically EA is able to push 5 million copies of Dead Space 3(pushed 2 million of DS 2 pretty fast) at sixty dollars. Without tax that brings in $300,000,000. Now I know its more complicated than that and everyone has to divvy up their share, but even if Dead Space 3 is $30 million in cost, isn't it enough to pocket $60 million? Hell, anything over breaking even is a profit, it doesn't have to be a Billion dollar seller.

Wasn't that even an issue that was brought up against West and Zampella in the lawsuit, despite the substantial profit made their presence would have made a couple more million? Just greed...

 

[beril]

I don't know what's going on in this thread anymore. While it's debatable exactly how much budgets will increase next gen, are people seriously trying to deny the spike we saw this gen or claim it had nothing to do with the increased graphics capabilities?

 

[F#A#Oo]

The Rise of Costs, the Fall of Gaming

Good read...

 

[les papillons sexuels]

I just dont see nex generation gaming looking that much better then what's available now. There's that glass ceiling of human perception. There's a limit to how many polygons we can percieve, and i just doubt that next generation is going to provide us with a large enough gap to make a meaningful impact on the visuals. With the increase in ram, i think the biggest improvement will come at texture resolution, which will likely be brown "realistic" textures.

There are other things that will improve, but i regard most of those things to be horrible in terms of visual design. I hate post processing effects like lensflare, overly done motion blur and dof, needless colour correction, and all those other garbage effects. Most developers are using particle effects improperly, and atmospheric effects, with the exception of the halo games, just look like garbage to me.

I just hope next gen we get more variety in art direction, and that developers stop using "realism" to be lazy with their visual approach. Art directors need to learn how to properly edit and be more subtle with a lot of what they do. I know gamers love the "shit all over the screen" of games like crysis, MW, gears, killzone, etc, but it's extremely obtrusive to me.

Of course, functionally there will be larger improvements, that's just par of the course.

 

[Randolph Freelander]

Sneak preview of how I will react:


"They cut HOW much out of the game and made it DLC?"

 

[Seance]

I wonder how many developers will survive and manage to afford the costs for such big hardware, if there's not enough developers who fallen this current gen.

This literally makes no sense.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

I just dont see nex generation gaming looking that much better then what's available now. There's that glass ceiling of human perception. There's a limit to how many polygons we can percieve, and i just doubt that next generation is going to provide us with a large enough gap to make a meaningful impact on the visuals. With the increase in ram, i think the biggest improvement will come at texture resolution, which will likely be brown "realistic" textures.

There are other things that will improve, but i regard most of those things to be horrible in terms of visual design. I hate post processing effects like lensflare, overly done motion blur and dof, needless colour correction, and all those other garbage effects. Most developers are using particle effects improperly, and atmospheric effects, with the exception of the halo games, just look like garbage to me.

I just hope next gen we get more variety in art direction, and that developers stop using "realism" to be lazy with their visual approach. Art directors need to learn how to properly edit and be more subtle with a lot of what they do. I know gamers love the "shit all over the screen" of games like crysis, MW, gears, killzone, etc, but it's extremely obtrusive to me.

Of course, functionally there will be larger improvements, that's just par of the course.

This is why I stand by my assessment of "Weak meant different things before."

 

[teh_pwn]

This literally makes no sense.

Devs get charged per pixel and Kb of RAM, much like us plebs with data plans.

Just imagine the dev manager's meeting:
"There's more 8 GB of RAM and 50 GB disc space. We must fill that with top of the line CG"
"Yesh....yesh..and we must all celebrate our courageous managerial tactics by doing a line and calling in hookers."

 

[beril]

Then use Hawken as an example.

Or Runic Games who seems to know how to build highly polished and large games quite quickly.

You can't compare indie budgets to games from established teams with big publishers, because they likely make a lot less money than even the polish devs in the other example.

15 people for 2.5 years with the US industry average salary is 3 million dollars; then you'd probably have to add quite a lot of overtime; plus rent, tools, middleware, hardware and a bunch of other costs. It would likely reach at least 4-5 million if you used non-indie numbers for the budget. I'm not all too familiar with the game and the amount of content, but being multiplayer only and FTP I'm not expecting it to be comparable to full retail titles

 

[TheGreyHulk]

The leap is going to be massive. People seriously underestimate the power of today's top end tech. Games have been held back by consoles for years and we still have dx9 games releasing on PC (borderlands 2). Put the power of today's top hardware in a box and pet devs run wild on it and we'll see some amazing shit next Gen.

Lighting, physics, particle effects are set to make a massive leap fwd. New engines are ready for the next Gen and I fully believe AMD when they said next Gen will bring all those avatar cg like effects to games.

If you don't believe, just keep this in mind. The 360 will be nearly a decade old, has a measly 512mb shared and its gpu is only capable of 240 GFLOPS. we have tech now that wipe the floor with the 360 cuz, well, its been damn near 10 years and we have GPUs capable of crunching 4300 GFLOPS. That's a MASSIVE increase in power.

 

[les papillons sexuels]

The leap is going to be massive. People seriously underestimate the power of today's top end tech. Games have been held back by consoles for years and we still have dx9 games releasing on PC (borderlands 2). Put the power of today's top hardware in a box and pet devs run wild on it and we'll see some amazing shit next Gen.

Lighting, physics, particle effects are set to make a massive leap fwd. New engines are ready for the next Gen and I fully believe AMD when they said next Gen will bring all those avatar cg like effects to games.

If you don't believe, just keep this in mind. The 360 will be nearly a decade old, has a measly 512mb shared and its gpu is only capable of 240 GFLOPS. we have tech now that wipe the floor with the 360 cuz, well, its been damn near 10 years and we have GPUs capable of crunching 4300 GFLOPS. That's a MASSIVE increase in power.

I have a question. If i render a ball, with 1000 polygons, and you render a ball with 10000 polygons do you think you'll notice a difference? How about if I render a ball with 10000 poly's and you render one with 100000000000000000000 poly's, how about then?

You render a game at 75fps, I'll render one 350fps, think you'll notice a difference? What about texture resolutions?

Power isn't proportionate to perception. There are dimini9shing returns on much of what we see in games visually.

I think most people under-estimate what has been acomplished this generation. Not to mention that to render a game with double the polygons, at double the pixels, with double the framerate you need 8 times the power.

 

[Zaptruder]

It's interesting to note that we are starting to cross a threshold where visual elements that are necessary to the gaming experience (HUD, animation, camera angles, etc) are 'holding back' the relative level of graphical quality.

It's also interesting to note that development costs may *go down* this generation, quite counterintuitively.

And I say this because next-gen game engines are heavily focused around iteration and content development - making it easy for designers and developers to see what they're doing and iterate quickly.

They're almost turning into WYSIWYG editors.

If they can streamline the whole high poly > low poly > normal map UV unwrap > etc. process as well, then they're really just reducing (in pretty significant ways) the things that we are already doing this generation to get content into games.


With all that said... next gen really starts in December this year. VR is going to explode your puny brains.

 

[Terrell]

I'm sure someone has already said it, but I think the better question is how will people will react if PS4/720 AREN'T a big enough leap.

 

[squidyj]

I'm sure someone has already said it, but I think the better question is how will people will react if PS4/720 AREN'T a big enough leap.

someone already said it, there was a thread about it, this thread was a response to that thread. It would probably be best not talk about it in this thread anymore.

 

[-ImaginaryInsider]

Gotta love the "diminished returns" argument, it sticks around through the first year of launch titles, then mysteriously disappear right around the time the 2nd wave of titles come out.

 

[Night_Trekker]

They'll be excited for a few years. Then, at the by the end of the generation, they'll complain about how horrible PS4/720 games look.

Same old shit.

 

[Radec]

Maybe less pointless WiiU threads and an increase of Ps4/720 threads on neogaf.

:lol

 

[apana]

It's interesting to note that we are starting to cross a threshold where visual elements that are necessary to the gaming experience (HUD, animation, camera angles, etc) are 'holding back' the relative level of graphical quality.

It's also interesting to note that development costs may *go down* this generation, quite counterintuitively.

And I say this because next-gen game engines are heavily focused around iteration and content development - making it easy for designers and developers to see what they're doing and iterate quickly.

They're almost turning into WYSIWYG editors.

If they can streamline the whole high poly > low poly > normal map UV unwrap > etc. process as well, then they're really just reducing (in pretty significant ways) the things that we are already doing this generation to get content into games.

With all that said... next gen really starts in December this year. VR is going to explode your puny brains.

Development costs will go up, this is just a fact. The rate of increase may not be as large as people are anticipating but we will have to just wait and see.

 

[Boss Man]

I just had a talk with a friend working in a game for the next Xbox console and he says they are doing quite amazing stuff with the kits but that in terms of power it's basically at the level of a top PC of today so I guess we will see a jump in quality from previous gen but not the kind of generational leap we had in previous one's. I think I might go PC only next gen unless wiiu really brings something. new to the table

How do you think the PS3/360 compared to top-of-the-line PCs when they were released? Consoles are not as powerful as PCs, but that's not the point. Graphics do not come from hardware, hardware simply allows it. If consoles did not exist, we would have some incredible looking shit running on mid-tier PCs right now that blew everything we've seen so far away.

The leap is going to be massive. People seriously underestimate the power of today's top end tech. Games have been held back by consoles for years and we still have dx9 games releasing on PC (borderlands 2). Put the power of today's top hardware in a box and pet devs run wild on it and we'll see some amazing shit next Gen.

Lighting, physics, particle effects are set to make a massive leap fwd. New engines are ready for the next Gen and I fully believe AMD when they said next Gen will bring all those avatar cg like effects to games.

If you don't believe, just keep this in mind. The 360 will be nearly a decade old, has a measly 512mb shared and its gpu is only capable of 240 GFLOPS. we have tech now that wipe the floor with the 360 cuz, well, its been damn near 10 years and we have GPUs capable of crunching 4300 GFLOPS. That's a MASSIVE increase in power.

Yes.

Gotta love the "diminished returns" argument, it sticks around through the first year of launch titles, then mysteriously disappear right around the time the 2nd wave of titles come out.

Yeah, it's basically a buzz word at this point. Thankfully, the growth of technology is not linear- we don't get 128MB more RAM each generation. If that were the case, then you might see the effects of diminished returns. It's a concept that's used way out of context in gaming discussions.

Development costs will go up, this is just a fact. The rate of increase may not be as large as people are anticipating but we will have to just wait and see.

How the hell is that a 'fact'? They almost certainly will at the beginning while everyone learns new tech, but there are several factors that could result in lower costs. It's hard to predict something like that, but you certainly can't just arbitrarily call some future event a fact because you've heard it a lot. There's also a whole other layer to consider with how Steam, PSN, and XBLA are evolving. If we're talking solely about 'AAA' games, then there may very well be enough in recycled software and development tools to lower costs there as well.

 

[les papillons sexuels]

Gotta love the "diminished returns" argument, it sticks around through the first year of launch titles, then mysteriously disappear right around the time the 2nd wave of titles come out.

actually, the evolution of graphics, in terms of raw output from consoles, has been declining. Each generation there has been a smaller and smaller gap in terms of noticable changes.

 

[apana]

How do you think the PS3/360 compared to top-of-the-line PCs when they were released? Consoles are not as powerful as PCs, but that's not the point. Graphics do not come from hardware, hardware simply allows it. If consoles did not exist, we would have some incredible looking shit running on mid-tier PCs right now that blew everything we've seen so far away.


Yes.


Yeah, it's basically a buzz word at this point. Diminished returns has nothing to do with the leaps between console generations. Thankfully, the growth of technology is not linear- we don't get 128MB more RAM each generation. If that were the case, then you might see the effects of diminished returns. It's a concept that's used way out of context in gaming discussions.


How the hell is that a 'fact'? They almost certainly will at the beginning while everyone learns new tech, but there are several factors that could result in lower costs. It's hard to predict something like that, but you certainly can't just arbitrarily call some future event a fact because you've heard it a lot.

It never happens, I am going to have to actually see it to be convinced. If they can then great, but I don't believe it, it is quite a tall order. By the way I personally want them to go for the best graphics either way. I don't care whether they make money or not. I just view it from the perspective of the consumer, I want the best product.

 

[Boss Man]

actually, the evolution of graphics, in terms of raw output from consoles, has been declining. Each generation there has been a smaller and smaller gap in terms of noticable changes.

I don't know, I think the gap between NES and SNES was less drastic than the gap between PS1 and PS2.

It never happens, I am going to have to actually see it to be convinced. If they can then great, but I don't believe it, it is quite a tall order. By the way I personally want them to go for the best graphics either way. I don't care whether they make money or not. I just view it from the perspective of the consumer, I want the best product.

You're right and while I'm not going to say that costs probably will go down, game development is getting smarter. I don't think it's right to assume that there's some rule that will always make development costs go up, regardless of whether or not that's been the case. The industry is still really immature.

 

[Shadow of the BEAST]

I have a question. If i render a ball, with 1000 polygons, and you render a ball with 10000 polygons do you think you'll notice a difference? How about if I render a ball with 10000 poly's and you render one with 100000000000000000000 poly's, how about then?

You render a game at 75fps, I'll render one 350fps, think you'll notice a difference? What about texture resolutions?

Power isn't proportionate to perception. There are dimini9shing returns on much of what we see in games visually.

I think most people under-estimate what has been acomplished this generation. Not to mention that to render a game with double the polygons, at double the pixels, with double the framerate you need 8 times the power.

diminishing returns are fucking way off. atleast another generation.

we cant even render proper looking hair. and shadows looks straight out psone.

watch agnis philosphy demo.

this is real time on high end pc card.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nv4Boq4HLKU

we are not even remotly close to diminishing returns.

 

[KageMaru]

It's interesting to note that we are starting to cross a threshold where visual elements that are necessary to the gaming experience (HUD, animation, camera angles, etc) are 'holding back' the relative level of graphical quality.

It's also interesting to note that development costs may *go down* this generation, quite counterintuitively.

And I say this because next-gen game engines are heavily focused around iteration and content development - making it easy for designers and developers to see what they're doing and iterate quickly.

They're almost turning into WYSIWYG editors.

If they can streamline the whole high poly > low poly > normal map UV unwrap > etc. process as well, then they're really just reducing (in pretty significant ways) the things that we are already doing this generation to get content into games.


With all that said... next gen really starts in December this year. VR is going to explode your puny brains.

Nah, cost will continue to go up, I just don't think they will explode like they did this gen.

All of these systems will be able to do more than what we're currently seeing, while dev cycles will likely remain similar, so they will need more resources to take advantage of the added power given.

Gotta love the "diminished returns" argument, it sticks around through the first year of launch titles, then mysteriously disappear right around the time the 2nd wave of titles come out.

It's a realistic future, but we're not there yet.

actually, the evolution of graphics, in terms of raw output from consoles, has been declining. Each generation there has been a smaller and smaller gap in terms of noticable changes.

Yeah if you're blind or a Nintendo fan =p (not saying you're either btw)

I know people like to say the leap wasn't that large at the launch of this gen, IIRC someone even said RE4 would stomp launch games if it wasn't for the resolution jump, but that's just factually wrong. Regardless if people can see it, or know what they are looking at, the leap was there and it was massive. The people who think resolution was the main leap at the launch of this gen need to take a second look at those launch games compared to last gen titles at that time.

 

[JimiNutz]

The day that games start looking like movies (or so close that you can barely tell) could be a HUGE day for the industry.

There are still a lot of people out there that think that games are for children and movies/tv shows are for adults.

Games are inferior because they dont look like real life (this is like those people that become adults and then refuse to watch cartoons or animated shows because, despite their content, all cartoons are not realistic looking and are therefore only for children).

I predict that the day that games look like movies is the day that some of these people cast aside their prejudice and try games for the first time.

Dont think it'll be next gen, but maybe gen after that?

 

[Shadow of the BEAST]

The day that games start looking like movies (or so close that you can barely tell) could be a HUGE day for the industry.

There are still a lot of people out there that think that games are for children and movies/tv shows are for adults.

Games are inferior because they dont look like real life (this is like those people that become adults and then refuse to watch cartoons or animated shows because, despite their content, all cartoons are not realistic looking and are therefore only for children).

I predict that the day that games look like movies is the day that some of these people cast aside their prejudice and try games for the first time.

Dont think it'll be next gen, but maybe gen after that?

honestly if you did not grow up with gaming, i think it is very hard to pick it up as a grown up.

its just a to big of an undertaking to do on your spare time. they will rather stick with what they know.

 

[apana]

The day that games start looking like movies (or so close that you can barely tell) could be a HUGE day for the industry.

There are still a lot of people out there that think that games are for children and movies/tv shows are for adults.

Games are inferior because they dont look like real life (this is like those people that become adults and then refuse to watch cartoons or animated shows because, despite their content, all cartoons are not realistic looking and are therefore only for children).

I predict that the day that games look like movies is the day that some of these people cast aside their prejudice and try games for the first time.

Dont think it'll be next gen, but maybe gen after that?

Meh I don't really think so. Movies are just a different beast altogether. There is no interactivity there. People don't care about games being for kids, what they care about is the experience. Is it something new or engaging. People want to play in a new way or explore a new world. I think the big expansion for games isn't the look, it is in creating and larger and more interactive worlds. Worlds where things can happen that surprise you. We will see even more developers try their hand at open world next gen.

 

[GCX]

Character animation is the biggest thing holding games back visually. No matter how beautiful and realistic the engine looks, the immersion is broken if the animation isn't up there with the rest of the visuals. It rarely is.

 

[CaptNfantasy]

I want to thank you for trying to speak seriously about the subject and not just being a troll/shit disturber, although points off for the condescending "looking deeper" comment.

What you said is just as true of 'gameplay' as it is of graphics in a continuum but at the same time I'm not expecting graphics to 'punch me in the face' I'm expecting them to be able to carry more information than they used to be able to, to be able to further ground me in the reality the game is trying to sell me. That's not even to say that enhanced horsepower will only provide 'a new coat of paint' as you put it when it has the potential to be applied to ares like AI and physics simulations.

I want to see graphics upgrades because graphics aren't nearly good enough, animations aren't nearly fluid enough etc. Not, as you seem to be suggesting, because I want to be wowed by an upgrade like a punch in the face. Furthermore there is nothing the Wii U that is going to make it inherently immune or resistant to getting used to being punched in the face, in any aspect.

You remember that little pic thing that shows how 3rd parties create test games then if it sells etc they do X, or whatever? The same things go on with this argument. Thats why no one ever learns anything and it rages on and on.

No one. NO. ONE. will say that "graphics should suck". No one will say that "graphics never need to be improved". That is not the argument. Let me repeat... that is not the argument. If that was the argument... we would all be a bunch of morons. Because no one will argue that. The argument is whether or not these bumps in tech are worth the apparent cost to developers, consumers, etc etc etc. Is it worth losing studios over this? Is it worth making every game a CoD clone in order to guarantee recouping cost? Is it worth having the suits shitting blood over every penny just so people can see slightly more realistic trees or a building without prebaked whatever?

THAT is the debate. The problem is, whenever someone like me makes the points that i did in my post, you people turn it into whether graphics are evil or not and start talking about how there would be no Ocarina of Time with out tech jumps.

OCARINA OF TIME WASNT BANKRUPTING ITS CREATORS TO DEVELOP.

Now lets see if anyone reads this and the debate changes to something respectable or if it goes right back to either picking me personally apart, picking apart my wording, or simply seeing my post as "crying because i want graphics to suck".

 

[les papillons sexuels]

Nah, cost will continue to go up, I just don't think they will explode like they did this gen.

All of these systems will be able to do more than what we're currently seeing, while dev cycles will likely remain similar, so they will need more resources to take advantage of the added power given.



It's a realistic future, but we're not there yet.



Yeah if you're blind or a Nintendo fan =p (not saying you're either btw)

I know people like to say the leap wasn't that large at the launch of this gen, IIRC someone even said RE4 would stomp launch games if it wasn't for the resolution jump, but that's just factually wrong. Regardless if people can see it, or know what they are looking at, the leap was there and it was massive. The people who think resolution was the main leap at the launch of this gen need to take a second look at those launch games compared to last gen titles at that time.

the leap was there, it just wasn't as big as the leap from the ps1/n64 to the gamecube/xbox.

This generation has been longer then any other, and the research into rendering has also been the greatest. Had a lot of the tech been available last gen the hardware would've been pushed just as much. The actual hardware enhancements are only half of the reason for the accomplishements of this gen.

 

[Hawk269]

We will never surpass the leap Mario 64 and some of the first good 3D games offered. Ever.

imho, Dreamcast showed to have the biggest graphically leap than any other console in history. The difference between the DC and other consoles out at the time was staggering.

 

[DCharlie]

The Rise of Costs, the Fall of Gaming

Good read...

you know what the Wii U's -real- advantage is to third party developers? They can go X360/PS3/Wii U and cover any risk that Nintendo fans really aren't interested.

Also - i'm curious - aren't Nintendo only 3rd party devs going to hit the same problems as we've seen with X360/PS3 companies? They're -still- going to see their costs rise from Wii development - except if they go -exclusive- they are now pitching to a zero/kickstarting market. With that in mind, does that mean that Nintendo Wii U 3rd party exclusives are going to be fairly rare? I mean - if there's this much concern about companies going under, then the Wii U / X360 / PS3 combination surely is much more attractive than picking one , right?

and as Nintendo pointed out early - porting from X360/Ps3 is -easy- !

You'd have to be pretty suicidal to go Wii U only given you could cover all three machines and hit a huge user base.... right?
Or is Wii U some magic bullet where all this logic about risk and costs for some strange reason doesn't apply?

 

[Shadow of the BEAST]

You remember that little pic thing that shows how 3rd parties create test games then if it sells etc they do X, or whatever? The same things go on with this argument. Thats why no one ever learns anything and it rages on and on.

No one. NO. ONE. will say that "graphics should suck". No one will say that "graphics never need to be improved". That is not the argument. Let me repeat... that is not the argument. If that was the argument... we would all be a bunch of morons. Because no one will argue that. The argument is whether or not these bumps in tech are worth the apparent cost to developers, consumers, etc etc etc. Is it worth losing studios over this? Is it worth making every game a CoD clone in order to guarantee recouping cost? Is it worth having the suits shitting blood over every penny just so people can see slightly more realistic trees or a building without prebaked whatever?

THAT is the debate. The problem is, whenever someone like me makes the points that i did in my post, you people turn it into whether graphics are evil or not and start talking about how there would be no Ocarina of Time with out tech jumps.

OCARINA OF TIME WASNT BANKRUPTING ITS CREATORS TO DEVELOP.

Now lets see if anyone reads this and the debate changes to something respectable or if it goes right back to either picking me personally apart, picking apart my wording, or simply seeing my post as "crying because i want graphics to suck".

there is no added cost.

better hardware makes things cheaper.

its cheaper to make a snes level game on hd consoles than it was on snes back in the day.

Better hardware is just a bigger palette and more brushes.

what is easiest making a photorealsitc picture in paint or in photoshop?

Its the ambition that cost money. Not the hardware.

 

[CaptNfantasy]

there is no added cost.

better hardware makes things cheaper.

its cheaper to make a snes level game on hd consoles than it was on snes back in the day.

Better hardware is just a bigger palette and more brushes.

what is easiest making a photorealsitc picture in paint or in photoshop?

Its the ambition that cost money. Not the hardware.

I dont believe you.

 

[les papillons sexuels]

there is no added cost.

better hardware makes things cheaper.

its cheaper to make a snes level game on hd consoles than it was on snes back in the day.

Better hardware is just a bigger palette and more brushes.

what is easiest making a photorealsitc picture in paint or in photoshop?

Its the ambition that cost money. Not the hardware.

The more complex hardware gets, the more developers need to qc. Costs go up.

what about the cost in certifying your software? creating patches? you act like hardware is some kind of closed system that doesn't involve a manufacturer and publishers, and that developers write straight to the hardware.

 

[deviljho]

I dont believe you.

Consoles are people too, my friend.

 

[-ImaginaryInsider]

actually, the evolution of graphics, in terms of raw output from consoles, has been declining. Each generation there has been a smaller and smaller gap in terms of noticable changes.

It's largely a subjective opinion thrown around on this forum like a Mayan doomsday prophecy.

 

[Shadow of the BEAST]

The more complex hardware gets, the more developers need to qc. Costs go up.

what about the cost in certifying your software? you act like hardware is some kind of closed system that doesn't involve a manufacturer and publishers, and that developers write straight to the hardware.

nothing is stopping anyone from releasing a snes psn/xbla level game on the next gen console.

Costs go up if you want to compete with the cod aaa blockbuster dollar.

You know you dont have to make an open world game with 3000 uniquely voice acted characters that spans and area 50km.

you can make a game that revolves around 2 characters on boat.

 

[OnimaruXLR]

I'm one of those guys who clicks on the first page of a thread and then the last page of one, so I don't know if anyone else has the same sentiment, but I don't give a shit if next gen boils down to "Like Uncharted... but even prettier!" or "Like Gears of War... but with bigger explosions!"

Superficial technological wizardry is par the course at this point. You want to impress me, show me advances that fix problems that still plague games to this day from the inception of 3D graphics. No more pop in. Ever. No framerate drops. Deformable terrain that stays deformed. Persistent enemy bodies. Less clipping. I want games that have a million different moving pieces that are all moving dynamically, not thinly veiled cutscenes. I'd eat my own shorts before I'd ever be impressed with a canned semi-interactive event in a game that that unfolds the same way every time. If I wanted that kind of shit, I'd go to the movies.

 

[Lord Error]

I have a question. If i render a ball, with 1000 polygons, and you render a ball with 10000 polygons do you think you'll notice a difference? How about if I render a ball with 10000 poly's and you render one with 100000000000000000000 poly's, how about then?

You render a game at 75fps, I'll render one 350fps, think you'll notice a difference? What about texture resolutions?

Power isn't proportionate to perception. There are dimini9shing returns on much of what we see in games visually.

Before any of what you're talking about applies, first we'd need to get games we have today in good resolutions and/or non-garbage AA, and non garbage frame rates. Just for that alone, we'd need at least 4-6x rendering power than there is in today's consoles.

Even then, what you're talking about will not be applicable in the least, for as long as we can't reach complete photo-realism, which real time graphics are still very far from.

Yes, noone will care about the difference between 75fps and 350fps, but noone will be stupid enough to waste rendering on that kind of difference. Instead they'll be figuring out better ways to do higher quality shadowing and light propagation, for example.

there is no added cost.

better hardware makes things cheaper.

its cheaper to make a snes level game on hd consoles than it was on snes back in the day.

Better hardware is just a bigger palette and more brushes.

what is easiest making a photorealsitc picture in paint or in photoshop?

Its the ambition that cost money. Not the hardware.

I wish more people would realize this. I love your comparison of Paint/Photoshop, it's spot-on.

 

[deviljho]

I'm one of those guys who clicks on the first page of a thread and then the last page of one

You'd fit right in with the rest of Congress.