Consoles Are Holding Gaming Back

[4RM3D]

Ah, catchy subject, no? While I do agree that consoles are holding gaming back. I am specifically referring to the graphics. The graphics have stagnated over the past few years and I believe the most important reason is that every developer is developing for the consoles. Even the PC version is based off the consoles and won't make the most use of the PC's power. The current gen consoles are at their limit.

Of course there is light on the horizon. New consoles are coming and with it better specs. This (hopefully) means there will be a new standard for graphics. And as a result the games released on the PC will also be graphically better. Although I also hear people say the new consoles are already outdated.

What do you think?

I should note though that I don't think graphical improvements are absolutely necessary. It would be nice for the more realistic games. But for the more stylish games (aesthetic), it wouldn't be as much of an issue.

 

[kingthrall]

Graphics dont make a game. Game-play makes a game, so in light of this revelation to you. I will tell you that id
rather see PC gaming take a step backwards away from all the bloom effects ect, and focus more on getting the game correct without half a dozen hotfixes. This is why there is an issue with Old V New pc games all the time because the pc games have been polluted by the console markets idea's that high definition videos and action button sequences in camera mode are the way to go.

That said, graphics are important but the amount of kick-starters should be proof enough that graphics are not the most important aspect of a game.

 

[endtherapture]

Consoles are holding gaming back in terms of open areas, AI, memory issues, not to much as graphics.

 

[Boris Goodenough]

Consoles are holding gaming back in terms of open areas, AI, memory issues, not to much as graphics.

Bah, ninja'ed!

However a graphical update won't go unappricated, or at least run games at Full HD and 60 Hz.

Also holding back in the sense that the ports are often not very well done due to time and hardware and software architecture differences. Hopefully this will change quite a bit now.

 

[Anthony Corrigan]

the higher the graphics, the greater the cost you have to put in for smaller and smaller improvements not to mention the uncanny valley

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

To be honest consoles keep PC gamers from going bankrupt as game prices go up because more and more money is wasted trying to get smaller and smaller improvements in graphics AND being more and more resource intensive requiring constant upgrades in order to play the latest game.

 

[AuronFtw]

Consoles are holding gaming back by companies spending millions of dollars and thousands of man hours trying to compete with the other guy, trying to fuck over consumers with various DRM and get-rich-quick schemes, and holding titles hostage in the hopes that it will make people pay the ransom fee for a whole console.

Yeah, the graphics stagnating for 5 years might be a bit of a pisser too, but it's really a tiny issue compared to the big hurt they're putting on the industry

 

[WoW Killer]

I've been pretty happy with the length of the current console generation. It's meant that developers can concentrate more on refining gameplay than having to compete in this constant graphical arms race. Plus, I'm still playing recently released games on a 7 year old 8800; can't complain about that.

The issue for me is when you've got controls and interfaces which are obviously designed with a controller in mind, and it's not been deemed necessary to create a separate system for the PC version. Most cross platform games control just fine with a keyboard and mouse, but you can still get odd little problems. Stuff like when you feel there's not enough buttons (can't give you extra buttons on the PC, because that would be "unfair" to console users). You get weird systems like pushing hotkeys multiple times to cycle through options because that's how it would work on a controller, even when you could easily have one buttons for each on a keyboard. And then there's no real way to customise the controls how you want. Things like that irritate me, but it's a bit of a subtle nitpick I guess.

 

[Tom_green_day]

Personally, I don't give a shit about graphics. The graphics from the recent Black Ops 2, or Battlefield 3, mean as much to me as the graphics to games such as Pirates of the Caribbean, Rome Total War or M&B Warband.
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that 'good' graphics sometimes take me out of a game. In Crysis 2 and the aforementioned BF3, I found in geniunely painful in places, and hard to see things throughout. It actually gets annoying and makes me want to play games without the stupid lighting effects amongst other things.

 

[Doom972]

That's what most console gamers say whenever this issue is brought up: "It's just graphics and graphics don't matter".

Graphics aren't the issue here. The limited hardware of consoles limits other technical capabilities such as area size, number of objects within a given area, AI, controls, online play, etc.

 

[Comocat]

Skyrim is good example- a lot of the cities were "destroyed" because of hardware limitations on the consoles. That being said, I'm not sure how much more complicated you could make a game like Skyrim before you alienated a large share of your audience. Most towns were just big enough for me, if the cities were increased 10x in size like in the lore, that would really piss me off when I was trying to get something done.

Furthermore, it's not like console developers are forcing companies not to push the bleeding edge of tech. If consoles didnt exist, I'm sure computers would default to most average graphics card out there. World of Warcraft is popular for many reasons, but the fact just about any computer build in the last 10 years can play it certainly helps.

 

[MysticSlayer]

On the other hand, you could see it as console games keeping us within a workable graphics range that doesn't lead to mass bankruptcies across the industry because they can no longer afford better graphics. It also gives developers more time to design engines that get the most power for the least cost, perfecting existing technology and gameplay while they're doing it.

However, I still don't see why we need better graphics. We're at a point where we can pretty much pursue any artistic style we want, be it the more realistic look of games like Battlefield 3 or the more cartoony look of games like Wind Waker HD, and we're able to do it all in a rather impressive way. If anything, it might be better if graphics sort of stalled for a little, helping development costs catch up to technology so we can actually afford another set of major leaps. Not to mention, it would probably be better if developers did something about improving AI and physics, as those seem to have taken more of a hit than graphics (granted, with games like Battlefield 3, physics seem to be more important again) and they actually improve the gameplay experience. I'm still waiting for an AI in an FPS that impresses me as much as F.E.A.R.'s did back in 2005!

 

[Andy Shandy]

Oh no, the games look the same on PC as they do on console, it must be the end of the world.

Honestly, we're at the point that, while I'd never say "This is the best games are ever going to look", we're getting diminishing returns when it comes to graphics.

So if this is the way consoles are holding PC back, let me say I couldn't give a fuck about it.

 

[endnuen]

I think you are so utterly and completely wrong that I can not adequately describe it.

I enjoy both PC and Console gaming (PS3 and I have a 4 ordered), and I can honestly say that none is better than the other. I play different games on the different platforms and I enjoy both quite a bit.

I do enjoy my PS a bit more due to not having space for a desktop and that I can just plug and play on my PS4, nu system req checks or driver issues.

And graphics does not make a game, it makes them take up more space though. All the pretty glitter doesn't come out of thin air, but really, the graphics are stunning as is, especially what they have shown from the PS4 launch title KillZone4.

 

[Shadowstar38]

No one gives a fuck about graphics.

Gameplay and asthetics mean more.

PC gamers need to get over themselves(this coming from one).

 

[IllumInaTIma]

1) As everyone already pointed out, we couldn't give less shit about graphics by that point
2) Your argument could easily be turned around by saying that limitations are actually beneficial. With limited hardware capability developers have to work their finest to get most out of it. Innovation comes from limitations. Now, can you imagine, with already overblown game budgets, what would happen if there would be no technical limitations?

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Graphically, consoles have worked as a limiting force on the graphics arms race that could bankrupt us all. Things like AI and the size of areas? Sure. Graphics? We are at the point of diminishing returns.

 

[Vivi22]

the higher the graphics, the greater the cost you have to put in for smaller and smaller improvements not to mention the uncanny valley

Yes and no. Budgets do tend to go up as things get more detailed, but you also end up with improvements in the development pipeline that can reduce the time to model, texture and animate. A lot of the fancy graphical effects that really put things over the top tend to be things which are programmed instead of hand made and can be reproduced as much as necessary with a minimum of effort. And with more and more engines just building this stuff in from the get go, and more and more companies using ready made engines instead of building their own, there's a lot of cost savings to be found that way. The real expensive stuff for consoles tends to come from optimization anyway. Sure, companies learn to utilize the hardware better with every project and squeeze more performance out, but they have to put in a lot more time for a lot less gain as time goes on. But with the architecture of the new consoles being more flexible and a bit less esoteric, I wouldn't be surprised to see this coming generation have a smaller dev cost increase than people expect.

As for the uncanny valley, honestly, I think it's more often than not an issue of art direction, not improving graphics. The Incredibles looked substantially better than the first Toy Story (and every Pixar film continues to improve in terms of tech), but nobody would accuse it, or any of their movies, of crossing over into uncanny valley territory. If you want to try for photo-realism then sure, you'll have problems, but the people who still hold photo-realism as the goal of improved graphics technology, or some end game art standard to strive for are morons.

As for the actual topic, honestly, I'm not very inclined to blame consoles for holding back PC games. Maybe they do to a small degree in the short term, but if it wasn't consoles it'd be middle of the road consumer PC's instead and instead of a fairly large jump every five to seven years we'd have very small incremental improvements over the same period. In the end I think we'd end up in the same place.

 

[FootloosePhoenix]

There are a great many valid arguments that could be made about what is potentially "holding back" the medium as a whole. I don't consider graphical fidelity to be one of them. Besides, wouldn't it make more sense to blame developers and publishers or even consumer demand for that particular "problem"?