Consoles Are Holding Gaming Back

[mike1921]

Demanding anything being dedicated without a reason the dedicated thing is better is close mindedness.But fine, be that way, every console also functions as a DVD player (or I assume the wii does), every console functions as a netflix box, every console functions as a storefront, now you can't play any games except arguably those on handhelds because you have some backwards notion that a dedicated system is inherently better. There's a reason everyone's moving to smart phones, and that's because having a dedicated piece of hardware for anything is becoming outdated outdated.

If I remember correctly, when I got my pS2, it's DVD player was complete and utter shit. If I also remember correctly, hardly anyone uses the internet features on consoles either. Those are just features more then anything. However most people use gaming consoles for games.
Look what happened to Microsoft with the Xbox One. People practically criticized it for putting everything else first before the games.
Heck the fact that one has to call their PC a gaming PC to emphasize that it specializes in playing games should be enough to know that just buying a regular old computer isn't enough.

DVD player worked fine for me, plenty of people use consoles as netflix boxes.

Yes you need to buy a computer with gaming in mind, meaning one with a decent graphics card. One part to in the long run save you lots of money. A gaming PC just means more effort was put into one part. It's not some massive investment, and it's not going to hurt any other endeavors you plan on using the PC for.

I refuse to see benefits that don't exist, the only benefits to consoles are exclusives and start up times (and even then I'm on somewhat old tech maybe start up times faster than console are reasonably possible).

If you refuse to see and understand the other side of the argument, then how do you ever hope to convince your opposition to side with you? This isn't just isolated to PC vs. console. This applies to basically every discussion ever between two sides.

Sometimes one side has no points. You can't go up to a meeting of the flat earth society and go "Hmm, good point, that does probably mean the moon landing is fake, but have you considered" when they have no good points. Consoles being inherently beneficial because they're dedicated is an imagined benefit. Having a dumb mentality that PC's should only be replaced when they're broken is an imagined benefit. Sometimes A is just greater than B.

Wait, what the fuck are you talking about. Yes they take up processing power, WHEN IN USE, they shouldn't be in use while you're gaming.....The more energy your computer is putting in....ok? Space being taken up does not really effect the load times, I mean maybe if there's less than 15% left but in general that's not a problem for people. No idea how much space your digital art takes but...It seems to me like average computers come with 500gb now and I know most people don't use 40% let alone 85% of that.

Mines don't either, but it doesn't stop my Skyrim from having frame rate drops despite me having the game on the lowest possible settings.
It didn't stop my Mass Effect games from having certain characters have horribly pixelated textures.
It didn't stop my computer from reminding me that my video card is utter shit and I should probably buy a new one before playing Portal 2.
Hell, I have to watch out before I can Livestream and run a program at the same time.
60% of the time it's CPU goes through the roof.
In short, my laptop is OLD. However it still works. And as long as it still WORKS I have no desire to upgrade because as far as I'm concerned my computer isn't broken.

You having a dumb mentality is your own fault. If you're willing to spend $500 on a console, but not $500 for a computer, if the $500 computer would be better for gaming than you have a bad mentality that for some reason is against replacing computers when they're not broken but not consoles. It's a bad mentality to arbitrary decide some devices can be replaced for an upgrade and not others. Your.... let's say PS3 isn't broken and probably won't be when you get a PS4. What reason is there to not spend that money on a PC? Your unwillingness to upgrade is all in your head and not a fault with PC's.

Or maybe because he's wrong? Or Could easily just get more storage?

He probably does buy more storage, and it goes right into filling even more stuff with work from his job. His computer is his workstation first and foremost.
Hence why he has a console because all of it can be focused on playing games.
I highly doubt a man who works on his desktop constantly doesn't know the ins and outs of his own computer. Unless 80% of the gamer fanbase regularly do intense videogame modeling and designing on a daily basis, I don't think we are in any position to tell a man who does this for a living that he's wrong or ignorant of any sort.

Could you give me a source? Also, video-game modeling and designing to my knowledge don't make you any type of expert on hardware performance depending on what specifically he does. Is he a coder? What does he code for? "He works on his desktop constantly" isn't any sort of qualification.

Dude, the thing came with a 1TB hard drive, I think the average person who can fill a 1TB hard drive can afford a 1TB external.
And, like I said, if you're a gamer, you'll save $100 off of other things easily because games are cheaper. Fuck, regardless of system if you play online: You pay that every two years. If you're living paycheck-to-paycheck and can't afford to look more long term with $100 I doubt you'll need an external. And if they will there's a good chance they'll need replacement hard drives for whatever console they're on anyway.

So when did becoming a gamer means that one has to put money to a PC?
How does me wanting to get a console as opposed to upgrading my computer/buying more space make me less of a gamer or cares less about videogames.
I am very patient with games anyway. Rarely am I a first time buyer on anything but trusted brands.
I care about games a lot.
The fact that your telling me I'm "less" of a gamer because I predominately use consoles is foolish and insulting.
I love the gameplay aspects of a game. Not the looks.
Because what are looks to me, if the game is utter garbage?
I came on the Escapist because like any gaming forum it is filled with people who share a similar hobby of playing games. How or where you play those games on is irrelevant.

You could be a gamer who plays predominantly on console, I'm saying if you're a gamer you Buy games on a regular basis or play games online and thus will save money by getting cheaper games. I think it's a safe benefit that gamers buy games. Not needing to pay for Xbox Live gold or PSPlus to play games online is a benefit if you play online(although honestly PSPlus looks like a great service so maybe you'd want that anyway, and obviously you only need PSPlus to go online when the you get a ps4). I'm saying if you're a PC gamer and spend a little more early on you'll save hundreds in the long run.

I also very rarely buy recently-released games. Which is why having a PC that can run pretty much any game and can benefit off of steam's very common 33%-75% off sales is a godsend.

Like I'm not calling you less of a gamer, I'm doing quite the opposite. I'm insinuating that you are a gamer, and that PC gaming would save you money significantly and unless the only games you're interested in are exclusives there is no reason for you to buy a new console instead of spending the money on a PC. I own PS3 and Wii, but only because all of my favorite games are JRPGs. Anything that's not a JRPG is bought on PC.

 

[4RM3D]

Not really, considering that Persona 4 , best game ever made in my opinion, is far from graphically advanced and Crisys 3 that is very pretty but it was so boring i struggled to continue after 3 hours of game while i spent 70+ hours on Persona 4.

On a side note, why is Persona 4 better than 3? I haven't played 4 yet. I did play 3, but I eventually stopped playing after trying to create a perfect persona for 1 hour straight, only to have it fail when I did finally get the skills I wanted. I am hoping Persona 4 will be different, but I suspect is has exactly the same gameplay, only different setting.

 

[Arina Love]

Not really, considering that Persona 4 , best game ever made in my opinion, is far from graphically advanced and Crisys 3 that is very pretty but it was so boring i struggled to continue after 3 hours of game while i spent 70+ hours on Persona 4.

On a side note, why is Persona 4 better than 3? I haven't played 4 yet. I did play 3, but I eventually stopped playing after trying to create a perfect persona for 1 hour straight, only to have it fail when I did finally get the skills I wanted. I am hoping Persona 4 will be different, but I suspect is has exactly the same gameplay, only different setting.

i like it more because of the more light setting, characters and ending, i just hate all doom and gloom in P3. Gameplay is pretty much the same with improvements, and even more gameplay improvements in Golden version on Vita! In gloden it's much MUCH easier to create personas with skills you want, you just select from inheritable skill list when you fusing and you can add skill cards found from card shuffle after fights.

 

[mike1921]

Not really, considering that Persona 4 , best game ever made in my opinion, is far from graphically advanced and Crisys 3 that is very pretty but it was so boring i struggled to continue after 3 hours of game while i spent 70+ hours on Persona 4.

On a side note, why is Persona 4 better than 3? I haven't played 4 yet. I did play 3, but I eventually stopped playing after trying to create a perfect persona for 1 hour straight, only to have it fail when I did finally get the skills I wanted. I am hoping Persona 4 will be different, but I suspect is has exactly the same gameplay, only different setting.

Persona 4 actually has a real dungeon design instead of "let's climb the same tower all game it'll be recolored once in a blue moon". Like, in Persona 4 the dungeons are based off of certain peoples' minds and thus bosses have much more weight to them. Like persona 4 has roughly the same gameplay (although I think they added a "press triangle to have everyone autoattack to rush through weak fights). I think the characters are better in p4 but I guess that's subjective.

 

[FootloosePhoenix]

Not really, considering that Persona 4 , best game ever made in my opinion, is far from graphically advanced and Crisys 3 that is very pretty but it was so boring i struggled to continue after 3 hours of game while i spent 70+ hours on Persona 4.

On a side note, why is Persona 4 better than 3? I haven't played 4 yet. I did play 3, but I eventually stopped playing after trying to create a perfect persona for 1 hour straight, only to have it fail when I did finally get the skills I wanted. I am hoping Persona 4 will be different, but I suspect is has exactly the same gameplay, only different setting.

i like it more because of the more light setting, characters and ending, i just hate all doom and gloom in P3. Gameplay is pretty much the same with improvements, and even more gameplay improvements in Golden version on Vita! In gloden it's much MUCH easier to create personas with skills you want, you just select from inheritable skill list when you fusing and you can add skill cards found from card shuffle after fights.

I prefer Persona 3 myself so far (mind, I'm only about ten hours into P4 Golden, but it hasn't hooked me like P3 immediately did so I'm playing it inconsistently), mostly due to the fact I love darker settings and I became really attached to the characters over time, but I'm happy to say that Persona 4 made some terrific improvements on the formula. The battles feel more exciting and the ability to control your party members directly is most welcome. Fusion is refreshed as well; I appreciate not having to spend 20-30 minutes messing about with combinations just to see what my best options are at the moment. All in all they're both amazing games.

 

[Laughing Man]

Mmm nah, I could build a PC to compete with the upcoming generation consoles for the same or less than what the consoles cost. 10yrs ago, I'd have agreed. But PC gaming is far easier these days.

Do it, a gaming PC that contains

CPU
Motherboard
GPU
PSU
HD
Case
RAM
OS

for the price of a PS4, that's £350.

Should prove interesting given that the rig you claim to be able to build is able to outperform a piece of hardware that has no final gaming titles and hasn't been launched yet. One thing you learn quickly about being part of a PC gaming crowd is that the amount of hyperbolize bull shit the average PC gamer talks about their rigs cost and capability really is quite excessive.

 

[Dragonbums]

DVD player worked fine for me, plenty of people use consoles as netflix boxes.

Yes you need to buy a computer with gaming in mind, meaning one with a decent graphics card. One part to in the long run save you lots of money. A gaming PC just means more effort was put into one part. It's not some massive investment, and it's not going to hurt any other endeavors you plan on using the PC for.

Netflix is a whole nother story. It's basically watching movies without the CD. The only people who can fuck that up are the staff behind making the Netflix app.
Some people choose the alternative and simply buy a console with zero effort on zero parts. A console can have just as much as an investment if you plan on it having all the games you want, and subsequently get more money for your buck.
That is why many people on the Escapist say that are holding off on getting a WiiU(providing they were interested in the console in the first place) because they want it to have the games that justify the cost.

Sometimes one side has no points. You can't go up to a meeting of the flat earth society and go "Hmm, good point, that does probably mean the moon landing is fake, but have you considered" when they have no good points. Consoles being inherently beneficial because they're dedicated is an imagined benefit. Having a dumb mentality that PC's should only be replaced when they're broken is an imagined benefit. Sometimes A is just greater than B.

You just stated that you refuse to understand the points of having a console. You sit here and say it has zero benefits because you don't want to listen or understand any benefits consoles have. Which clearly if they have none they wouldn't still be around now would they?
Unlike science where we can show EVERYONE the earth and the moon is round, being predominately a PC owner or being a console owner are completely subjective to the tastes and will of the person in question. Some people only buy a PC for the sole reason that the graphics look better. Some people buy consoles because they want them and their friends to all sit together in the same couch and watch who ever is playing the game.

You having a dumb mentality is your own fault. If you're willing to spend $500 on a console, but not $500 for a computer, if the $500 computer would be better for gaming than you have a bad mentality that for some reason is against replacing computers when they're not broken but not consoles. It's a bad mentality to arbitrary decide some devices can be replaced for an upgrade and not others. Your.... let's say PS3 isn't broken and probably won't be when you get a PS4. What reason is there to not spend that money on a PC? Your unwillingness to upgrade is all in your head and not a fault with PC's.

Ah yes.
Resorting to calling someone an idiot for having an opposing opinion than you.
I personally do not think spending $500 bucks on a gaming PC would be more beneficial than buying a console for the same price. Especially after you just stated that it would have the same longlivity of 5-6 years like a console.

Considering how you said if a PC would be more beneficial than a console of the same price- what exactly would be the loss on my part.

"He works on his desktop constantly" isn't any sort of qualification.

http://kotaku.com/5974039/the-guy-who-made-bayonetta-is-not-interested-in-valve-and-pc-gaming-thats-common-in-japan-%5Bupdate-2%5D Although the title has changed (It used to claim that he was clueless about PC gaming and Valve) it is clear that he has no interest in PC gaming, and he got attacked on Twitter for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hideki_Kamiya
He is not a coder. He is a game designer, and a game director who has worked on and directed 13 games. I know you are aware of the fact that games are made on extremely powerful computers first because once again, modeling takes a lot of space and processing power.

And what makes you qualified to say he's ignorant? He especially has to know his computer if he wants to adequately create games in a timely and efficient fashion. Any extra fat to the system that can slow down his computer is a no no.
Hence why he uses consoles to play the games he enjoys.
Especially considering how in Japan PC gaming doesn't nearly have the notoriety to console gaming.

Like I'm not calling you less of a gamer, I'm doing quite the opposite. I'm insinuating that you are a gamer, and that PC gaming would save you money significantly and unless the only games you're interested in are exclusives there is no reason for you to buy a new console instead of spending the money on a PC. I own PS3 and Wii, but only because all of my favorite games are JRPGs. Anything that's not a JRPG is bought on PC.

That is a similar situation for me.
However I find more games on consoles that appeal to me. Mainly Nintendo games. Even more games appeal to me on the handhelds.
And only a few niche titles interest me on the PC. I gladly wait for Steam sales, and I just recently bought a game on Steam. However the amount of games on the PC don't interest me all that much.
Hence why consoles are better for me, and since I like those games, I am more than willing to pay full price.

 

[mike1921]

DVD player worked fine for me, plenty of people use consoles as netflix boxes.

Yes you need to buy a computer with gaming in mind, meaning one with a decent graphics card. One part to in the long run save you lots of money. A gaming PC just means more effort was put into one part. It's not some massive investment, and it's not going to hurt any other endeavors you plan on using the PC for.

Netflix is a whole nother story. It's basically watching movies without the CD. The only people who can fuck that up are the staff behind making the Netflix app.
Some people choose the alternative and simply buy a console with zero effort on zero parts. A console can have just as much as an investment if you plan on it having all the games you want, and subsequently get more money for your buck.
That is why many people on the Escapist say that are holding off on getting a WiiU(providing they were interested in the console in the first place) because they want it to have the games that justify the cost.

No netflix isn't another story, it is one more thing stopping consoles from just being dedicated gaming devices, which any reasonable person realizes isn't a big deal.

Sometimes one side has no points. You can't go up to a meeting of the flat earth society and go "Hmm, good point, that does probably mean the moon landing is fake, but have you considered" when they have no good points. Consoles being inherently beneficial because they're dedicated is an imagined benefit. Having a dumb mentality that PC's should only be replaced when they're broken is an imagined benefit. Sometimes A is just greater than B.

You just stated that you refuse to understand the points of having a console. You sit here and say it has zero benefits because you don't want to listen or understand any benefits consoles have. Which clearly if they have none they wouldn't still be around now would they?
Unlike science where we can show EVERYONE the earth and the moon is round, being predominately a PC owner or being a console owner are completely subjective to the tastes and will of the person in question. Some people only buy a PC for the sole reason that the graphics look better. Some people buy consoles because they want them and their friends to all sit together in the same couch and watch who ever is playing the game.

No, I said I refuse to see benefits that don't exist. The point of having a console is "exclusives exist and people are dumb".

You having a dumb mentality is your own fault. If you're willing to spend $500 on a console, but not $500 for a computer, if the $500 computer would be better for gaming than you have a bad mentality that for some reason is against replacing computers when they're not broken but not consoles. It's a bad mentality to arbitrary decide some devices can be replaced for an upgrade and not others. Your.... let's say PS3 isn't broken and probably won't be when you get a PS4. What reason is there to not spend that money on a PC? Your unwillingness to upgrade is all in your head and not a fault with PC's.

Ah yes.
Resorting to calling someone an idiot for having an opposing opinion than you.
I personally do not think spending $500 bucks on a gaming PC would be more beneficial than buying a console for the same price. Especially after you just stated that it would have the same longlivity of 5-6 years like a console.

Considering how you said if a PC would be more beneficial than a console of the same price- what exactly would be the loss on my part.

How else am I supposed to respond to you pretty much just repeating that "IF IT'S NOT BROKE I'M NOT REPLACING IT", if you don't have similar qualms with other pieces of technology. Arbitrarily deciding PC's can't be replaced for an upgrade and other devices can without a reason is just idiocy. If it is not arbitrary than you'd have a reason beyond repeating "if it's not broke don't replace it"

"He works on his desktop constantly" isn't any sort of qualification.

http://kotaku.com/5974039/the-guy-who-made-bayonetta-is-not-interested-in-valve-and-pc-gaming-thats-common-in-japan-%5Bupdate-2%5D Although the title has changed (It used to claim that he was clueless about PC gaming and Valve) it is clear that he has no interest in PC gaming, and he got attacked on Twitter for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hideki_Kamiya
He is not a coder. He is a game designer, and a game director who has worked on and directed 13 games. I know you are aware of the fact that games are made on extremely powerful computers first because once again, modeling takes a lot of space and processing power.

And what makes you qualified to say he's ignorant? He especially has to know his computer if he wants to adequately create games in a timely and efficient fashion. Any extra fat to the system that can slow down his computer is a no no.
Hence why he uses consoles to play the games he enjoys.

Looking through some shit: Hideki Kamiya shit all over Kotaku for running that piece and called them trash:
http://www.gamerevolution.com/manifesto/hideki-kamiya-vs-kotaku-16889
I have seen many others also shit all over kotaku , and for that reason I have it blocked on my PC so I don't inadvertently give them traffic. I bypassed my block and.....He didn't say anything even remotely like that. He didn't imply for one word that having games installed would slow down his computer. And I now feel dirty for giving kotaku traffic.

Like I'm not calling you less of a gamer, I'm doing quite the opposite. I'm insinuating that you are a gamer, and that PC gaming would save you money significantly and unless the only games you're interested in are exclusives there is no reason for you to buy a new console instead of spending the money on a PC. I own PS3 and Wii, but only because all of my favorite games are JRPGs. Anything that's not a JRPG is bought on PC.

That is a similar situation for me.
However I find more games on consoles that appeal to me. Mainly Nintendo games. Even more games appeal to me on the handhelds.
And only a few niche titles interest me on the PC. I gladly wait for Steam sales, and I just recently bought a game on Steam. However the amount of games on the PC don't interest me all that much.
Hence why consoles are better for me, and since I like those games, I am more than willing to pay full price.

you are aware most games are multi-platform and on PC right? of course you buy exclusives on consoles. And if your preference is just certain ultra-specific games than sure I see the point of only owning a console, but most games people want seem to be multi-platform and cheaper on PC. My top two favorite games of all time are both console exclusive but I still will always buy multiplatform games on PC because I have an option of controls and will save money.

 

[deadish]

Consoles are fixed spec hardware with next to no software layers between the applications (i.e. the games) and the hardware. Unlike on the PC where you have to go through dozens of software layers, including the graphics drivers, which add a lot of inefficiency. Being fixed speced also means programmers can optimize better for said hardware.

Hence consoles can get away with low specs and should not be directly compared to PCs.

 

[endtherapture]

Consoles are fixed spec hardware with next to no software layers between the applications (i.e. the games) and the hardware. Unlike on the PC where you have to go through dozens of software layers, including the graphics drivers, which add a lot of inefficiency. Being fixed speced also means programmers can optimize better for said hardware.

Hence consoles can get away with low specs and should not be directly compared to PCs.

Their lack of memory and processor power is still holding gaming back.

 

[LAGG]

Not from a tech standpoint and not for graphics. But the trend of games moving from competition and simulation into "cinematic" passive media is related.

 

[deadish]

Consoles are fixed spec hardware with next to no software layers between the applications (i.e. the games) and the hardware. Unlike on the PC where you have to go through dozens of software layers, including the graphics drivers, which add a lot of inefficiency. Being fixed speced also means programmers can optimize better for said hardware.

Hence consoles can get away with low specs and should not be directly compared to PCs.

Their lack of memory and processor power is still holding gaming back.

A lot of memory and processing power on the PC is flat out wasted due to overhead. It's only near the end of a generation, and this one dragged on way too long, that PC games start to greatly outshine consoles. Otherwise the gap isn't that huge, as whatever advantages PCs have with raw power, it's hindered by overhead of various APIs like Direct3D and OpenGL preventing low level access to the hardware, limiting developers to whatever functionality the graphic driver and API exposes to them.

Not from a tech standpoint and not for graphics. But the trend of games moving from competition and simulation into "cinematic" passive media is related.

I don't think so. Games are moving in that direction because it's what sells reliably. Consoles could do "competition and simulation" along with the best of PCs.

 

[KungFuJazzHands]

Consoles are indeed holding PC gaming back, not because of graphical limitations. The PC side of the business is constantly getting bombarded with the crap console-centric publishers think PC gamers will be willing to accept. We get subpar console ports. We get cross-platform games that are at 1/10th of their potential because of console hardware constraints. We get pathetic attempts at industry-wide $60 Day One pricing. We get the horribly manipulative DLC schemes that console pubs made so popular. We get games loaded with QTEs and unskippable cinematics because console gamers eat that lousy shit up. We get PC-centric companies wasting massive resources trying to find success in the console market, only to fail miserably because the console fanbase isn't interested.

I wouldn't mind seeing a nice big line drawn in the sand, with both sides sticking to what they do best and ignoring each other.

 

[mike1921]

You know why graphics have been improving less and less recently? Because of a thing called diminishing returns. That's all.

The difference between an object with 100 polygons and one with 1000 is huge. The difference between an object with 100,000 polygons and 200,000 is negligible.

Consoles are in now way holding back gaming. Gaming is first and foremost about gameplay. A game which emphasis on graphics over gameplay is something which would work better as a CGI film than as a game.

Now imagine you have hundreds of units running about.

I would also say that it is actually PC gaming that's holding gaming back or specifically lazy developers and lazy pc gamers.
The Wii brought along decent motions controls with the Wii plus and Apple pushed forward touchscreens with associated gameplay changes. While it is possible to have Wii controls and touchpads on the PC, they were neglected and the task fell to consoles.

Are you calling us lazy for wanting a certain type of control system? Touchscreens are shit for a good number of games because of the lack of tactile confirmation that an action has taken place, wii controls are shit because they take you out of the experience by requiring exertion. I'm waiting for the Oculus Rift since that seems like an actually innovation that's actually superior to the old system.

Your criticisms are slightly contradictory, I'm not sure what to make of them. You complain about feedback but then if it's too much then exertion is a problem.
No doubt if occulous wasn't being backed by famous people it would also be overlooked.

Yes, because that's how it works. The more your attention is brought outside of what you perceive as the fictional world, the worse. If you are given no feedback to make sure you did shit right you will feel forced to focus on the controller. A balance needs to be struck where you notice the feedback enough to know about it but not enough for it to bring your attention elsewhere. The Occulus Rift expands what you view as the fictional world so it'll improve immersion and is likely to make things like motion controls more immersive, since if you look down...there's your arm in the game world, you're more likely to feel like that arm is the arm feeling weight behind it.

Umm, yes you need to raise awareness. It can be the greatest invention of all time, if no one knows aboutt it of course it'll be overlooked. That's not a count against the Oculus, that's just how any reality works.

 

[SinisterDeath]

You know why graphics have been improving less and less recently? Because of a thing called diminishing returns. That's all.

The difference between an object with 100 polygons and one with 1000 is huge. The difference between an object with 100,000 polygons and 200,000 is negligible.

Consoles are in now way holding back gaming. Gaming is first and foremost about gameplay. A game which emphasis on graphics over gameplay is something which would work better as a CGI film than as a game.

There's really no point in discussing Polygons, because that is irrelevant. (mostly)
What it all comes down to is Textures when we are talking about Graphics.

The 3d Models, in most video games, are pretty good. The problem isn't the 3d models. Its the Textures. Consoles have limited Memory, and textures... take up far more memory than 3d models (kinda). There are far more gains graphically, for the PC to scale the Textures up, than to increase the polygon count 50%. (this plays into shadows, and all those annoying graphic-card burning hurtles it jumps through)

Simply having better textures, will increase graphics a staggering amount. (look at Morrowind mods for that example! Ultra-low (by todays standards) polygon counts. Ultra-high Texture quality.. And it looks, just below skyrim, in quality of graphics.)

One of the tricks they did in Metal Gear Solid IV, was pretty interesting.

What they did, was simply make ultra-high quality polygon models, with ultra-high-quality textures, with the best lighting/ect. They then used all that data, to make textures that kept a lot of that shader-detail, so they could apply it to a lower-polygon-model, while keeping much of the shader-quality. (to a point). They obviously scaled down most of the textures to fit the PS3's memory, but.. Hell the game still looks great in 2013.

But they added even more tricks up their sleeves.

Why make a texture of a.. say face. If that face is Symetrical... why does a 1024x1024 face texture.. Need to be of the full face, and not the half? if you instead, make a texture that is 1024x1024 that is even more detailed half-of-a-face. And simply mirror said face on 3d model. Your getting more texture quality, while using less memory. (I'm guessing they somehow only loaded the texture into memory once, not sure how it doesn't double up by mirroring it, but that's what they claimed they did at least)

And if that didn't work, they could just have easily, made a texture that was 512x1024 pixels, using about half-the disc-space, and about the same in-game memory.

They did a lot-of-tiny tricks like that. (I believe this site even had articles all about it, prior to it being released.)

In Short:
To get more out of a game graphically simply upping the polygons is pointless, if your textures look like horse-shit.
Most PC gamers, just want higher quality textures. It achieves the same end-game-purpose, without using as much resources. Vanilla Skyrim on the PC, Looks like crap until you get in some nice HD textures.

 

[BarelyAudible]

You know why graphics have been improving less and less recently? Because of a thing called diminishing returns. That's all.

The difference between an object with 100 polygons and one with 1000 is huge. The difference between an object with 100,000 polygons and 200,000 is negligible.

Consoles are in now way holding back gaming. Gaming is first and foremost about gameplay. A game which emphasis on graphics over gameplay is something which would work better as a CGI film than as a game.

There's really no point in discussing Polygons, because that is irrelevant. (mostly)
What it all comes down to is Textures when we are talking about Graphics.

The 3d Models, in most video games, are pretty good. The problem isn't the 3d models. Its the Textures. Consoles have limited Memory, and textures... take up far more memory than 3d models (kinda). There are far more gains graphically, for the PC to scale the Textures up, than to increase the polygon count 50%. (this plays into shadows, and all those annoying graphic-card burning hurtles it jumps through)

Simply having better textures, will increase graphics a staggering amount. (look at Morrowind mods for that example! Ultra-low (by todays standards) polygon counts. Ultra-high Texture quality.. And it looks, just below skyrim, in quality of graphics.)

One of the tricks they did in Metal Gear Solid IV, was pretty interesting.

What they did, was simply make ultra-high quality polygon models, with ultra-high-quality textures, with the best lighting/ect. They then used all that data, to make textures that kept a lot of that shader-detail, so they could apply it to a lower-polygon-model, while keeping much of the shader-quality. (to a point). They obviously scaled down most of the textures to fit the PS3's memory, but.. Hell the game still looks great in 2013.

But they added even more tricks up their sleeves.

Why make a texture of a.. say face. If that face is Symetrical... why does a 1024x1024 face texture.. Need to be of the full face, and not the half? if you instead, make a texture that is 1024x1024 that is even more detailed half-of-a-face. And simply mirror said face on 3d model. Your getting more texture quality, while using less memory. (I'm guessing they somehow only loaded the texture into memory once, not sure how it doesn't double up by mirroring it, but that's what they claimed they did at least)

And if that didn't work, they could just have easily, made a texture that was 512x1024 pixels, using about half-the disc-space, and about the same in-game memory.

They did a lot-of-tiny tricks like that. (I believe this site even had articles all about it, prior to it being released.)

In Short:
To get more out of a game graphically simply upping the polygons is pointless, if your textures look like horse-shit.
Most PC gamers, just want higher quality textures. It achieves the same end-game-purpose, without using as much resources. Vanilla Skyrim on the PC, Looks like crap until you get in some nice HD textures.

Like a super advanced version of Donkey Kong County?

 

[SinisterDeath]

You know why graphics have been improving less and less recently? Because of a thing called diminishing returns. That's all.

The difference between an object with 100 polygons and one with 1000 is huge. The difference between an object with 100,000 polygons and 200,000 is negligible.

Consoles are in now way holding back gaming. Gaming is first and foremost about gameplay. A game which emphasis on graphics over gameplay is something which would work better as a CGI film than as a game.

There's really no point in discussing Polygons, because that is irrelevant. (mostly)
What it all comes down to is Textures when we are talking about Graphics.

The 3d Models, in most video games, are pretty good. The problem isn't the 3d models. Its the Textures. Consoles have limited Memory, and textures... take up far more memory than 3d models (kinda). There are far more gains graphically, for the PC to scale the Textures up, than to increase the polygon count 50%. (this plays into shadows, and all those annoying graphic-card burning hurtles it jumps through)

Simply having better textures, will increase graphics a staggering amount. (look at Morrowind mods for that example! Ultra-low (by todays standards) polygon counts. Ultra-high Texture quality.. And it looks, just below skyrim, in quality of graphics.)

One of the tricks they did in Metal Gear Solid IV, was pretty interesting.

What they did, was simply make ultra-high quality polygon models, with ultra-high-quality textures, with the best lighting/ect. They then used all that data, to make textures that kept a lot of that shader-detail, so they could apply it to a lower-polygon-model, while keeping much of the shader-quality. (to a point). They obviously scaled down most of the textures to fit the PS3's memory, but.. Hell the game still looks great in 2013.

But they added even more tricks up their sleeves.

Why make a texture of a.. say face. If that face is Symetrical... why does a 1024x1024 face texture.. Need to be of the full face, and not the half? if you instead, make a texture that is 1024x1024 that is even more detailed half-of-a-face. And simply mirror said face on 3d model. Your getting more texture quality, while using less memory. (I'm guessing they somehow only loaded the texture into memory once, not sure how it doesn't double up by mirroring it, but that's what they claimed they did at least)

And if that didn't work, they could just have easily, made a texture that was 512x1024 pixels, using about half-the disc-space, and about the same in-game memory.

They did a lot-of-tiny tricks like that. (I believe this site even had articles all about it, prior to it being released.)

In Short:
To get more out of a game graphically simply upping the polygons is pointless, if your textures look like horse-shit.
Most PC gamers, just want higher quality textures. It achieves the same end-game-purpose, without using as much resources. Vanilla Skyrim on the PC, Looks like crap until you get in some nice HD textures.

Like a super advanced version of Donkey Kong County?

Like the realism texture pack for Minecraft.

Case and point. Minimized Polygons (minecraft)
Crappy textures

HD textures

Simply adding the illusion that something is 3d to a flat surface, accomplishes more than having a ridiculous amount of polygons, and a craptastic texture.

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

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

Pretty much this. The more advanced our graphics get, the harder it gets to advance them further, and right now graphics are pretty damn advanced. The influence of consoles is more in simplicity than anything else. Games can't get too complicated, lest they become PC-only, and then you're cutting-out a massive portion of your potential audience.

 

[JetFury]

Diminishing returns. Now I'm cool

Well I'm not really a pc gamer, really only played a few mmos years ago, the witcher, and a few emus but I can see where the superiority of pcs really lies. If I had a gaming pc that would be the best route to take just for benefits alone. I have friends and last of us on consoles though