Consoles Are Holding Gaming Back

[Dragonbums]

I'm so tired of this graphics shit.

Seriously. Graphics does not make a good game.
A good game makes a good game.

Last time I checked everyone says Gears of Wars 2-4 were complete and utter shit. Graphics did nothing to save that games reputation.

Pokemon- a game that has literally used pixel based graphics for the past 16 years of it's life is still very much loved very much popular, and very much recognized in gaming and mainstream media.

The only thing holding gaming back are the developers who have become to lazy and complacent and would rather do boring, unoriginal, sob story, gray palette, shooter than do something original.

Not being able to add 500 complex AI in a single room is not moving games forward. It's just adding more shine.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

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.

Yep, and that shit gets increasingly more expensive. People talk shit about how expensive PC level graphics would make games to produce but they ignore, or are ignorant of, the costs in optimising a game to give high level graphics performance on a console. So it's not just that the actual improvements are getting less noticeable but getting those small improvements gets increasingly expensive (and time consuming).

Developers and publishers of those AAA blockbuster action titles that push for better graphics will probably enjoy that period after a new console is released when they don't have to blow sizable chunks on their budgets optimising it for the hardware.

Consoles are in now way holding back gaming.

Actually their restricted RAM has a pretty big effect on game design, particularly level design and AI. That's one good thing about the new generation consoles, nice big fat stacks of RAM.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Not being able to add 500 complex AI in a single room is not moving games forward. It's just adding more shine.

Uh huh... I'm guessing you don't play a lot of grand strategy titles then.

 

[Dragonbums]

Not being able to add 500 complex AI in a single room is not moving games forward. It's just adding more shine.

Uh huh... I'm guessing you don't play a lot of grand strategy titles then.

Please explain to me how this "restricts" gaming as a whole.
If you were a good developer, you would find ways to get around your limitations.
Not throw in the towel and cry for better technology.

 

[scorptatious]

Oh yeah, the thread title is TOTALLY not flame bait.

As a kid, I was introduced to games via consoles, as a result, I bought games and game related products which in turn, stimulate the gaming industry. So yeah, totally holding gaming back.

As for the whole graphics thing, I personally don't care too much so long as the game in question is actually fun. Of course, a game having good aesthetics helps as well.

 

[Casual Shinji]

The endless pursuit for the most high end graphics is (among other things) what's holding gaming back. The focus on graphics has developers turning their games into big, epic, linear display cases meant for showing off all the money that went into rendering it.

 

[FinalHeart95]

Consoles also make the gaming industry as large as it is. Without consoles, the gaming industry would consist of much smaller scale games. Games like Skyrim wouldn't be made because they're not worth the investment.
And, let's face it, consoles are a better deal for most people, because you can wait a year or two, pick up a console for $250-$300, and still have the ability to play recent games.

 

[4RM3D]

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

That is true also. Though I am not sure how many console games would have actually used open areas if it were possible. There aren't many open world games, but I don't think the console's power is directly responsible. Although it is still an issue.

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 didn't say the PC is better than the console. I said I think the console is holding back games in terms of graphics. That doesn't mean that the console is (overall) worse.

Asking whether the PC is better than a console is like asking whether iPhone is better than an Android phone. It all depends on what you want to do with the system.

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

That's interesting, but what does that mean for the future? Are we at an impasse?

 

[endtherapture]

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

That is true also. Though I am not sure how many console games would have actually used open areas if it were possible. There aren't many open world games, but I don't think the console's power is directly responsible. Although it is still an issue.

One example is the PS3 on Skyrim - console limitations caused the infamous "save bloat" causing an unplayable game.

Also as an example is Crysis 1. Crysis 1 simply couldn't work on consoles. When it was eventually ported, the wide open areas were far less detailed and much more scaled down. Also compare the levels and AI of Crysis 1 to that of Crysis 2. Crysis 2 was a far inferior game in those terms simply because it was created to run on a console as opposed to a PC.

 

[hatok]

Gaming NEEDS to be held back, budgets and ballooning, and many aspects of gaming haven't caught up with the constantly rising standard.
Another thing is that I genuinely believe that limitations breed creativity, I feel like removing limitations or raising the roof too high to be reached will lead to the 'scibblenauts effect'

 

[4RM3D]

One example is the PS3 on Skyrim - console limitations caused the infamous "save bloat" causing an unplayable game.

Also as an example is Crysis 1. Crysis 1 simply couldn't work on consoles. When it was eventually ported, the wide open areas were far less detailed and much more scaled down. Also compare the levels and AI of Crysis 1 to that of Crysis 2. Crysis 2 was a far inferior game in those terms simply because it was created to run on a console as opposed to a PC.

Well yes, there are games like Skyrim that have issues on the console. But there are only a handful. I think there are other, more important, issues the developers are facing. Making an open world game is tricky in itself, regardless of of the limitations of the console.

 

[endtherapture]

One example is the PS3 on Skyrim - console limitations caused the infamous "save bloat" causing an unplayable game.

Also as an example is Crysis 1. Crysis 1 simply couldn't work on consoles. When it was eventually ported, the wide open areas were far less detailed and much more scaled down. Also compare the levels and AI of Crysis 1 to that of Crysis 2. Crysis 2 was a far inferior game in those terms simply because it was created to run on a console as opposed to a PC.

Well yes, there are games like Skyrim that have issues on the console. But there are only a handful. I think there are other, more important, issues the developers are facing. Making an open world game is tricky in itself, regardless of of the limitations of the console.

Well that's why I gave the example of Crysis.

Crysis should've been the blueprint of shooters in the next generation. Directed sandbox gameplay. Each level was self contained, but only semi linear. You got given objectives and could accomplish them however you wanted. Whether that's go in guns blazin, sneak in, swim in, hijack a boat and kill everyone or steal a truck, strap C4 on it, drive it in, jump out and blow everyone up. Crysis came near the beginning of the generation and I was so excited to play other similar shooters like it. It had simply the best gameplay of any shooter ever, due to the fact it was a PC exclusive so it had more resources to play about it. It should've been a new age for shooters, but instead of games going in the direction of Crysis, they went in the direction of Call of Duty, probably due to the technical limitations of a console.

 

[lacktheknack]

Graphic advancements need to die in a fire until we can freaking pay for them. Considering the amount of money it requires to make a AAA game, we need a few good years of optimization first.

As is, we're acting like a teenager who just got his first job and has already bought a car, TV and diamond necklace for his girlfriend.

 

[Something Amyss]

Consoles are holding us back from even more pointlessly bloated budgets revolving around progressively smaller and smaller graphical improvements?


Seriously, not only don't I give a crap about bleeding edge graphics, I DO give a crap about the state of budgets in gaming.

 

[The White Hunter]

Actually their restricted RAM has a pretty big effect on game design, particularly level design and AI. That's one good thing about the new generation consoles, nice big fat stacks of RAM.

This is where I'll definately say the current systems are holding back games, but it looks like it's going to be alleviated with nice big stacks of high bandwidth memory in the new consoles, after all watching the extended interview gamespot had with Guerilla and the hands on with Killzone Shadow Fall, we're getting some nice, big, open areas, with much better lighting and particle effects.

I'll try dig up the video...


I think thats what wed be better using more powerful tech for; larger more complex experiences, though there is definitely a place for focused and linear games, we do need to move away from the abundance of corridor design.

 

[Calcium]

I'd tend to disagree. They may be restricting the direction of gaming, but they're contributing to its growth. Consoles are even good for pc gamers - I know myself and friends got into gaming through consoles whilst growing up, and half of us play on pc or both now, something that just didn't have any appeal years ago (apart from perhaps RTS games). Regardless of the platform or game, enjoying gaming itself only leads to interest in other gaming experiences, all of which push the medium forward.

I'd go out on a limb and say the next Mario game will get more people into gaming than ArmA 2 or the Witcher 3.

 

[4RM3D]

Well that's why I gave the example of Crysis.

Crysis should've been the blueprint of shooters in the next generation. Directed sandbox gameplay. Each level was self contained, but only semi linear. You got given objectives and could accomplish them however you wanted. Whether that's go in guns blazin, sneak in, swim in, hijack a boat and kill everyone or steal a truck, strap C4 on it, drive it in, jump out and blow everyone up. Crysis came near the beginning of the generation and I was so excited to play other similar shooters like it. It had simply the best gameplay of any shooter ever, due to the fact it was a PC exclusive so it had more resources to play about it. It should've been a new age for shooters, but instead of games going in the direction of Crysis, they went in the direction of Call of Duty, probably due to the technical limitations of a console.

That might be possible. Looking at the popularity of Call of Duty, many developers tried to get a piece of the action. Most developers don't have a budget like that of Activision (or EA). So they start cutting corners, including the graphics. But you do have a point. The budget of Activision is so big that they easily could make better graphics. So they are either not doing it because of the limitations of the console or because they are using an outdated engine and can't be arsed to update it.

 

[4RM3D]

Consoles also make the gaming industry as large as it is. Without consoles, the gaming industry would consist of much smaller scale games. Games like Skyrim wouldn't be made because they're not worth the investment.
And, let's face it, consoles are a better deal for most people, because you can wait a year or two, pick up a console for $250-$300, and still have the ability to play recent games.

I'd tend to disagree. They may be restricting the direction of gaming, but they're contributing to its growth. Consoles are even good for pc gamers - I know myself and friends got into gaming through consoles whilst growing up, and half of us play on pc or both now, something that just didn't have any appeal years ago (apart from perhaps RTS games). Regardless of the platform or game, enjoying gaming itself only leads to interest in other gaming experiences, all of which push the medium forward.

That is another way to look at it. The consoles have done more good than harm. I guess we should be grateful for what the consoles have achieved. But we can't lean on this forever.

I'd go out on a limb and say the next Mario game will get more people into gaming than ArmA 2 or the Witcher 3.

Maybe, but if you start comparing Mario with The Witcher 3, you might as well start including Facebook (social) games and mobile games into the equation.

Also, do we really want another Mario game? How many do we have now? 60+? I am surprised people still keep playing it. Or maybe it's the new generation of kids getting into gaming, whilst the older generation have abandoned Mario (and Nintendo).

Back on topic: yes, gameplay > graphics

 

[Windcaler]

I agree that consoles are holding back PC gaming but not because of graphics. Grahpical fidelity has increased to a point where we dont really need it to be better (despite what Cyrtek might tell you). Consoles are holding back PC gaming in the sense of processing power and gameplay. The last of us is a good example of this because everyone I know who plays primarily on PC thinks that the game feel slow and choppy due to it being locked at 30 frames per second (while most of us play at around 60). In any kind of action game frames per second are a huge part of the smoothness of the gameplay

Some console games have to be serverly cut down from their PC counterparts because of the limited hardware. For example battlefield 3 has 64 vs 64 man servers, has 5 objectives on conquest, and genreally just plays a lot better (IMO) on PC. However with the console version you get 12 vs 12 which isnt enough for most maps and conquest objectives get cut down to 3 which makes for a less tactical game

That aside you also dont get the wide variety of games on consoles due to all the licensing costs. This may change with the new generation but Ive seen no evidence of that yet.

 

[Souplex]

Yes, and that's a good thing.
Less graphical processing power helps keep development budgets lower, and graphics are fine this generation anyways.