Consoles Are Holding Gaming Back

[mohit9206]

I enjoy both PC as well as console gaming. However i do admit that consoles do hold back the PC in some ways and that is not going to change in this generation either as you will see soon.But rather than complain which platform holds back the other we should just enjoy what each platform has to offer.

 

[skywolfblue]

Ah, remember those glorious days when only the richest of the rich could afford to upgrade their PC every year to keep up with games with insane System Requirements?

Yeah, fuck that.

Viva la stagnation so more people can play games on even crappy hardware. I'd rather have more people playing and enjoying a game then a spit-shine bloom effect.

 

[4RM3D]

Ah, remember those glorious days when only the richest of the rich could afford to upgrade their PC every year to keep up with games with insane System Requirements?

Yeah, fuck that.

Viva la stagnation so more people can play games on even crappy hardware. I'd rather have more people playing and enjoying a game then a spit-shine bloom effect.

Kneel before your master!

I am not expecting developers to spec for a Tianhe-2 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tianhe-2]. But I do think it's time for an upgrade.

 

[Seracen]

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.

[snip]

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.

I am of the camp that graphics boosts are on diminishing returns at this point. I would rather the developers spend time honing their skills. This way, we can have all the amazing graphics, and the games don't have to peter out at 6 hours or less.

Seriously, just one console generation ago, a game's SP being less than 15 hours was considered abysmal. Fast forward to today, where we can pay $60 for a 4 hour campaign and subpar MP modes that barely last a week.

It's just not good value for money...which in turn is bad business. Developers are pushing these games out too fast, and wasting too much budget on marketing. I'm not saying every game needs to be Skyrim, but a meatier campaign and more attention to such details can't go wrong.

And if it's a choice between eye-bleeding graphics and a lengthy batch of content, give me the latter any day. Seriously, I doubt I'll complain about a game looking like Ninja Gaiden One (which still holds up) when it lasts for 50 hours.

 

[Savryc]

The only thing holding back gaming is greed and laziness. Dev's world rather take the safe and lazy route for maximum profit rather than take a risk on something new and refine it. That's why we get crappy, one size fits all games on every platform instead of a well tuned game for one or the other.

 

[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.

[snip]

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.

I am of the camp that graphics boosts are on diminishing returns at this point. I would rather the developers spend time honing their skills. This way, we can have all the amazing graphics, and the games don't have to peter out at 6 hours or less.

Seriously, just one console generation ago, a game's SP being less than 15 hours was considered abysmal. Fast forward to today, where we can pay $60 for a 4 hour campaign and subpar MP modes that barely last a week.

It's just not good value for money...which in turn is bad business. Developers are pushing these games out too fast, and wasting too much budget on marketing. I'm not saying every game needs to be Skyrim, but a meatier campaign and more attention to such details can't go wrong.

And if it's a choice between eye-bleeding graphics and a lengthy batch of content, give me the latter any day. Seriously, I doubt I'll complain about a game looking like Ninja Gaiden One (which still holds up) when it lasts for 50 hours.

Idk going back and replaying a lot of PS2 games they can be wrapped up in 8-10 hours, which is what I consider a healthy length for an action game or FPS, though I prefer them to be slightly longer, or have a world fleshed out enough that I can waste a good 20+ hours in it.

Having bigger, more expansive and open environments offers a lot more in the way of replay, so it helps keep things fresh and encourages replaying the game to see what you missed, or what you could have done differently, it looks like a few games like Shadow Fall will be delivering something like that but it's something we'll only be able to tell with hindsight.

I do hope we get some more crazy random stuff like we did in the days of the PS2 though. Things like Viewtiful Joe are far too rare.

I'm also pining for a good Mega Man experience or a new true Castlevania (as much as I like Lords of Shadow, it's got nothing on the DS titles or the mighty Symphony of the Night).

Anyway, I hear what you're saying, but you can happily finish the mains tory of skyrim in a few hours without much trouble. Just like |I'm sure you could hammer through BioShock Infinite in 6 or so hours if you want, I however chose to enjoy the world and experience the game as more than a time sink and spent a good 21 hours on my first playthrough (a good 3 or 4 are likely pause time..). Giving the player a richer world to explore is rarely a bad thing.

 

[The White Hunter]

Snip

I quoted you talking about graphics budgets and snipped lazily:

COD has a relatively tiny budget in reality, it's because they re=use their engines and assets quite a lot. Even Ghosts is running on the same engine but modified, and the engine it all originates from is the same one that ran Quake 3, just heavily modified for Call of Duty 2 and then 4, with tweaks down the line.

The big downfall of chasing COD has been those overblown budgets precisely because COD doesn't have ahuge budget, it just rakes in monstrous profit by being safe and customers knowing what they'll get.

It'd be nice to see people stop playing follow the leader but it won't happen, just next gen we may have a different leader.

Maybe a nice RTS or MMORPG.

But probably not.

Though I look forward to the PS4 supporting MMO's more because my friends will be there so I'll have a better reason to play them.

 

[PoisonTaco]

Consoles have been holding gaming back for a long time now. I'm not talking about graphics or other technical aspects but I mean entire genres.

I miss space sims, the abundance of RTS games, adventure games and isometric RPG's. Yes many of those genres are coming back from crowd funding but I'd love to see them get bigger and better budgets. The games I like to play aren't being made because the developers and publishers want the mass market appeal found on consoles. As a gamer I'm being under served. Consoles are consistently holding back those games because of controls, online infrastructures and business models. I don't give a damn about graphics, I just want more variety in games as opposed to shiny corridor shooters and action games. Yeah they have their place but variety would be nice.

You know what I miss on consoles? Platformers. But hey I guess everyone wants to be CoD.

 

[The White Hunter]

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.

Why exactly did it need a reduced player count? I've never got a straight answer on any of it. BF3 on console is horribly inferior to BC2 in my opinion anyway, largely because it was a lot less fun.

As for player count... the world needs MAG 2.

 

[Littaly]

I personally think that the more interesting possibilities with better hardware lies in AI and scale rather than graphics. I'll take a bigger, more realistically behaving world over a better looking one any day.

That said, I've always been of the opinion that innovation and evolution of gaming isn't (contrary to what some major developers claim) dependent on better hardware. Creative, interesting ideas are what make for innovative games, not bigger flashier tech.

 

[4RM3D]

It's just not good value for money...which in turn is bad business. Developers are pushing these games out too fast, and wasting too much budget on marketing. I'm not saying every game needs to be Skyrim, but a meatier campaign and more attention to such details can't go wrong.

And if it's a choice between eye-bleeding graphics and a lengthy batch of content, give me the latter any day. Seriously, I doubt I'll complain about a game looking like Ninja Gaiden One (which still holds up) when it lasts for 50 hours.

Yet people keep buying Call of Duty. Call of Duty was released for console (high) prices on the PC and people still bought it... by the truckloads. It has an insane momentum and that's unhealthy for the gaming industry.

 

[DishonoredElderSouls]

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"?

Really, the primary reason why consoles could potentially be holding back gaming are because of the smaller amounts of space with which to fit items, features, and world area into a product. Not to mention, graphics already take up a large amount of that space. So in truth I can get what hardcore PC gamers are getting at, but aren't games of the scale of Oblivion and Dark Souls already good enough? Having TOO MUCH content would be overwhelming, which fits in with the "limitations are a good thing" argument.

EDIT: Here's something I wanted to discuss: what would happen if consoles were to simply fall off the map? On the one hand, PCs could potentially rise in price even further to corner the market, or for the sake of higher demand and the future of gaming, the prices could be dramatically lowered. If we were to remove consoles completely from the equation, would gaming as a whole have fewer shady business practices, more depth, increased scale, and overall higher standards? Or would it be destroyed by the obsession of the tech-based area to constantly grow and start breaking the bank with newer and newer technology?

 

[Anthony Corrigan]

If the premise of this thread was accurate there would be one genre which would have a blinding difference in graphics RTS. It has no competition on console, its all PC only so why is there no huge difference between RTS's and the rest of the industry? because the premise is crap

oh and http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=EiTowCuwF-E

I donated to a kickstarter project called Shroud of the Avatar by Richard Gariott (Lord Britsh) for a massive world game and people kept asking Chris Spears (lead technical designer) why they weren't going to make it a one single world like Skyrim rather than the 2 level map that they planned and there comment back was its a waste of resources. Apparently Skyrim had a million budget for the world itself alone without anything in it. Now double the detail and how much difference have you got? Do Bluerays really look that Different from DVDs? No of course not. Someone mentioned Crysis, well I bought a new computer recently with the aim of playing Shroud of the Avatar, Sims and a few other games and it was reasonably expensive (certainly compared to a console) but I happened to ask about Crysis and the guys comment back to me is if you want to play that then everything I paid for the rest I needed to throw at the graphics card alone. That is ridiculously expensive, especially for the mass market which you would have if consoles were gone. Your talking about a difference of 300-500 for consoles vs $1000 PLUS just on a graphics card not to mention the chip, RAM, board, HD, peripherals, Operating system and THEN you can start playing games. You think the averaged person would be willing to throw that much EVERY YEAR at there computer? of course not so your going to have older computers and you either alienate those customers or drop back your game to run on low to mid range systems anyway, most of which are LESS powerful than the PS3 (certainly more power in the PS3 than my laptop). The advantage of consoles is that the variables are removed developers don't have to worry about different graphics cards, different operating systems etc. They know exactly what the PS3 runs and can develop for that knowing that everyone of those customers will be able to play the game

Anyway lets go back to Crysis,

Only millionaires will max it out
A lack of new ideas
Single-player lasts 5-6 hours

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/389184/reviews/crysis-3-review-an-enjoyable-shooter-elevated-by-staggering-visuals-review/?page=1#top_banner

So according to them at least it sounds like all flash and no substance, where is the epic story? not there if they are rating Half life 2 better (a game I can run on my laptop). Is that really what you want out of a game? the whole budget blown not on the story but on the art? I certainly don't

 

[A Weakgeek]

More power means more possibilities. In all areas.

In 10 years we will have game experiences we couldn't dream of today. Cities the size of New York, populated realistically, each pedestrian running complex AI. All buildings enterable and destructible with realtime physics, all in a seamless world with no loading screens. Bulletholes, trash and rubble and corpses all consistent and lasting. All in a device the size of an iphone.

Will it happen? Maybe not. But that is the sort of thinking you need to excersize to understand what gaming could evolve into. It doesnt matter what is holding the industry back, or what you think of it, since it won't change a thing. But never think that there isn't room for improvement.

 

[WanderingFool]

God... I must be fucking backward... I just dont see whats so important about realistic graphics.

 

[Doclector]

Okay. Let's just say that it is.

Does that change the fact that many people prefer a console? No. It does not. Thus it will it will not change that consoles still make up a good amount of the market, thus the statement is rendered irrelevant because it changes nothing.

See, I think that daily mail readers are holding my country back. But does that change that a good enough amount of people read that trash to keep the accursed paper going? No. It does not.

What is the best thing for the medium does not equal to what people want to happen for now, and thus does not equal to what will happen, no matter how much anyone insists that it must.

 

[Reaper195]

While I do agree, graphics have been held back because developers have been making games specifically for console, I don't believe that's the consoles fault. It's the developers fault for making games for console, then making PC ports which end up looking average or only slightly better than their console counterpart. of course, I've always hated the smug "PC is sooooo muuuuch better than console, these games won't even work! on console!" bullshit. Remember when Crytek said Crysis would never, ever run on console? Last I checked, it's on console, and still manages to look very pretty. Pity the main game was boring as a bag of dicks.

People can brag about graphics as much as they want. But at the end of the day, if Final Fantasy 7 is more entertaining (And not even in a nostalgia way) than Assassins Creed 3, and Halo CE is better than CoD...fuck graphics. I'll play my bad looking games until I'm done having fun instead of stroking the graphical cock.

 

[klaynexas3]

Games that would make use of those thousand dollar rigs would have high production costs, and be marketing to a smaller audience due to the high entrance fee. Due to all this, the prices would be monstrous just to buy one game. I'm happy there are consoles to allow normal people to be able to game, not just those that can afford their thousand dollar PCs.

 

[ArithianFlame]

Graphics holding back the industry? Give me a break. If anything, the bloated expectations of consumers who cry for ever greater levels of detail is killing it. I hate to break it to you, but it's not cheap to continuously push the bar. And it's money that could be spent elsewhere. The only people who think otherwise are those who can afford to throw money at their PC every couple of years for upgrades and expect the industry to do the same.

Consoles are saving the industry from choking on these expectations. They are stable and consistent platforms developers can work with. They are attractive to consumers with smaller budgets. Consoles exist as the economic middle-ground, pure and simple.