Consoles Are Holding Gaming Back

[The White Hunter]

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.

Ive emailed some DICE employee's but Ive never gotten an answer from anyone in dice or any PR person. I dont think they want to answer the question. However from my limited knowlege in PC archetecture and programming I think it comes down to the older hardware of consoles. They literally cant handle the game so it has to be scaled back

Honestly from my knowledge of hardware thats nothing to do with player count as it's just a few more generic character models and BF3 on consoles looks arse anyway, everything is low res and jaggy as hell (compared to the PC version... and also Killzone 3 and Uncharted 3 look better on PS3, not sure bout Xbox as mine is currently used as coasters and thus beyond repair).

I think it's more likely an issue with EA servers. I don't think they want to dedicate the server space to the extra player count and I think that's a horrible problem with BF3, half the maps are designed to be stuffed with 128 players whilst the rest are all 32vsfocused and tiny, cramped and as a result not very fun to play.

I honestly prefer Bad Company 2 (I think it looks better even on PC, mostly because I dig the aesthetic it has) for my BF fix, particularly on consoles but on PC as well. A much more enjoyable game with a much more unique foundation (carried forth from the first Bad Company which is: BLOW EVERYTHING UP!).

Or if I want some more tactical multiplayer I'll hit up some Killzone 3 and roll with some friends.

 

[The White Hunter]

Spoiler: Spoilered for length, and also kupopuffs

So, not wanting to leave this topic alone, I decided to go away and find footage of recent and upcoming games that are console exclusive. If console gaming is truly holding back gaming, then games which are console exclusive should be fully indicative of all the ways that games are currently being held back compared to PC gaming, right?







So out of this small sample of games, we've got a strategy-beat 'em up where the player uses a team of superheroes to beat the shit out of giant alien robot dragons, a game where the player controls an invisible character only made visible by the rain, a strategy game where the player controls an army of adorable little flower people, an acclaimed survival game with one of the best narratives of this or any other generation, an open world superhero game, and an open world mech RPG where you fight giant magical dinosaurs.

That is supposed to tell me that consoles are holding gaming back? Console exclusive games like this are supposed to be the indicator that consoles are holding us all back?

Go home OP, you're drunk. Or watch this Bayonetta 2 trailer instead.


Holding back gaming... the absurdity of the notion.

The Last of Us is so far my absolute game of the year, it was edge and edge with BioShock Infinite (because thats insaenly fun), but then it wins by being a fantastic story with excellent writing and the first genuinely well written homosexual character I have ever seen in an audio-visual medium, and on top of that it blends survival with some light horror and action whilst forcing you to think, forcing you to decide, limiting what youc an do and when.

It isn't a fun game, oh no, it's a rewarding one that you want to survive.

Kind of like if Spec Ops: The Line wasn't just a really boring third person shooter with forced morality and a shit cover system.

 

[mike1921]

No, they're not. Can we just drop this bullshit argument once and for all?

Consider that most people can't afford to or don't have the technical know-how to keep upgrading their graphics card or CPU to the latest model either. Even if it was just PCs, they'd be constrained by the rate of new hardware adoption. A console is an investment in optimum playability for ~ 6 years.

Consoles are good for gamers in general because they provide accessibility and consistency.

And everyone assumes PC gaming is difficult and expensive. You could have your system build in the store you bought it. That store most likely has premade systems for gamers also, ranging from cheap to ludicrous speed (Spaceballs).

A PC might still be more expensive than a console, but not overly expensive.

Still, +1 for the Redline avatar.

Still, you have to concede that PC games have compatibility issues much more than any console games. You can play console games just out of the box because they're optimised for that particular system, whereas with PCs you have all sorts of different things that might not work. No wonder PC gaming has a reputation for being difficult and expensive to get into. Now I play more games on PC than on console, particularly those which are better controlled with mouse and keyboard - strategy, FPS, etc. Yet consoles seem better for certain more cinematic, story-oriented experiences.

(And thanks, I can just smell the high-octane petroleum)

How precisely would console be better for story-oriented experiences?

 

[MammothBlade]

No, they're not. Can we just drop this bullshit argument once and for all?

Consider that most people can't afford to or don't have the technical know-how to keep upgrading their graphics card or CPU to the latest model either. Even if it was just PCs, they'd be constrained by the rate of new hardware adoption. A console is an investment in optimum playability for ~ 6 years.

Consoles are good for gamers in general because they provide accessibility and consistency.

And everyone assumes PC gaming is difficult and expensive. You could have your system build in the store you bought it. That store most likely has premade systems for gamers also, ranging from cheap to ludicrous speed (Spaceballs).

A PC might still be more expensive than a console, but not overly expensive.

Still, +1 for the Redline avatar.

Still, you have to concede that PC games have compatibility issues much more than any console games. You can play console games just out of the box because they're optimised for that particular system, whereas with PCs you have all sorts of different things that might not work. No wonder PC gaming has a reputation for being difficult and expensive to get into. Now I play more games on PC than on console, particularly those which are better controlled with mouse and keyboard - strategy, FPS, etc. Yet consoles seem better for certain more cinematic, story-oriented experiences.

(And thanks, I can just smell the high-octane petroleum)

How precisely would console be better for story-oriented experiences?

Simply the way consoles are typically set up in a living room connected to the television, so you can relax or other people can watch comfrotably, whereas PCs usually have you hunched over a screen.

 

[Bonk4licious]

I don't really care too much about the graphics, though my heavily invested gaming PC would like to differ. I find I'll take more frames per second than actual graphics quality any day. But I don't think it's holding us back, I think it's giving life to it in different ways. One thing is that indie games get popular and out the masses, popularity has come to random titles I didn't expect like Limbo and Trials, because once they got popular they were suddenly pasted all over my dashboard for X-Box and PS3. I think the one thing the consoles do wrong is that they pump out AAA bro shooters and bro-op games left and right to the point that we've ruined ourselves on what good games should be, and now those experiences are what we base other games on anymore. I think consoles give us a clear limit to what we can do with hardware, then force us to make the best out of these concepts, while PC only gaming sometimes loses itself in how good they can make the graphics for the best systems.

A lot of random thoughts aside, I don't think consoles hold back gaming, they just do a lot of experimenting on systems that clearly reach the most people, but I think the feedback from the wide variety of console gamers ruins how developers make games now, from that feedback. I remember Gears of War 3's beta was very fun, with good balancing and overall fun mechanics, which down the line was slowly ruined in patches based on feedback from people who wanted things rebalanced to suit their play styles, and now we have Shotguns of War 3. Overall they both rely a lot on their communities, and I think consoles have stretched so far that they now don't necessarily have people that care about gameplay balancing responding with feedback as much as they do the sheep that just care about getting their virtual profiles as big as they can responding back, letting developers know what should be ridiculous or what clearly shouldn't have an advantage over them when all they have to do is play a little differently to win. The other day I popped in Halo: Reach to get yelled at on Grifball by players who just wanted to not play and rack up points rather than actually have fun. We look at these things so much differently now.

 

[Bonk4licious]

I don't really care too much about the graphics, though my heavily invested gaming PC would like to differ. I find I'll take more frames per second than actual graphics quality any day. But I don't think it's holding us back, I think it's giving life to it in different ways. One thing is that indie games get popular and out the masses, popularity has come to random titles I didn't expect like Limbo and Trials, because once they got popular they were suddenly pasted all over my dashboard for X-Box and PS3. I think the one thing the consoles do wrong is that they pump out AAA bro shooters and bro-op games left and right to the point that we've ruined ourselves on what good games should be, and now those experiences are what we base other games on anymore. I think consoles give us a clear limit to what we can do with hardware, then force us to make the best out of these concepts, while PC only gaming sometimes loses itself in how good they can make the graphics for the best systems.

A lot of random thoughts aside, I don't think consoles hold back gaming, they just do a lot of experimenting on systems that clearly reach the most people, but I think the feedback from the wide variety of console gamers ruins how developers make games now, from that feedback. I remember Gears of War 3's beta was very fun, with good balancing and overall fun mechanics, which down the line was slowly ruined in patches based on feedback from people who wanted things rebalanced to suit their play styles, and now we have Shotguns of War 3. Overall they both rely a lot on their communities, and I think consoles have stretched so far that they now don't necessarily have people that care about gameplay balancing responding with feedback as much as they do the sheep that just care about getting their virtual profiles as big as they can responding back, letting developers know what should be ridiculous or what clearly shouldn't have an advantage over them when all they have to do is play a little differently to win. The other day I popped in Halo: Reach to get yelled at on Grifball by players who just wanted to not play and rack up points rather than actually have fun. We look at these things so much differently now.

 

[Requia]

No, they're not. Can we just drop this bullshit argument once and for all?

Consider that most people can't afford to or don't have the technical know-how to keep upgrading their graphics card or CPU to the latest model either. Even if it was just PCs, they'd be constrained by the rate of new hardware adoption. A console is an investment in optimum playability for ~ 6 years.

Consoles are good for gamers in general because they provide accessibility and consistency.

And everyone assumes PC gaming is difficult and expensive. You could have your system build in the store you bought it. That store most likely has premade systems for gamers also, ranging from cheap to ludicrous speed (Spaceballs).

That cheap gaming PC price is a direct result of consoles low power (adn that we're at the end of a generation). There are relatively few game that both offer very high end graphics and aren't also on console. Because the games are also on console, the devs are forced to also offer mid range graphics in line with the consoles capabilities. End result, affordable gaming PCs that run 99% of new games.

If consoles have more power however (or weren't around), devs will be more likely to neglect the mid range PC owner (and we should see for sure if this holds true again in the next few years, there might be PCs available that beat the XB1 and PS4, but they are very expensive machines). This means very expensive gaming PCs, just to meet minimum requirements, rather than to use the very best graphical features.

 

[dragongit]

I kinda think now we are at the point where games are already looking fantastic (the next generation not the one we're "currently" in) and they haven't even reached either consoles full potential. Maybe there should come a time when we should consider diminishing returns, and instead from each generation onward focus more on physics, particles, ways to render things quicker instead of simply looking better, AI, and ways to make the above easier to make.we're already at the point where studios are hardly making anything back on their investments.

 

[Th37thTrump3t]

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?

Not necessarily. Character and world models are pretty much as good as they are ever going to get. Now we need to work on realistic facial expressions, realistic body movement and higher definition textures.

 

[Pink Gregory]

Holding it back from what exactly?

It's not about the resources, it's knowing what to do with them.

 

[Bonk4licious]

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?

Not necessarily. Character and world models are pretty much as good as they are ever going to get. Now we need to work on realistic facial expressions, realistic body movement and higher definition textures.

The models are looking great, that's not the problem, the only thing holding back the current generation in not enough RAM and texturing. As soon as we get the power to upscale textures to high definition I think we'll really stop noticing the differences, because even average modeling now days can be solved with better textures. Most of the time I stop to look at a bad or good graphic, it's because it's either a low or extremely higher than normal resolution texture.

 

[4RM3D]

*snip*

Offended, are we?

Platinum have said time and again that the only reason Bayonetta 2 is getting made is because Nintendo were the only company to step in and finance it. No-one else would.

Calling Platinum games traitors is absurd. Absolutely absurd. Without Nintendo, this game wasn't getting made at all. Period.

I didn't know that. I suppose it is better to be a WiiU exclusive than to not be at all. So Platinum may have had a good reason, in this case.

I just don't like it when the first game gets released on console X and the 2nd game on console Y and the third game on a mobile console Z. I know it is difficult to stick with a console in this volatile era of gaming. But I would appreciate sticking with the first console the game was released on. Either that or go multi-platform.

And then there cases of game series stopping halfway, where the sequels are not being released in Europe or translated in English. Abandoning us like that feels worse that the console exclusivity, even though they might have good reasons.

Anyhow, I was half joking about Platinum being traitors. Maybe it came over a little harsh, though.

Fucking deal with it, and stop insulting developers for actually making the effort to develop a sequel people wanted.

Yes, lets thank Activision for making another Call of Duty. (That was sarcasm, BTW.) The statement above is moot, anyhow.

That makes no sense at all. The PC is a singular platform, and has its own exclusives. Why, therefore, shouldn't consoles (which are all singular from each other) also have their own exclusives?

For some unknown reason I am always thinking about 2 groups: PC and consoles; lumping all consoles together. I don't know why though. Maybe because from a practical standpoint it seems pointless to have multiple consoles. While I do understand why someone would want at least 1 console.

Sony make their own hardware, they have the right and the ability to make their own games for said hardware. Same for Nintendo. Nintendo have no obligation to make games for Sony's machine, and vice versa.

That would make sense for the studios belonging to the console manufacturer to only release the games for their own console. But that is not always the case. Microsoft is notorious for buying exclusive rights.

You're betraying a huge ignorance about how the economics of the videogame industry work with your whining that console games should all be multiplatform. If PC is allowed to have exclusives, then so are consoles. If you disagree with the notion of console exclusives, then you should also disagree with PC exclusives by default.

I didn't say all console games should be multi-platform. And I am not whining about it. It just came up in the discussion. It would be nice if games would be multi-platform. That's all.

As for PC exclusivity, simply put I would dislike PC exclusivity as much I would dislike console exclusivity. The thing is, when a PC release gets a shoddy console port, I rather wish it was a PC exclusive, so it got some better treatment. But by default I am all for multi-platform.

The Gameboy ...

The Gameboy proves two things: people don't care about graphics and people go where the games are. Console exclusivity was much worse in the past. The Game Gear was superior in every way compared to the Gameboy. Well, maybe not battery life. Anyhow, the console went down under and it would take year before another color screen mobile console would hit the market and survive.

Get off your high horse. Not ever developer needs to push tech like Crytek or DICE do, and the industry is better for it. If every game ended up being like Crysis, I'd probably weep at the state of gaming.

I already stated that not every developer needs to pursue the best graphics. Also not every game needs it. Persona 3 and 4 on the PS2 still look good. But if you look at Skyrim, that engine could use an overhaul. Fortunately there are a lot of good mods to improve the environment. So in the end the engine isn't much of an issue. Ironically though you still need a PC to install the mods. In that case it isn't so much about raw power, than it is about customization and possibilities.


-----


You know I have been playing games all my life. Started with a black and green PC screen with only a few pixels. I still play games that look as if they were released for the Super Nintendo and I am fine with that. Then there are games like Bastion which rely heavily on style and aesthetics and they look gorgeous. Heck I also have it on my iPhone now. I have been playing these games for over a decade and I believe they will never become or feel outdated. But sometimes I do hunker for a massive, awesome graphic fest of destruction and free roaming (Just Cause 3!).

 

[FalloutJack]

Poit

You've missed something. Graphics are close to peak EVERYWHERE across the board. There's only so much more pretty graphics you can actually bother with to try and make things more 'real' and eventually people just stop noticing. It hardly makes a difference to me anymore, certainly. Computers can't go 100% committment to their technology anyway. The planned obsolescence plan. If they put everything to the max immediately, there's less to sell later. Further, this whole thread has no meaning, simply because of the market. If it sells, it's viable, so nobody's holding back anything.

 

[Vegosiux]

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.

Well yes, but that's not how it will be used, because that's not what companies can efficiently advertise in short demonstrations. It takes a while to relay the quality of AI, intuitiveness of controls and fun quirks of gameplay, while with graphics all they need to do is say "Hey look, shiny and detailed, ainnit?"

I think that's the reason why graphics are made out to be such a selling point, they're easy to demonstrate...

 

[Deacon Cole]

I don't know if consoles or graphics are holding back gaming.

I think gaming is holding back gaming.

Games are indeed an art form, but like cotton candy and espresso, it only exists because a machine was invented to make it.* The problem is that the capabilities of the machines is constantly growing, Moore's Law and all that. This means video games are constantly in a cycle of new technology coming in. When new technology comes in, there's usually an artistic dry period as the new tech is the selling point. Some film historians noted there were such periods when sound and later color were added to film.

It's a weird pattern in human behavior to first get something and then to figure out what to do with it. Film hasn't had such a breakthrough in decades, and no. 3D is not a breakthrough at all**. So the language of the medium has gelled into something relatively solid.

Video games really haven't had much time to catch their breath as a medium, much less really figure out how it works and what works best or better in this medium. As a result, publishers and developers have managed to find lowest common denominator (LCD) product that they can sell instead of trying for something more interesting if more risky. This has led many who don't like these LCD games to abandon the hobby, or turn into retro gamers, further entrenching these LCD games as the only things that sell because only people who buy that sort of guff still buy games.







* Although computers are not always necessary. Tomy made a series of clockwork games including Blip.


** What's sold as 3D in theaters or on Blu-Ray is not actually three dimension. I believe it is possible to achieve actual three dimensional imagery. The how's of that are another topic. But such a thing would require learning how to make films all over again to make the best use of this new technology. Much like how many old films are set up like a stage production because how to make a film wasn't known yet.

 

[Azure23]

Huh.

You do realize that not everyone can afford to game on a multi-thousand dollar machine that takes time and energy to maintain and upgrade right? Sure, PC gaming is awesome, what with all the customizable settings and mods and upgradable hardware, but the barrier for entry is perceived to be too high for your average gamer. Consoles are more accessible and are in large part responsible for gaming becoming so mainstream. Console games are optimized for whatever machine you buy them for, so no fiddling around with settings, you can just boot it up and run it (unless you need to update, fuck you current gen).

I have a decent PC and a few games from steam (TERRARIA!!!) but I do the majority of gaming on my ps3, simply because it's, well, simpler. Also The Last of Us (drops mic and walks off stage).

 

[theaudioprophet]

I have to disagree that graphics hold an industry back.
Just look at Fallout 3/NV, both look like a melted wellington but god dammit they're just plain fun.

here endeth the lesson

 

[Soopy]

Huh.

You do realize that not everyone can afford to game on a multi-thousand dollar machine that takes time and energy to maintain and upgrade right? Sure, PC gaming is awesome, what with all the customizable settings and mods and upgradable hardware, but the barrier for entry is perceived to be too high for your average gamer. Consoles are more accessible and are in large part responsible for gaming becoming so mainstream. Console games are optimized for whatever machine you buy them for, so no fiddling around with settings, you can just boot it up and run it (unless you need to update, fuck you current gen).

I have a decent PC and a few games from steam (TERRARIA!!!) but I do the majority of gaming on my ps3, simply because it's, well, simpler. Also The Last of Us (drops mic and walks off stage).

Consoles are perceived to be simpler. They're not really all that different. If you're capable of using a PC to use this forum, then you're 90% there. $200 GPU and you're right for the upcoming gen, for a while at least anyway. Provided your PC isn't 500yrs old.

 

[Dendio]

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.

Gameplay and graphics make a game. Todays games are expected to push the envelop in both gameplay and graphics.

On topic I think console exclusives are holding the industry back. Consoles are supposed to support the games not the other way around. If I have a rig that can play a game is ridiculous that I have to buy another rig ( ps3) just to have the right to play it.

Exclusives also segregates the multiplayer experiences. Anyone playing a given game should be able to play each other regardless of which pc they play it on. Unfortunately the console pc's come loaded with restrictions

 

[Dendio]

Poit

You've missed something. Graphics are close to peak EVERYWHERE across the board. There's only so much more pretty graphics you can actually bother with to try and make things more 'real' and eventually people just stop noticing. It hardly makes a difference to me anymore, certainly. Computers can't go 100% committment to their technology anyway. The planned obsolescence plan. If they put everything to the max immediately, there's less to sell later. Further, this whole thread has no meaning, simply because of the market. If it sells, it's viable, so nobody's holding back anything.

The facial animations on LA noire. Huge improvement compared to even very well done games like mass effect. If the next gen consoles can easily replicate LA noire facial animations people will definitely notice.