The Witcher 2, Skyrim and Battlefield 3 = mid gen upgrades?

[gongo]

EDIT: Forgot to add The Witcher 2 in thread header....

Seen the trailers..? I did. And boy do they look like DX10.1 shaders are finally dominating Dev codes.....the graphics and fidelity felt something out of reach for PS3 and 360....is it time for next gen? I heard that AMD/Nvidia is stuck in the rut wrt to 28nm graphics...could explain why Sony held back PS4 to 2013 timeframe...i am expecting PS4 games to look like those but with 2-3x more geometry/tessellation to get that full bolded CGI look...

What is this thread about...? I do think the fixed hardware of console is a strength but today is not that strong now...I mean Apple/Samsung are coming out with new hardware every 12-16 months...refreshing their lineup and making strong marketing moves. I would not mind a PS3.5 with 1.5GB ram and GTX285 class gpu this year and a PS4 with complete next gen specs in 2013...keeps the speccs moving..gives Dev options to include new graphics features....

ok so the thoughts behind this thread are not....strong enough...but it is nice to see 2011 games using PC GPU power for new graphics..and not just up-rez'ing them..

 

[Neb]

It's just the natural tech evolution coming into play. Theres a limit when you really cant muster out more of older tech and just need more perfomance and capabilities. What really exites me though is that finally there is some decent to good use of PC HW which years ago wasn't really the case. DX9 API automatically means you dont use the HW to it's full capability since DX10 or better allows for much more and can take use of DX10 HW functions. And same with DX11. Also better distribution of rendering load to not just blow it off on something that is way to subtle vs perfomance costs.

It also makes for a more fair marketing/support business from ATI/NV if compared when ATI had DX10.1 support and NV only DX10. I do remeber for example how Assassins Creed got a patch with DX10.1 added with better AA and perfomance but was removed in next patch due to being "broken". game was obviously sponsored by one of the GPU manufacturers. Such things aside from amount of WinXP systems has been hampering progress. It has though been changing these recent years.

 

[joker454]

It's gotten to the point where there is no where left to go with current consoles as they are just too old. But it's looking like they will keep them going until 2014. So at this point for devs that really want to explore new techniques and technologies they have no choice but to explore them on PC. The slow death of Windows XP combined with an endless console cycle is finally allowing that, so all the good stuff you'll be seeing for the next few years will be on PC while the consoles soldier on without a whole lot of change for a few more years.

I honestly think it's the best scenario for everyone. Many don't have a gaming PC and don't care to own one, so they can continue to play their consoles for years to come. For guys like me that game on PC, we can enjoy higher spec games as devs finally start to target the PC again. At first I wasn't crazy about next gen consoles being delayed to 2014 but I'm actually happy about it now because it's forcing devs to target PC, whereas if new consoles were coming in 2012 devs would once again be ignoring PC and focusing on the new consoles. In fact I'm hoping the next gen consoles get delayed as long as possible to keep devs focused on cutting edge hardware on PC.

So it's a great situation right now for everyone, win-win all around. It's not like console guys will be short changed, the heavy hitting games will be ported back to console anyways so you guys will still get to play them, but at least this way I get to play them with proper PC support and cutting edge graphics. Good times!

 

[aselto]

Isn'tSkyrim trailer supposed torun on 360? I'm gonna play it on PC anyway, but still.

 

[AlNom]

Isn'tSkyrim trailer supposed torun on 360? I'm gonna play it on PC anyway, but still.

Yep, according to the community manager who posted on gaf.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=26121821&postcount=311

Just to clarify, all of this trailer was captured on Xbox 360. Also, the draw distance is not faked in any way.

 

[homerdog]

My brother who hasn't been into gaming for a while now sent me a text as soon as he saw the BF3 trailer wanting me to spec him a new computer.

 

[Squilliam]

But wouldn't the developers throw a fit if they not only have to support two current generation consoles but two marginally improved consoles along with all the SKU variations like 250GB vs Arcade on top of that yet again?

Anyway it only makes sense if publishers are willing to fund the improved art assets to support said consoles AND they are holding off the next generation consoles to well into 2014.

 

[Farid]

New console launches could be dictated by many factors, technical obsoleceance is one of them, indeed. But that's the theory.

In the case of the current generation of consoles, the PS3/X360 were outsold by a console supporting DX7 class of graphics in SD only, making the standard for graphics a non issues for PS3/X360. The PS3 price is still €/$299 and the X360 might start at $199 (which is not incredibly low, 5 years into the generation), the Kinect push makes it a $299 item, which gives a lot of room to Microsoft/Sony for major price cuts.

In other words, the PS3/X360 still have a lot of sale potential and they're still technically sound with regards of the (leading) competition. Combine that with the money both Sony and MS invested and or lost during the early years of this generation, and you'll end up with more than enough reasons why these two consoles are not going anywhere soon.

Also, for what it's worth, of all the examples cited, only Repi's baby Frostbite 2 powered Battlefield 3 looks amazing. Skyrim looks perfectly doable on PS3/X360. And The Witcher 2 looks like a high end PC game done right (Better detail per pixel, better filtering, higher LOD), but not some impressive rendering tour-de-force. On that topic, PC games done right have been putting to shame console games quite for a while now... And some would argue that they did just that since the day 1 release of PS3/X360.

 

[Squilliam]

New console launches could be dictated by many factors, technical obsoleceance is one of them, indeed. But that's the theory.

I would also say the ability to replace them. Since the launches were so unrealistic in terms of cost and power consumption compared to how the next generation will be I would have to say that the consoles as they were at the 65nm node are the baseline to compare to a next generation console and we simply aren't even two die shrinks beyond that point yet.

 

[Prophecy2k]

Also, for what it's worth, of all the examples cited, only Repi's baby Frostbite 2 powered Battlefield 3 looks amazing. Skyrim looks perfectly doable on PS3/X360. And The Witcher 2 looks like a high end PC game done right (Better detail per pixel, better filtering, higher LOD), but not some impressive rendering tour-de-force. On that topic, PC games done right have been putting to shame console games quite for a while now... And some would argue that they did just that since the day 1 release of PS3/X360.

Such is true, however it's only recently now that many devs are realising the limits of console HW are those top tier devs focussing more on making their engines and tech shine on PC first.

I agree with Joker that this is a very positive thing for the next-gen consoles to be delayed. Given how many devs studios have tanked this gen, the high dev costs and asset production costs, delaying the next gen is really better for everyone.

For one it leaves time for smaller indie devs to develop their technology and studios ready for next-gen (giving regions like Japan that fell behind on the whole this gen, the chance to catch up). It also allows them the already established, fairly large HD console and high end PC installed bases to sell their software to, instead of them struggling to flog their even more expensive next-gen games to fledgling next-gen installed bases.

It gives middleware providers time to mature their technology and software support, enabling faster and more efficient development option for many studios looking to go HD with their content.

Then it gives those top end devs more of an incentive to push their tech on the PC side, taking advantage of the newest graphics API standard features that will important for next gen. Thus their own tech can mature and they'll be in a much better position next gen

... well.. in theory anyways.

Edit: It also gives the global masses enough time to get sick of COD and FPS' so that we can finally have our much longed for resurrection of dead genres' like the space sim and point & click adventure (avec Move & Kinect controls - would be awesome).

 

[Laa-Yosh]

I wholeheartedly agree with Skyrim not looking any special, I can't see what's the fuss about. Sure I haven't played Oblivion so the gameplay side is unknown to me, but what was in the trailer looked actually quite bad at times.

Battlefield 3 may end up as the best looking console game so far, though - assuming that the console versions don't get significant downgrades. I wonder if there's gonna be any reasonable single player component...

 

[aselto]

I wholeheartedly agree with Skyrim not looking any special, I can't see what's the fuss about. Sure I haven't played Oblivion so the gameplay side is unknown to me, but what was in the trailer looked actually quite bad at times.

It looks quite incredible IMO. Surely there are obvious trade-offs at every step, but overall the landscapes are quite breathtaking and improvements over Fallout 3 large. I'd easily put it overthe best looking console open world games (RDR< Just Cause 2).

 

[pjbliverpool]

Yeah Skyrim looked pretty average to me. In fact a fair bit worse than a reasonably modded Oblivion.

Suprised Crysis 2 hasn't been mentioned yet though. I guess it remains to be seen just how big the difference will be but I'm betting it will be at least in line with BF2.

 

[gongo]

You are right...after inspecting a higher rez video, Skyrim looks doable on consoles...it is a huge improvement over Fallout3...although i suspected i may have been fooled by ingame recorded and spedup/re-animated to a smooth 30fps. This "trick" is replacing CG renders imo..

I did not mention Crysis 2 because...i have not seen PC DX11 screens...or if i did..they did not look much better than Crysis 1 in my memories...

I like Witcher 2 because...the geometry (geometry shaders/tessellation?) looks beyond consoles...the modeling on tiny details like pouches and table edges....makes the game world look less polygon edgy...my main beef with realtime 3D as of now....

Looking at BF3...i have hopes that next gen consoles/games...will come really really close to the infamous Killzone 2 movie...28nm GPUs with 4-8 geometry engines in 2013 on systems with >=4GB of ram..such minimum requirement across the board...mmmh delicious! Granted BF3 animations are realtime....them looks pretty sweet.