There may be more to squeeze out of the hardaware but why ? Why not just jump onto more powerfull hardare , you wouldn't have to work hard to squeeze out better visuals that way.
Predict: The Next Generation Console Tech
- Thread starter Acert93
- Start date
- Status
There may be more to squeeze out of the hardaware but why ? Why not just jump onto more powerfull hardare , you wouldn't have to work hard to squeeze out better visuals that way.
I'm not just talking about graphics; but whether we speaking graphics or gameplay, quite frankly I hate seeing platforms released and not being fully exploited when there is in fact a lot more we can do with visuals, and other areas such as physics and A.I, and when we still have few games that stand out as unique or anywhere close to revolutionary in terms of design and gameplay mechanics and cinematography yet, it would be a waste of consumers and developers money to just release a system with increased processing power and expect better entertainment.
Furthermore, with embedded systems (that are expected to provide great experiences for several years), there should be an attitude of getting the most out of the given platform and using your imagination to the fullest, exploring new ideas very possible with current technology before moving on.
There's not much that impresses me more than the evolving world of graphics and processors, but I would have gladly had the 7th generation (a rushed generation in my eyes) start 2 years later than it did, rather than having to endure old gameplay and level design with somewhat better (not always by much if at all) visuals...all at a higher cost..
I want the 8th generation to begin with the feeling that we exhausted what was possible in the 7th generation, and truly need new architectures and peripherals to take gaming and development to the next level. I'm well and truly for 7-8 yr life cycle for 360.
I wonder if we will be able to exhaust the 7th without those.
Sound_Card
Regular
Maybe true, but I don't think the risk of taking a BR'less PS3 was something Sony was willing to take verse the cost of the format war. With BR being in the PS3, I seriously doubt they would have bested HD-DVD.
Betanumerical
Veteran
Why would you expect that? developers don't get used to not as good tools and a new architecture overnight.
ShadowRunner
Veteran
I am totally fine with an upgrade every 5 years to be honest, even if the most hasnt been squeezed out of the current generation. Cost wise its not an issue for me personnaly when you consider the initial outlay spread across 5 years.
As long as the games are better for it, even if it is just better graphics wise and exacly the same gameplay as what came before, its all good with me.
As long as the games are better for it, even if it is just better graphics wise and exacly the same gameplay as what came before, its all good with me.
Is the bluray pie that sony has gotten worth the billions they lost on the ps3 and the massive market share they lost out to ms and nintendo ?
all those things can be done on the next gen except they wont be limited by hardware.
Why , what special prize do you get for maxing out a system and explioting a system to its fullest. All those ideas and imagination would work just fine on the next gen except on the next gen they will have even more power to be able to enchance the game.
I don't know what you mean by old gameplay . Just because you hae a system for 7 or 8 years instead of 5 or 6 doesn't mean your going to invent new game play. I didn't see any new game play in the last year or two of the ps2 and not only that but there is no reason why that new game play couldn't have apeared in ps3 games , except they wouldn't have looked like crap.
ugh , have you gone back and looked at the ps2 games and compared them to the xbox 360 games ? Do you really want to go back to what those look like and pretend like next gen systems never came out ?
When the xbox 3 , ps4 and wii 2 or whatever will the visuals will be a step beyond at least compared to current systems and when you go back at the games of this gen you will ask yourself how you ever thought you'd settle for this gen lasting as long as it could.
But you know what the beauty is of this industry. You don't have to buy an xbox 3 if it comes out next year , but all of us that do want one can buy one
If Sony decides to do this price drop estimated in the Spring time then the answer no since their goal is now to be profitable. Doesn't mean that wasn't their goal before but now it is their only goal now that #1 was out of the picture in 2006 and 2nd place looks to be lost since August 08.
Many times people prefer the new ideas, instead of the better gfx, a good example of this is Saturn, it could make beautiful 2D gfx or ugly (very ugly) 3D gfx, yet the 2D almost disapeared. The question is if new HW (+CPU...) is enought. But I agree that giving new tech it is a better way to get new ideas.
None said that.Ask again in a decade. However, attributing PS3 operational loss and market share solely to blu-ray is well wide of the mark.
So, its ok to have systems with 3 to 8 cores with fast vector processing ability, yet have basic physics in most titles that could have been done last generation? What, should it take another generation before we have more than 1 or 2 games that allow you to destroy 'trees'?
And please, you're not seriously telling me that A.I has been nearly as impressive as it should have been so far... Shall we just have 8x the memory and 5 times the processing power to see a little more of something that should have been done already?
Special prize? I'm thinking wasted opportunites.
How many games have you seen that can only be done on this generation of consoles, and I'm talking gameplay mechanics influenced by technology (Gears of War? Halo 3? Fable 2? nope).
On the graphics side, I don't call John Carmack's Rage 'seeking a special prize' for maxing out hardware, in fact it doesn't at all, the technology tries address some of the major limitations in the pipeline that can limit creativity.
... you can always try and utilize new techniques and ideas, giving ample time for others to also use them and experience great improvements in development
..or you can always just release new hardware so we can go a little more wild with polys and textures right?
Maybe, Carmack shouldn't try and virtualize geometry in the 8th generation, just wait til the 9th so we can throw more of it on screen
Not necessarily, yet imagine what you could do with more time in PREPARATION for the new generation. Its about more than just the release date.
Xbox 360 launch titles weren't exactly revolutionary. Several games were either slightly updated Xbox titles, games that were canceled for Xbox and others that were 'new' but barely touched on the platform's capabilities.
How many games even use mass physics or huge open worlds? Advanced A.I. Or is there just not enough TIME? Of course, you wouldn't want those alone and no new gameplay ideas to back them up hmm?
Yep, becase I saw TIME for new gameplay with years of getting accustomed to new hardware on PS3
For 7-8 yrs development was at full force on PS2, during that long life cycle (that still goes on), we saw many moments of impressive new games with new mechanics.
I think you're talking nonsense. Tell me, what truly made a 360 or PS3 worth owning until the end of 2007? As both a graphics whore and an enthusiast of rich, interactive experiences, there were few things that impressed me on either side.
I don't want to 'pretend' anything, I want the 'reality' to comprise of objects that have real value to them.
Oh please, don't tell me what I think or will think. I can tell you now my view on this is absolute.
Three years in, and its only now I'm seeing some real experimentation and imaginitive ideas coming through, are you honestly trying to tell me that if an Xbox 720 is released next year, I'll somehow change my mind because of new graphics technologies? False.
I play Crysis (well what do you know...superior graphics) and I'm not disregarding inferior hardware as if there is nothing I would like to see come of them. There are too many possibilties.
That's fine, doesn't mean there won't be reprecussions.
...and certainly doesn't solve the problem of underexploited hardware and game ideas, just encourages the use of old ones with better visuals. Perhaps they'll release the latest Tony Hawk game and display it in 1440p
didn't that work last time?
Last edited by a moderator:
This isn't because devs have new systems to develop for and simply keeping the old systems alive longer wont magicly make better A.I and physics.
Next gen the gpus will be better at assiting with physics , look at mirrors edge on the pc with nvidia cards . Hopefully A.I will get better. I agree its lacking , but tahts not because the ps2 only lasted 6 years as top dog instead of 7 or 8. That has to do with time , budgets and gamer wants. Gamers don't want impossible games that the A.I learns from you and you can't beat it after a while. What is the fun in that ?
I disagree , while gameplay mechanics may have been possible last gen ( i doubt it when thinking of Fable 2) the graphics are what brings you into that world. Gears of war with halo 1 graphics wouldn't have had the same feel to it and most likely wouldn't have pulled you in. Also many of the things done in gears of war wouldn't have been done on the xbox and thus we would have gotten a very diffrent game.
isn't rage the famous game that maxed out the dvd and might need 3 discs on the xbox ? Isn't it also the one where he had to cut back the new mega textuers because of the limited ram in the consoles.
Or mabye he can just do both and make an even better game. Novel concept i'm sure
and whats that , build a system in 2010 send it to developers and then finaly sell it to customers in 2012 ? In 2012 you could have put together a much better system at the same price and given gamers and devs more power to sink their teeth into.
4 months after the 360 launched we got a little game called oblivion which wouldn't have been possible on the xbox 1.
Even with time the ps2 would never have pulled off an oblivion a uncharted , a fable 2 .
I'd love to hear some examples that aren't found on the 360 or ps3 .
in the console space you had great games like cod 2 and kameo. Both were extremely fun games on the system , a few months later you had oblivion . You also had the new live which was a major step foward and past what the original live could do on the xbox .
Your telling me that games like cod3 , gears of war , uncharted , mgs4 , oblivion , viva pinita and other games don't have imaginitive ideas and experimentation in what they are donig ? Thats not even bringing in psn and xbox live arcade .
I don't see what you saw in late ps2 life that was experimental and imaginitve and couldn't have been done on next gen consoles.
and they can all be done on next gen systems just with better graphics , physics , online services and other things thrown into the mix
and this has nothing to do with next gen hardware. Developers will continue to make what sells and quirky games that few people buy will continue to be made in smaller amounts. IF anything this gen was a god send for those types of games as they found a great home on live arcade and psn which wasn't around last gen.
Well there was Morrwind, which wasn't that different and in many ways was considered a better game.
I'd seriously hope you don't think that's what I'm implying. What I am saying however is, very little has been explored in that area so far. Most A.I systems are virtually no different to what we've seen 5 years ago or so.
Mirrors Edge PC is not what I'm talking about, and kinda pushes my point.
Time? Bingo! Rushing into new generations cuts this out.
Gamers Don't Want? Incorrect. Gamers want characters that are expressive and exhibit more complex emotion and interaction to their surroundings, this doesn't have to equate to impossible difficulty.
Lets take Oblivion (you mention later) as an example; the touted 'Radiant A.I.' was a joke.
Gears of War isn't Far Cry 2 or something. This is touching on the depth at which technology can create gameplay not possible before.
I think you have mis-interpreted much of what Carmack said and is aiming to do. He also claims to have been mis-quoted in some of this 'issues'.
I see you've missed the point entirely.
Here you are kind of mixing the argument.
Sending a development system early for developers to know what they're dealing with, and make full blown titles for is great. Literally releasing one next year (yes NEXT YEAR) as was suggested is a ridiculous idea.
The level of procedural generation and a few of the more complex shaders, ok.
The A.I could have been done on much earlier systems, physics I would hardly call a factor, animation and facial expressions? and I'm not even going speak about the physical gameplay whether the clunky battle system or a large book that was an inventory.
Graphically? No, gameplay yes.
The only title you mentioned which was particularly innovative was Kameo, guess how long they spend on just Gameplay regardless of the platform it was released on in the end.
Viva Pinata, was especially imaginative. MGS4 (2008 btw) made strides in cinematography and story telling this generation.
I'm not going to bother speaking about Cod3 and Gears, as for uncharted what did I say about "worthwhile experiences" (somewhat subjective) and end of 2007?
What has that got to do with it?
Online is a whole n'other phenomena, and it has taken time to develop even this generation (more so PSN).
This strays well away from my argument.
You sound a little mixed up again, I'm not suggesting anything from last generations could NOT be done in this one. That's just ridiculous.
PS2 in itself was a console that had a very long cycle and time fore ideas and concepts too be developed in the masses. Again, for 3+ years of this generations (which was by matter of fact rushed), how many truly innovative games are there and how long has it taken to see them?
You also seem to have brushed aside my point that releasing a new system with better graphics does not change the fact that time is needed to fully exploit possibilities and creativity without being forced to drop current hardware, and rushed into new hardware. Things are supposed arrive when the time is right (i.e when the industry and market calls for it).
This is becoming a joke.
You mentioned graphics changing my opinion, I gave a counter example of a game that is already technically superior to console titles, yet the fact remains, the presence of a better looking game, doesn't mean that we have many things to see from lower end hardware.
When 2/3 companies are only just enjoying true success (I shouldn't even call it true success yet), and the market (consumers) are just warming into the generation, there is no need to make a snap move to release a new console, especially when most avenues yet to be explored (the ones I have stated are very underutilized) are not necessarily restricted by the technology we have.
All it will amount to is wasted platforms, needless expenditure (customers, manufacturers & developers) and a lack of time to build worthwhile software for the new system that the company tries to market as a complete revolution over the last.
1. Nothing to do with?
New hardware rushed out, developers forced adopt new hardware quickly and old systems dropped. Yes the result is underutilized platforms and due to time restrictions, new game ideas are put off into several years into the next console's life cycle. It has everything to do with it.
2. I purposely mentioned Tony Hawk, because when 360 was launched there had been little time to even touch on the system's capabilities. Tony Hawk was one of the titles ported only adding 720p resolution, technically it was last generation and in terms of gameplay it was last generation. Many more games did this.
If a console were to be released in 2010 (which is really the basis of this argument), all you'll have is worthless ports and slight upgrades whilst developers are still working on grand productions for 360 and PS3 until it makes sense to move on. I can't see that being until 2012 earliest.
Morrowinds combat and leveling sytem were better , but the lack of a main quest that was easy to follow and of course a beautifull world that was easy to explore made it a worse game.
and this has more to do with us than it does with A.I . No one wants an unfun game.
Why , it took an engine and game made for 2005 era consoles and used new tech to imrpove the game. The world feels more alvie and thus your imresed in it more.
fNo it doesn't , god of war 2 launched on the ps2 after the ps3 came out. Also there is no reason why they'd have to scrap everything to move to next gen. Poor planing doesn't change anythign. We still got amazing games within the first year of the new consoles.
And you need more powerfull hardware to do this or you need to take current hardware and target last gen graphics and use the power recouped to push this foward.
an xbox with a 9 core cpu , 8 gigs of ram and a dx11 graphics chip would allow you to exhibit those thigns in ways that the current system could never do and in comparison to current systems would not have to make any scarfices with eye candy.
Why is that. The 360 has been out since holiday 05' why can't there be an xbox next in 2010 ? Thats 5 holiday seasons for the 360 as a main sku. It doesn't mean the 360 will disapear , devs could continue to make games for it and it can stay alive for a long time.
i disagree, i haven't seen any game on the ps2 anywhere close to fable 2. If ps2 could have pulled it off they would have done it in the 8 years the system has existed. Surely if the 360 did it in the 4 years its existed.
yes cause we should judge how long a game takes when the company making it is sold during it and switched platforms 3 times .
Games don't need 5 years to make innovated titles. Games normaly take 2 years to create and having them on a ps2 will not suddenly allow devs to be mroe innovative and making them on a ps3 will suddenly not disable the developers innovative abilitys. Thats just plain nonsense.
whats wrong with mgs4 . It came out in the first months of 2008 and the system launched at the end of 2006. Giving it less than two years to be made with that system in mind.
why because it easily disproves your arguement ? You just want to brush aside a tun of innovative games ?
I don't think you get it , if the ps2 was replaced in 3 years instead of 8 it doesn't mean those titles in its 6th year would never have seen the light of day , they just would have been released on a newer system with better graphics.
Take ICO and SOC those games had great game play , but if they were to have come out for the ps3 instead of the ps2. esp SOC sicne it came out in 2005 i believe. The game would have had much better graphics and would have been much better at pulling gamers in. The same could have been said about the last FF game which showed the strain the ps2 was under just running that game.
more game companys wouldn't suddenly become more sucessfull if this gen last longer. If you put out crap people wont buy it . too human woujldn't have done any better if it came out 2 years from now and was still the same shitty game an dhow long have they been working on that ?
No one forces anything . These companys will know a year in advance if a new system is coming out and they can adjust their dev process to fit. That may mean for an activision to simply make the 2010 cod multiplatform with a xbox next verison with just enhanced graphics. It may mean for APB to be moved up from the 360 to the xbox next if it was planing on being released in 2011 or perhaps it can be released on both.
Poor planing by companys is not a console generations fault. I highly doubt that activsion was pissed off that the 360 came out and that cod 2 sold all those millions of copies or that capcom was pissed that the 360 came out and lost planet and dead rising sold extremely well.
Oh wait there is another innovative title from the 360s first year which wouldn't have been possible on the xbox .
do these games suddenly become bad because they were just running in a higher res with some better textures ?
Also in the first year of the 360s life there were games worth playing and if you get a mix of games that are great on the 360 with prettier graphics and stand out games like dead rising and viva pinita and gears of war in xbox nexts first year of life then I hardly see ap roblem.
Great games will exist on the system in its first year even if its a mix of ported games and unique games for the system. They can even draw on pc games that haven't made it to the consoles as many people don't play pc games
@eastmen
I don't have the time I used to have writing essays on forums usually for the wrong reasons, and quite frankly it will just end up in the discussion (mostly from my end) being twisted and each argument going off into an endless trajectory. So let me tell you what I believe. It is all encompassed in what I said in three lines, some 3 pages ago and will be the last thing I post on this matter.
Also, the consumer has just shelled out on hardware that far exceeds the cost of the previous cycle, there is little to no drive to upgrade when people are now just willing to adopt current tech on a bigger scale to satisfy their game experiences.
This springs a third point, Sony and MS are not going to dig their own grave by making an even bigger operating loss, increasing the defosit from a previous venture or cutting their earnings further. They have no reason to build more hardware when it has taken this long to convince customers to buy these platforms.
If you're so intent on the latest and greatest next year, buy a high end PC and upgrade at your leisure, it gives this power and flexibility. A console encompasses an entirely different philosophy and is expected to be dropped entirely once the cycle has extinguished.
Chips not being ready or issues in manufacturing, irreconcilably high launch price, faulty h/w (ie my 360 has just been shipped to Germany a second time for repair), changes in initial specs e.t.c On software; late or lack of dev kits, poor tools, little experience, ports of older console or PC titles. That is the sign of a generation that was rushed.
In those three line I posted earlier I agree with the guy entirely, he's not stupid, and neither are Kaz Hirai nor Satouru Iwata for that matter.
Agree or disagree, your choice, but don't expect me to agree with something that's not economically, conceptually or from any intelligent standpoint viable for 2-3 years.
I don't have the time I used to have writing essays on forums usually for the wrong reasons, and quite frankly it will just end up in the discussion (mostly from my end) being twisted and each argument going off into an endless trajectory. So let me tell you what I believe. It is all encompassed in what I said in three lines, some 3 pages ago and will be the last thing I post on this matter.
1st reason why a console shouldn't be out for a while and definitely not next year. Just to get to the point we're at in development now, the expenditure has been off the chart. That is a fact.Nano (1) said:
Also, the consumer has just shelled out on hardware that far exceeds the cost of the previous cycle, there is little to no drive to upgrade when people are now just willing to adopt current tech on a bigger scale to satisfy their game experiences.
This springs a third point, Sony and MS are not going to dig their own grave by making an even bigger operating loss, increasing the defosit from a previous venture or cutting their earnings further. They have no reason to build more hardware when it has taken this long to convince customers to buy these platforms.
Nano (2) said:
As far as I'm concerned, this is a mathematical certainty. I will not have my words twisted. I did not suggest that new architectures will not bring opportunities for superior visuals and more dynamic systems, and I did not say we should spend time squeezing out non-existent performance. I suggested that developers will want to continue to exploit current hardware (which for several titles has barely been tapped) alongside that expand their game ideas as opposed to being forced to jump ship. The progression happens with time, not when MS or Sony are trying to break even and not when the direction of Sony/MS/Nintendo are not certain.You said:
If you're so intent on the latest and greatest next year, buy a high end PC and upgrade at your leisure, it gives this power and flexibility. A console encompasses an entirely different philosophy and is expected to be dropped entirely once the cycle has extinguished.
The 7th generation was rushed. I did NOT say PS2 didn't have enough time to be exploited, or that its last games showed an order of magnitude improvement, stop stirring. I said the previous generation as a whole was cut loose too quickly.Nano (3) said:
Chips not being ready or issues in manufacturing, irreconcilably high launch price, faulty h/w (ie my 360 has just been shipped to Germany a second time for repair), changes in initial specs e.t.c On software; late or lack of dev kits, poor tools, little experience, ports of older console or PC titles. That is the sign of a generation that was rushed.
In those three line I posted earlier I agree with the guy entirely, he's not stupid, and neither are Kaz Hirai nor Satouru Iwata for that matter.
Agree or disagree, your choice, but don't expect me to agree with something that's not economically, conceptually or from any intelligent standpoint viable for 2-3 years.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
