The slow demise of the console experience [*spawn*^4]

[Shifty Geezer]

Edit: Spawned from the spawn of the spawn of the spawned thread, or something.

I'm sensitive to framerate and tearing so my tolerance for that is minimal. I will say that going back to PC gaming has been a blessing for framerates and tearings. Atleast on the PC I can do something about it (upgrade) but on the consoles, you're stuck with what you have.

I think this highlights that console gaming has lost its way. It was always the opposite. it was always a case that, where a PC game would stutter and tear, a console game would always be smooth. But somewhere along the line attitudes changed, and now consoles are effectively PCs on closed hardware, with buggy software and a lack of respect for decent framerates (starting from last gen). Save for the fact that I find a laptop more convenient than a desktop, a return to PC gaming looks pretty good right about now...

 

[Nesh]

I think this highlights that console gaming has lost its way. It was always the opposite. it was always a case that, where a PC game would stutter and tear, a console game would always be smooth. But somewhere along the line attitudes changed, and now consoles are effectively PCs on closed hardware, with buggy software and a lack of respect for decent framerates (starting from last gen). Save for the fact that I find a laptop more convenient than a desktop, a return to PC gaming looks pretty good right about now...

Yeah. After the 32/64 bit era, the next generation consoles opened up he framerate to developers. The evolution from 30fps to 60fps was considered as important as the evolution of other aspects that comprise the visual fidelity. We were expecting 60fps as a natural evolution moving to the next gen
Both DC and the PS2 had their 30fps games but 60fps were more common and demonstrated as one of the benefits of the next generation.
DC had a ton of 60fps games. I believe even Sonic Adventure 2 was 60fps?
DC probably had the most 60fps titles to date
PS2 came with games such as MGS2, GT3, DMC1, ZOE, Timesplitters (need to confirm this was 60fps), Ridge Racer, The Bouncer and a ton of others I cant recall right now all of which were a smooth sale experience.
The GC was aiming for similar framrates too

Until the XBOX came to the picture which was in essence a PC in a box. It was a console with a PC mentality and introduced what you described to the console world as a norm and served as closed box that aimed in addition easier PC to console porting. A less smooth experience with extreme emphasis on graphic detail although it had its awesome exceptions such as Panzer Dragoon and Ninja Gaiden. Even Forza which was a sim didnt run at 60fps if I recall.

I believe that by then developers tried to get more out of the other consoles in terms of detail by sacrificing framerate in order to compete as closely as possible.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Even then, when a game was 30 fps it was a stable 30 fps normally. Tearing just didn't happen on consoles. Stuttery framerates didn't happen, until the end of the Ps2 era by my uncertain recollection. Games like SOTC were trying to do way more than the console was really capable of. I guses it was this overreaching the hardware that has continued, maybe because of marketting?? My associations from last gen are a comparison between NWN and Morrowind on PC, and the likes of BGDA and GT3 on PS2. The console games were always consistent; the PC games always either tearing horribly or juddering with an inconsistent framerate when V-sync'd. That kinda makes sense when the developers couldn't target a specific hardware level, so couldn't tune the game to run consistently at a given level. It makes sense to just create the game and let the hardware do the best it can. But on console we've seen a changing attitude where devs are trying to do more and will happily sacrifice framerate and IQ to achieve it, where before they'd have pared back some other aspect of the game like model detail or view range.

I doubt that sense of quality will ever return, same as games that work properly without needing to be patched. It's within the console companies to enforce QA according to their TRC, but with a wide open market, the company who annoys the devs will likely just scare them away.

 

[menmau]

I believe even Sonic Adventure 2 was 60fps?
DC probably had the most 60fps titles to date

A less smooth experience with extreme emphasis on graphic detail although it had its awesome exceptions such as Panzer Dragoon and Ninja Gaiden. Even Forza which was a sim didnt run at 60fps if I recall.

Yes Sonic Adventure 2 runs @60fps, it doubled the frames of original SA.
Sure Dreamcast had a lot of 60fps, I also remember this could be related to hardware similarities with NAOMI arcade machine, allowing easier ports from arcade.

I have to agree with you, in fact Xbox does not have much 60fps titles.
The ones I remeber to be 60fps, besides the two you mentioned were: Dead or Alive series, Ralisport Challenge, PGR1, Quantum Redshift...

But I have to admit that some games that run at 30fps had amazing, never before seen graphics on a console

My major concern between effects/details vs framerate is the ability to be smooth, run constantly either at 30fps or 60fps.

 

[Nesh]

Even then, when a game was 30 fps it was a stable 30 fps normally. Tearing just didn't happen on consoles. Stuttery framerates didn't happen, until the end of the Ps2 era by my uncertain recollection. Games like SOTC were trying to do way more than the console was really capable of. I guses it was this overreaching the hardware that has continued, maybe because of marketting?? My associations from last gen are a comparison between NWN and Morrowind on PC, and the likes of BGDA and GT3 on PS2. The console games were always consistent; the PC games always either tearing horribly or juddering with an inconsistent framerate when V-sync'd. That kinda makes sense when the developers couldn't target a specific hardware level, so couldn't tune the game to run consistently at a given level. It makes sense to just create the game and let the hardware do the best it can. But on console we've seen a changing attitude where devs are trying to do more and will happily sacrifice framerate and IQ to achieve it, where before they'd have pared back some other aspect of the game like model detail or view range.

I doubt that sense of quality will ever return, same as games that work properly without needing to be patched. It's within the console companies to enforce QA according to their TRC, but with a wide open market, the company who annoys the devs will likely just scare them away.

Yes Sonic Adventure 2 runs @60fps, it doubled the frames of original SA.
Sure Dreamcast had a lot of 60fps, I also remember this could be related to hardware similarities with NAOMI arcade machine, allowing easier ports from arcade.

I have to agree with you, in fact Xbox does not have much 60fps titles.
The ones I remeber to be 60fps, besides the two you mentioned were: Dead or Alive series, Ralisport Challenge, PGR1, Quantum Redshift...

But I have to admit that some games that run at 30fps had amazing, never before seen graphics on a console

My major concern between effects/details vs framerate is the ability to be smooth, run constantly either at 30fps or 60fps.

@Shifty: Hmmmmm yeah I get what you are saying. I agree

@Both: Do you think this is partly due to trying to compete with PCs visually and partly due to the consoles being more similar to PC's yet outdated by the time they are released?

Previously consoles had their own "proprietary" architecture. Those consoles were designed with their own unique offerings and experience and had unique strengths and characteristics.

Now hardware and CG techniques are more or less standardized and platforms are trying to compete in more like-for-like terms.

For example apart from overall power Super Nintendo and Mega Drive were different.
So were Saturn, N64 and the PS1. PC's lacked behind until they were starting to get dedicated GPU's.
They were competing each other but their visual output was different between each and we accepted each platform for its "uniqueness". Trying to get a very good and steady performance with given hardware while showing its own capabilities was probably the target

PS2, GC and the DC were the last consoles to use their own architecture and were approached differently to get their unique strengths on screen. And we didnt compare them as much to PC's

The console wars were like a basket with different fruit

Nowadays the 360 and the PS3 are very similar. They are closer to PC's in terms of hardware and they are basically offering the same experience with the biggest differentiator being the exclusive games. They are competing head on trying to squeeze out as much as possible out of similar hardware. PC<-> console ports are normalized and very very frequent.

Now the platform wars are like a basket filled with apples

The majority of games suffering from screen tearing, IQ problems etc are multiplatform titles. That probably says something

 

[Shifty Geezer]

@Both: Do you think this is partly due to trying to compete with PCs visually and partly due to the consoles being more similar to PC's yet outdated by the time they are released?

Don't really know. I guess for one, many games used to be single platform, especially on PS2. Games that did get ported tended to suffer. I guess that focus helps a lot. Developing a game this gen means having to tune for different hardware, which makes working around bottlenecks a lot harder. What's good for one console can be bad for the other.

I'm sure console QA has taken a nosedive. It's interseting following Under Siege which has had a first patch in the works for months. The devs recently reported that it was rejected after submission to Sony and they are having to change it. If Sony is still exercising QA in that fashion for Under Siege, how come some games are being released with game-breaking bugs? DND: Daggerdale has been refunded for some XB360 players on account of being plain broken. That never used to happen. You had an assurance when buy a game prior to 2005 that it ran properly. I have no idea what's caused this change.

 

[Scott_Arm]

I think the PC being the place of amazingly stable framerates and free of tearing is revisionist history, or at least history through rose-coloured glasses. Maybe that was the case if you had the high-end stuff, which I never did. For me it was always a struggle of performance tweaking, overclocking and drivers to get something that looked good and played well. It was pretty common that I'd get half way through a game and have to start adjusting graphics options because the framerate would suddenly take a nosedive when I got to a new and more complicated level. Why they've never come up with an effective benchmarking/optimizing tool to help you tweak the game BEFORE you start playing is beyond me. Upgrading is not a solution to bad performance.

Console games do tend to target visuals over performance, though I've found most games to be close enough to 30fps with minimal tearing that there weren't many issues. Not sure why there aren't more games that target 60fps. It's worked wonders for Call of Duty's multiplayer, which is pretty close to 60fps, unlike the single player campaigns which are now getting closer to 30fps at times.

 

[Sigfried1977]

The consoles lost their way notion is nothig more than nostalgia talking I'm afraid. There were plenty of slide shows on both the PSone and the N64, plenty of Dreamcast games were running like crap, and the PS2 certainly was no stranger to poor framerates either. Most of the games that used to run like butter back then are still doing just that in the here and now. All the arcade games from the Dreamcast, or at least the ones that made the leap to this generation, are still pretty much locked at 60 fps. DMC4 was 60 fps, God of War III is still sorta 60 fps (and it was never more than sorta 60 fps on the PS2, not to mention it tore screens like a mother******)

 

[RobertR1]

I think the PC being the place of amazingly stable framerates and free of tearing is revisionist history, or at least history through rose-coloured glasses. Maybe that was the case if you had the high-end stuff, which I never did. For me it was always a struggle of performance tweaking, overclocking and drivers to get something that looked good and played well. It was pretty common that I'd get half way through a game and have to start adjusting graphics options because the framerate would suddenly take a nosedive when I got to a new and more complicated level. Why they've never come up with an effective benchmarking/optimizing tool to help you tweak the game BEFORE you start playing is beyond me. Upgrading is not a solution to bad performance.

Console games do tend to target visuals over performance, though I've found most games to be close enough to 30fps with minimal tearing that there weren't many issues. Not sure why there aren't more games that target 60fps. It's worked wonders for Call of Duty's multiplayer, which is pretty close to 60fps, unlike the single player campaigns which are now getting closer to 30fps at times.

The point is, you could do something about it on the PC. A lot of PC games these days attempt to learn your hardware and auto set the settings to give you a smooth experience. Someeven release benchmarks beforehand or have benchmarks built in to help you tune. Still there is a level of know how and tweaking generally required on the PC.

Your experience is no different than on a console game where certain levels and areas slow down to a crawl but on the console, you're stuck with powering through it. You can choose to do the same on a PC but you have the option of not doing so.

 

[Sigfried1977]

A lot of PC games these days attempt to learn your hardware and auto set the settings to give you a smooth experience.

This never ever seems to work at all.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I think the PC being the place of amazingly stable framerates and free of tearing is revisionist history

No-one was saying that. Only that consoles didn't used to be like that (see below), whereas now they are and the disadvantages of PC isn't such a big deal any more. Plus you can always upgrade your hardware to get better performance, whereas a juddery console game will always be juddery.

The consoles lost their way notion is nothig more than nostalgia talking I'm afraid. There were plenty of slide shows on both the PSone and the N64, plenty of Dreamcast games were running like crap, and the PS2 certainly was no stranger to poor framerates either...

If you don't take it as an absolute, I think it's a valid point. Relative to PC, by a considerable margin, most console games (and this goes back to the 16 bit era and Amiga vs. PC) ran without bugs and with consistent framerates. I recall R-Type on the Sega Master System would vanish sprites from the display in order to prevent slowdown! Some games did slide-show, like Populous, where they were being ambitious. Overall though the performance of consoles over PC was pronounced, especially without the setup issues of PC, or the incompatibilities. As time has progressed, those advantages have dwindled. DX has sorter solved setup in a lot of cases, although drivers have a large impact. Screen tear and judder is no less prevalent on console games, perhaps less even if a game is targeting consoles and then running on much beefier PC hardware. Bugs are as common on console games. Apart from being able to put in a disk and play without having to install, a feature PS3 is quickly trying to redress with mandatory installs, the reasons for owning a console aren't what they were.

 

[Sigfried1977]

The difference has indeed dwindled. However it's not because consoles aren't quite what they used to be, but because PC development has evolved from the impenetrable cluster**** it once was. And you really can't compare something as simplistic as R-Type to Fallout 3 with its myriads of gameplay possibilities.

 

[homerdog]

I remember seeing F-Zero X on the N64. It was the first 60fps console game I ever saw. I was like

Nowadays it seems we're lucky if even racing games run at 60Hz.

 

[liolio]

Well I resumed gaming with the 360 after a long break as I'm moving next month to the USA, I'm to sell my 360 to a friend. Thanks to obnoxious DVD policies I won't be able to buy any new games in US so the system is now useless.
I think that it's really likely that I shift to PC gaming for a while at least till The next gen systems reach a reasonable price. I'm a happy shifter as the price of consoles games are too high. There are also other concern FPS which I despite (a bit less with a KB+mouse setting though) is now the leading genre on console I see no benefit on playing the biggest games on a consoles (and next to none exclusive games are on my wish list). Either way my next gaming experience my resume into Diablo3 for a while

 

[Sigfried1977]

I remember seeing F-Zero X on the N64. It was the first 60fps console game I ever saw. I was like

Nowadays it seems we're lucky if even racing games run at 60Hz.

F-Zero on the Gamecube ran at 60 fps as well. Wipeout on the PS3 runs at 60 fps (as opposed to 30 fps on the PSone. No idea how well Wipeout Fusion on the PS2 fared), and so do GT5, Forza, and more action oriented games like Burnout Paradise, Ridge Racer and Outrun. Nothing has changed at all.
We just have a lot more franchises now, and some of them, including racers, just have opted for graphical fidelity over framerate.

 

[mrcorbo]

My experience with console games going back to NES is so different as to make reading this thread like entering a parallel universe. I remember lots of framerate issues, tearing, graphical glitches and bugs in console games across all of the generations of systems that I have used. And Im not talking about marginal titles here, either. Some of the all-time classics had notable performance issues and glaring bugs. This was most often (but not exclusively) true during the transition from one console generation to the next when developers making games for the older systems, in trying to compete with the games being released on the new generation systems, were pushing the hardware to its absolute limit (and beyond) using every trick they could to make the systems do more than what they were really designed to do. Pushing graphical effects at the expense of performance is not a recent phenomenon. It's been around as long as consoles have been.

The 60fps vs. 30fps issue, specifically, has nothing to do with PC influence and everything to do with developers believing that consumers prefer 30fps with more graphical effects to 60fps and more fluid motion. If gamers showed a marked preference for titles that had a rock-steady 60fps than developers would make that a priority. For the record, I would prefer that they did as I much prefer the "feel" of 60fps games, in general.

 

[joker454]

PC gaming nowadays is solid 60fps largely because of consoles. Games are primarily built for 6 year old console hardware which means lesser assets (irritating) and more optimization (cool), hence why playing at 60fps on pc today is a relatively trivial thing to do.

 

[dobwal]

Don't really know. I guess for one, many games used to be single platform, especially on PS2. Games that did get ported tended to suffer. I guess that focus helps a lot. Developing a game this gen means having to tune for different hardware, which makes working around bottlenecks a lot harder. What's good for one console can be bad for the other.

I'm sure console QA has taken a nosedive. It's interseting following Under Siege which has had a first patch in the works for months. The devs recently reported that it was rejected after submission to Sony and they are having to change it. If Sony is still exercising QA in that fashion for Under Siege, how come some games are being released with game-breaking bugs? DND: Daggerdale has been refunded for some XB360 players on account of being plain broken. That never used to happen. You had an assurance when buy a game prior to 2005 that it ran properly. I have no idea what's caused this change.

Mainly because post patching wasn't even feasible prior to 2005.

 

[-tkf-]

Lucky to live in the land of realism and a kid that plays on every console i have own. If you really want to make a point then the divide is when we turned from 2D to 3D. There is so many crappy 3D games in the pre "HiDef" generation that it is really is unfair to bitch about this generation. The N64 is a perfect example as is the Saturn games, and of course the PS1.

However i do have a PC and oh joy, i just need a graphics card with more memory than the current gen consoles and a price that almost matches and then i get a "solid" 60hz if i tweak it a bit and run the correct drivers.

The PC is still a PC and the Consoles still provide a better out of the box experience.

 

[Scott_Arm]

The point is, you could do something about it on the PC. A lot of PC games these days attempt to learn your hardware and auto set the settings to give you a smooth experience. Someeven release benchmarks beforehand or have benchmarks built in to help you tune. Still there is a level of know how and tweaking generally required on the PC.

Your experience is no different than on a console game where certain levels and areas slow down to a crawl but on the console, you're stuck with powering through it. You can choose to do the same on a PC but you have the option of not doing so.

If you had money to dump into a new PC, there was something you could do. For the most part, I and many other people didn't. The PC world used to move way too quickly and required a lot of money to keep up if you wanted to. Now it's different, because games are mostly designed for console, so moderate PCs will run most games very well. Also, the Blizzard effect of targeting low to mid-range PCs has shown to be a good business strategy.

Honestly, there are very few console games that I've played this gen that had serious framerate or tearing problems. Borderlands is one that comes to mind, having absolutely horrible performance in the snowy area. Most other games are pretty finely tuned to maintain a solid and playable 30, or near to it. Alan Wake is the only game I can think of that had offensive tearing, at times, though it always felt very responsive. The swap-tear way of handling framerates for the odd slowdown has been fantastic. No more slideshows of the PS2 era.

Buggy games have also not been too much of an issue. Nothing like it had been in the past on PC. This is definitely an area where console games have slipped a bit. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any massively broken games I bought this gen. Dice tends to have problems with the back-end for their online systems.