the state of console gaming

[The mighty Boosh]

I'm sure this might raise a few hackles, I'm just intrested in opinions

I'm confused with the state console gaming has found itself in within the last ~ decade. I grew up with NES, SNES, N64, PS1, Xbox\360 and with eatch new generation you could see the improvement.
looking at this new console generation I couldn't see the improvements thet past gens had with eatch new realease, guessing they're pushing out new systems too early and we're now starting to see xbox\Playstation 8.1 and 8.3. I know we're at a point where we're struggling to fit more into a CPU\GPU but it makes no sense to have this level of tiny upgrades.

It feels sad but I'm on the fence whether or not cosole gaming should be put down (scrapped) It doesn't know what it wants to be anymore and has moved away from just being a box you plug in and play simple games at a "lower price".

On another note I'm reading they're starting to struggle with how big games are getting (in game) is this true or just trash talk ?

 

[Bolletje]

I haven't had the cash to upgrade to next gen from my PS3 and Xbox 360. I have a few console games I like to revisit, but the fact that console games are usually way more expensive than their PC counterparts (plus PC offers a wider selection of indie games) makes me sort of neglect my consoles at the moment. I'm not trying to incite a PC versus console riot here, I love my platforms equally, I'm just going with the economical choice for now

 

[pjcnet]

The main current gen consoles are still the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 (or PS4), there are also improved spec versions that are the Xbox One X (came out most recently) and PlayStation 4 Pro, games all run on both the original and enhanced consoles (there's also slim versions). The enhanced consoles are mainly designed for 4K gaming and it's in a way it's a shame they've barely used the considerably more powerful specs to their full advantage at the time of writing, this is because they want to keep games compatible with the original still current gen consoles. There is also the Wii U which is already over 5 years old, but isn't as popular.

Portable game consoles haven't seen as much development as in the past, probably because Android devices (and sometimes iPhone) are often now powerful enough to play some pretty impressive games on the move, plus Android devices come in various shapes and sizes. The PlayStation Vita is still a good current gen alternative to Android devices however.

You talk about struggling to "fit more onto a CPU/GPU", but a lot of resources are actually often wasted when making games and the games often only really start using the systems even close to their full potential when they're old. Look at some of the latest PS3 and Xbox 360 games that came out trying to be as close to the PS4 and Xbox One as possible, some are quite impressive and look surprisingly close to current gen despite running on much lower spec hardware. On average games are getting bigger (well many blockbuster releases are anyway), but again a lot is often wasted with lazy programming or is used on videos, often duplicated with various languages. The drives on consoles are also normally a lot smaller than they should be with current technology, I think this is so they can later release larger drive versions of the same console that costs the manufacturer next to nothing in extra costs, but this sells the console better as it gets older. Overall however as games have got larger so have Internet speeds and on PCs so have drive sizes and even speeds, it's just that they're being held back on consoles.

There are already plans for next gen (9th generation) consoles including the PS5 and some say this could be released as early as late 2018, although I predict it will be at the earliest just before Christmas 2019 and probably more like 2020. Here is some speculation: PS5 release date: Could the PlayStation 5 launch next year? (written late 2017)

I haven't had the cash to upgrade to next gen from my PS3 and Xbox 360. I have a few console games I like to revisit, but the fact that console games are usually way more expensive than their PC counterparts (plus PC offers a wider selection of indie games) makes me sort of neglect my consoles at the moment. I'm not trying to incite a PC versus console riot here, I love my platforms equally, I'm just going with the economical choice for now

If you have a good stable Internet connection there's always Playstation Now for a relatively cheap monthly fee which uses game streaming / cloud gaming technology and they're starting to also add PS4 games (it was just PS3 games) that you can play from a fairly low spec PC, it's truly like a Netflix for games. The games will always be at least a couple of years old or if they're newer they will be less popular, but if you've never played many of them it's excellent. There are also other cloud gaming services starting to appear with more planned, although so far PlayStation Now seems to have by far the most games with currently over 450 and growing (mostly still PS3, but more PS4 games are being introduced every month).

It's a shame for some that Sony stopped supporting the service from PS3 consoles, in my opinion it's not because the PS3 isn't perfectly capable, but because Sony didn't want PS3s to allow people to play PS4 games (the official reason was they wanted to concentrate on best improving just the PS4 and PC platforms). They also withdrew support for smart TVs which in some ways is even more of a shame, but perhaps reliability and quality of service on these devices really was reduced with less opportunity for development due to the relatively low hardware spec.

I wrote another thread that is also relevant: Is Cloud Gaming and Cloud Computing the future?

I think game streaming / cloud gaming is also relevant to the original thread as a significant amount of people may be playing console games this way as time goes on, it also works around how large games are getting as no pre-download beyond the small initial app is required, you are using bandwidth as you play and the game installation size becomes irrelevant to the end user.

PS: Playstation Now also has a 7 day free trial, but if you forget to cancel or you will be charged!

 

[Misery]

This is going to be a bit long... I apologize for that. However, this is a VERY detailed topic, and not only do I have alot of thoughts/experiences with it, but I've also had connections within the industry. You can learn alot from dealing directly with devs.

Also, I like to do my best to give detail to people. This is an expensive hobby, and if it's possible for me to help people make more informed decisions on their spending, that's worth a post being long.

Oh, and to explain where I'm coming from: Gaming has been my main hobby and special interest since I was a little kid. Back in the Atari 2600 era. Also, I do not have a job (no need) and have free time, all the time, AND no practical spending limit. I can do as I like. So I have ALOT of experience with... everything I'm going to talk about.


I'll put it this way: In my view, console gaming has basically dropped into the gutters. It's TERRIBLE right now, and this likely isnt changing anytime soon.

Console games as a whole focus on one core thing above absolutely all else: Graphics. They get players to go "OOH SHINY" by bombarding them with graphics and cutscenes, and often get them to buy into what is actually a shallow, dumbed down, and short game for a full $60.

In addition, publisher greed has hit a state of critical overload. A couple of decades ago, if publishers had been this utterly horrid? The industry would have suffered another crash. It's THAT bad. I mean, it's been getting bad for a long time now, but this new loot-box craze has pushed it so freaking far that lawmakers are now considering whether it needs to be classified as official gambling. If I recall correctly, at least one state in the US has already decided that it is, in fact, gambling. As in, same level as to what you do in a casino. You're already paying $60 for these games. And then on top of that, the games use all sorts of artificial systems to slow down and otherwise dampen the gameplay, encouraging you to buy lootboxes to get things going. Over, and over, and over again. There are alot of horror stories out there of things like, say, kids getting their hands on their parents credit cards, and spending some $1000+ just so they can be powerful in the new Star Wars game. The kicker? The greed has gotten SO bad that even spending that much WONT GIVE YOU ALL THE CONTENT IN THE GAME. You need to spend at least another 1000. No, I'm not making this up. In a game that, frankly, seems to not actually very good, but is VERY pay-to-win. Other players that have spent more WILL have a big advantage over you.

In addition, these games are getting more and more buggy as the publishers care less and less. It's true, the publishers themselves dont MAKE the games. However, they DO impose all of the rules on developers, forcing them into development timetables that are completely unviable, which puts the developers in a situation where they have no choice: They DO NOT have enough time to put out a true, quality product... and there's nothing they can do about this.

I could keep going, and going, and going about this. In short, consoles are horrid right now. I actually have a PS4, but it's so bloody useless to me that A: I havent used it in a year, and B: I dont actually know where it is... and dont care enough to look for it. The selection of games is bad, small, and incredibly stale, with very few different genres appearing in it at all. The games are shallow, easy, and boring. Just... ugh.

Now, I compare that to PC gaming. This isnt about the whole "master race" thing. When I make this comparison, it has nothing to do with the power of the PC in question. I dont care about that. What I care about is the games that are available for it. And that's where the real difference shows up, and it's also what really emphasizes just how awful consoles have gotten.

Compare those $60 games to some indie titles, for instance. Let's look at Binding of Isaac. In this game, you get a MASSIVE amount of content. Isaac has such an outright absurd amount of sheer stuff in it... all of it very high quality... as well as fantastic gameplay, that many players can get over 1000 hours out of it... all of it fun. Think about that. They get that many hours WITHOUT GETTING TIRED OF IT. And how much does Isaac cost? $12. If you want Isaac AND the expansions (both of which are incredible) it is $28. The expansions are not like console DLC: They are not "cut content". They are genuinely new content that was developed AFTER the game released. And the devs took their time, making absolutely bloody certain that the expansions were REALLY good. And hell, the second expansion also adds full modding support, increasing the game's potential by a ridiculous amount. As far as I'm concerned, Isaac is one of the greatest games ever made, period.

But that's just that one. Those ultra-generous development practices? Those are the NORM here. There are no giant publishers involved. None. Developers get to do things THEIR way. Isaac jumpstarted an entire freaking GENRE, which has produced countless fantastic games that, like Isaac, provide hundreds of hours of fun, challenge, and depth... for very low cost. 99% of which are NOT available on consoles.

And that's just that genre. There are many entire genres that do not exist AT ALL on console... but are common on PC. Again, devs can make whatever THEY want. Not what the publishers force them to. Hell, I've taken part in development myself now. I was given high authority by the dev I was/am contracted to, to the point where if I had an idea, and thought it was a good fit for the game? I dont even have to ask: I add the bloody thing, and that's that. We're currently working on an expansion for the game, and that's still how it goes. I might go "you know what, I have an idea for a new boss to add. I feel like doing so. I'm going to do so." and nobody argues with me, because they know I'm going to do it right. It has worked out very well (it's of a genre where I very much know what I'm doing), and development is like that for many indie devs, whether they be big ones, or small ones.

With console games having been going to crap for years now, when I used to focus on them, I bought new games RARELY. Because there was so little releasing that I gave a fart about. Now though? On PC, I buy new games FREQUENTLY. They can range anywhere from $1 to $20... and the cost does not determine the quality. Only the skill of the developer determines that. There are some games I've gotten for like, $3 that I've put alot of hours into because they are that freaking good.

Honestly, when it comes to gaming, switching from consoles to PC gaming was the best bloody thing I've done since the SNES era. Particularly with Steam making it ultra-easy to buy/organize/run/install/whatever these games. It's WAY less hassle than going to the increasingly-irritating Gamestop. I can spot a new game I want, buy it very fast, and have it running 2 minutes after doing so. And these games are NOT the sort that require ultra-powerful PCs, either. Many of them will run on anything. Even games with great graphics... as the devs have the time and freedom to make sure they freaking WORK.

So... yeah. That, in my extensive experience, how things are. The consoles are bloody awful, mostly in part to extreme greed and stagnant selection. The PC has about 10 squillion fantastic games, for very low price, 99% of which never make it to consoles. The only true problem with PC gaming is that big vendors like Steam dont curate things well. It's important to RESEARCH your purchases before buying. It doesnt take much time at all to do so, but an astonishing amount of consumers never do (this is also one HUGE reason why AAA publishers are able to so easily take advantage of people). As long as you're paying attention to what you're buying, you wont be burned.


Oh, and one more thing: dont believe that rhetoric that is going around lately, where AAA game prices are going up "because the cost of development is too much". ALOT of events recently have proven that to be entirely false. In fact, dont believe a bloody thing that any of the Big Guys spout. Always remember: These are huge, and completely uncaring corporate entities. They dont care about you, the consumer. Never have, never will. They are greedy (to the point where some, like EA, are infamous for it) and will do ANYTHING to suck more money out of you.

 

[The mighty Boosh]

Bloody hell - Sorry just finished reading and it's late\early here. Honestly I'm not sure how to respond without completly derailing the topic.

@Bolletje
Are you sure you don't want to start a PC vs console war ? (joke)
I'm always shocked listening to the pc vs console debates, they're two diffrent animals that should never be compared. That would be like making diffrent waight classes (boxing) fight eatch other. I'd say stick where you are PS3\Xbox360 games shold be fairly cheap ATM ? build a mighty collection

@pjcnet
I'm not the best person to ask when it comes to the details of hard\software, know just enough to build and maintain my PC. I've never really been a graphics whore so don't understand 4k gaming.

You talk about struggling to "fit more onto a CPU/GPU", but a lot of resources are actually often wasted when making games and the games often only really start using the systems even close to their full potential

More along the lines of how we've shrunk and improved CPU's so much that it's become a problem to squeeze anything more out.
Consoles have to stick to rules on how big\powerful they can be with the power vs cost.

absolutely it's about good programmers and getting to know how to use what's given to you, tho alot of it has to do with code pintching I'd guess Again I'd bring up another point from Misery to tie in.

In addition, these games are getting more and more buggy as the publishers care less

Most of consoles problems come from pushing graphics on a platform that's not built for the task. Why not use less space on higher gaphics and focus more on gameplay. Look at Fallout NV - even with the dodgy engine the fleshed out story, world, options was what made it a good game.

Sorry I'm tierd and wish we had voice chat, struggling without feedback\correction, this is to big a subject for me Alot of this is wishful thinking and confusion with what consoles are trying to accomplish.

 

[pjcnet]

I'm not the best person to ask when it comes to the details of hard\software, know just enough to build and maintain my PC. I've never really been a graphics whore so don't understand 4k gaming

4K gaming is just the pixel resolution you are playing the games at, 4K or UHD (Ultra HD or 2160p) is the highest resolution usually used today by consoles. Some games can be played at higher 4K resolutions, but only the newer Xbox One X and PlayStation 4 Pro can cope with the extra GPU memory and power to cope with it, it is only any use however if you also have a newer 4K monitor / TV to play it on, many TVs are only 1080p resolution / Full HD. A 4K monitor or TV has 4 times as many pixels as traditional 1080p, but to be honest unless you've got a massive monitor I think 4K is overrated in the improvement you are actually able to see with human eyes, 1080p is good enough in most cases in my opinion.

Resolution comparisons shown as if the pixels were of equal size for all, as you can see 4K UHD has 4 times as many pixels as traditional 1080p.

 

[Misery]

I'm always shocked listening to the pc vs console debates, they're two diffrent animals that should never be compared. That would be like making diffrent waight classes (boxing) fight eatch other. I'd say stick where you are PS3\Xbox360 games shold be fairly cheap ATM ? build a mighty collection

Hm, I actually have to go against this one.

There was a time when it was true. Back in the NES era, for instance. Back then, PCs were very, VERY different beasts. Something like a DOS machine for instance (what I had) was so different from an NES that no conceivable comparison could be made. And, on top of that, computers of various types had massive differences even between each other... something with doesnt happen now. Go compare a DOS-based PC, with something like a Spectrum, and you'll see what I mean. This applies to the game selections too.

Back then, the idea of getting "ports" was nearly inconceivable. It just wasnt a thing that was done. There were all sorts of screwball technical reasons for it. And, on top of that, there were utterly incompatible means of control. Controllers really didnt exist for PCs much, and keyboards didnt exist for consoles. Mice, back then, didnt exist at all (mostly). And the way the things ran their programs was just... yeah. Too different. On the very, VERY rare occaision when a "port" appeared? It wasnt REALLY a port. Look at the infamously-terrible version of Megaman that appeared on DOS. Holy hell it was bad. It was BAD. It had three... I repeat, THREE Robot Masters. And an utter nightmare of an intro level before that (as a kid, I never beat that level. Not once). The controls were godawful, the graphics were worse and looked nothing like the NES game.... and that's how these things were done. Even arcade ports... the one sort that you DID get... still werent actually ports.


ALL of that has changed. Now, PC & console versions of the same game are often so interchangable that people genuinely do not even realize that one of them is actually a port of the other. They might spot some graphical differences between the two.... but only for very specific games, and only if they have the ability to compare the console in question with a PC of great power. MOST big AAA games nowadays actually do hit PC as well as the consoles. There are exceptions, of course, such as the Halo games or Destiny. But a great many AAA games hit PC now. Some of them that are on consoles, also, are actually ports of the PC version... it depends on how development was handled internally. When you get two versions of the same game, and one is really buggy, but the other isnt? Chances are, the buggy one is the port. Ports are notorious for generating new bugs.

The point though is that PCs and consoles, in terms of what they can do and how they can function, are VERY close to one another.

Except for one key factor. Distribution. You want to know WHY consoles have stagnated? Or, more to the point, why the big publishers are REQUIRED? It's because consoles still function in the same way they always did: not everyone can release a game for them. There are screwy, complicated processes that you need to go through to do so. These processes are long, very costly in many cases, and MOST of the time, you *need* a publisher to have a chance at doing so. Oh, it's true that there are now "indie" focused sections on each console's online store, but trust me when I say that those are more than a little difficult to deal with, and it's simply not viable for most indie developers. And those that do it, often must link up with a publisher, even if only briefly.

PCs, however, basically say "screw all of that, everyone just do whatever the hell you want". That is what the internet has done for this side of the industry. Actually, that's not entirely true. It's not just the internet that did it... it's how it's always been. Even way back in the DOS era, ANYONE could release a game. It's damn near inexplicable as to HOW many small teams or one-man devs managed to do it back then (what with no internet) but it still happened, and it happened all the time. But the internet, today, expands upon it and makes it extra easy. Even I, by myself, could make a game and distribute it via Steam or whatever if I desired (and if I was insane enough to attempt the entire bloody thing by myself... yeah that isnt happening).


As far as consoles dumbing things down? It has nothing at all to do with the fact that they are consoles. It has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that there are giant publishers involved. The Big Guys want one thing: Easy sales. Put out a game that is complicated, or too hard, or something like that? You sell less copies. Even indie devs are aware of and must deal with this fact. Indie devs however will STILL do what they want. But the Big Guys just go the easy road. So they dumb things down, making sure that even the most moronic of individuals can handle the game in question. Regenerating health, infinite lives/continues, games that nearly play themselves... it's why these are so very, very common these days. When an average consumer buys a AAA game now, they've been CONDITIONED into expecting victory. If they dont get to see the entire game, if they dont get to reach the end of the all-important story due to their own lack of skill? They might not buy the next 80 sequels, you see. Cant have that. Think of something like Assassin's Creed. That has ALWAYS been a very, very easy series of games. Imagine what would have happened if the first game in the series had been brutally difficult. Chances are, it would not be around anymore. The Big Guys DO NOT take that chance. And before someone mentions Dark Souls: note that DS is.... a rarity, to put it lightly. And it's only "hard" when compared to other AAA games. Compared to what alot of PC gamers are used to, it's... really not that tough at all. Frankly, it's kinda slow. Even so, it pushes the boundary almost too far on console, and the fact that From Software is the developer is the one and only thing that makes it work at all (seriously, they're the only ones right now that whatsoever know how to push a game like that in the AAA environment).

 

[The mighty Boosh]

Thank you for baring with me guys Im not used to long discussion through text so will try to shorten my responses.

@Misery
The only thing I'm looking at with unease is how games have changed with technology. Should consoles try to become more like Pc's ? or are they shooting themself in the foot by pushing more powerful hardware and driving up the cost till it's an expensive entry level gaming pc. Ontop of that microsoft are now giving exclusive Xbox games to pc users. Might be an old view point but to me consoles are now losing all it selling points (plug and play, low cost, exclusive games) Also bring back more split screen games you buggers

These processes are long, very costly in many cases, and MOST of the time, you *need* a publisher to have a chance at doing so. Oh, it's true that there are now "indie" focused sections on each console's online store, but trust me when I say that those are more than a little difficult to deal with

To draw a comparison I'd say it sounds abit like what's happening in the music industry bands weighing up the benefits of having a label or trying themselfs. Do you think we will see game designers moving away from big publishers, sounds silly but if it's happening in music and TV then it does'nt sound so far fetched?
Look at how Nintendo chased away most 3rd pary developers for most of there consoles and forcing them to competitors, both Saga and Playstation where built on 3rd party support I'd say. Sorry just an interesting train of thought.

As far as consoles dumbing things down? It has nothing at all to do with the fact that they are consoles

I'm not confident enough to say but from what I've heard It's more common now to build a game ground up for consoles first then port it to PC ? it seems backwards to me but would make sense why modders have had a field day making texture packs recently.

Won't argue with cross platform ports it's been amazing to have.

 

[AGXStarseed]

Just throwing my own opinion in here, I definitely feel that console gaming has gone down the toilet. When I was younger, I had a PS2 at my Dad's house and a Gameboy Advance at my Mum's house. My GBA was something I used to play on constantly to the point of obsession (so much so that I even forced myself to give it up for a month as I felt like my life was 'getting stagnant' from playing it all the time).
As for the PS2, I only went on that when I went to my Dad's house for the weekend and would only play on it after my chores/homework were done and only when my Dad said I was okay to do so, but I enjoyed it every time I went on it.

Today, I've no longer got a Gameboy Advance (my mum gave it and the games away without telling me) but I do have my PS2 still. I did have a Nintendo Wii at one point and I have a PS3 now, but in comparison both 'next-gen' consoles never felt as good.
Nintendo Wii was okay when doing the Wii Sports games and could be fun, especially the sword-fighting in Wii Sports Resort that I would play until my arm seized up, but the other games just never kept my attention. I got rid of it in the end.
As for my PS3, I still play that from time to time and it does have a few games for it that I really like, such as Saints Row IV for how downright colourful and crazy it can be and LEGO Marvel Superheroes because it was just a fun little game that gave a fair few possibilities.
However, I don't enjoy nearly as much as when I played on my PS2; heck, the most recent game I played on my PS3 was a downloaded version of the original Spyro Trilogy.

I do agree also that PC gaming can be a lot of fun. One of the games I played a while back was Goat Simulator; a downright nonsensical but still very fun game which I'd recommend you check out.

 

[pjcnet]

However, I don't enjoy nearly as much as when I played on my PS2; heck, the most recent game I played on my PS3 was a downloaded version of the original Spyro Trilogy.

The PS2 was a huge upgrade from the PS1, it was jaw dropping to see when it was released, but in a lot of ways the PS1 was amazing when it was released too and the PS3 was also considerably better than the PS2. The upgrade from the PS3 to PS4 was however much less noticeable to many even though the hardware is considerably more powerful. Often we become nostalgic about an older system however, especially if we grew up with it and it's hard to let go, as a child I was never so excited when I got a new Commodore 64 game for instance, even the latest jaw dropping blockbusters will never come close to the anticipation I'd feel when waiting for a new Commodore 64 game to load and the enjoyment I got out of it even though the games were simplistic was incredible. Games were often just as playable however, if not more so and in recent years a lot more people are starting to realise this once again with many Indie games becoming popular despite having extremely simplistic graphics compared to blockbuster releases such as Call Of Duty WW2 for instance.

 

[The mighty Boosh]

I think it was Rags or jim sterling (youtube game review) that said we like games or films from are childhood more then what we see because it was the first time we experienced anything like them. After tho we start noticing the patterns and always compare it to our first experience.

I'll argue with my nephew all day why the old Ghostbusters or transformers was and is better then modern.

@AGXStarseed Have you try'd any of the new hand helds ? playing Zelda and Lylat wars on the DS was intresting.

 

[AGXStarseed]

I think it was Rags or jim sterling (youtube game review) that said we like games or films from are childhood more then what we see because it was the first time we experienced anything like them. After tho we start noticing the patterns and always compare it to our first experience.

I'll argue with my nephew all day why the old Ghostbusters or transformers was and is better then modern.

@AGXStarseed Have you try'd any of the new hand helds ? playing Zelda and Lylat wars on the DS was intresting.

I did win a DS Lite out of a Stacker machine and had it for a while with a few games, but the top screen on it broke so I ended up using it as a glorified GBA until it finally conked out.

 

[Bamboopillow2]

I bought a Xbox one and did not like it. I even have a PlayStation 3 but don't play it. In my opinion, pc is where it's at.

 

[Misery]

Thank you for baring with me guys Im not used to long discussion through text so will try to shorten my responses.

The only thing I'm looking at with unease is how games have changed with technology. Should consoles try to become more like Pc's ? or are they shooting themself in the foot by pushing more powerful hardware and driving up the cost till it's an expensive entry level gaming pc. Ontop of that microsoft are now giving exclusive Xbox games to pc users. Might be an old view point but to me consoles are now losing all it selling points (plug and play, low cost, exclusive games) Also bring back more split screen games you buggers

It's already been done.

Do you remember how Microsoft originally pitched the XBone? It wasnt being shown off as a gaming device... they wanted people to see it as a "media platform". All these different features that didnt even have anything to do with gaming. The PS4, PS3, both had alot of this. I remember when the whole blu-ray thing was shown off. People got so excited, not just for the games, but because "OMG MOVIES".

These companies, the ones behind the design of the consoles, know full well that one advantage a PC has is that it does *everything*. They also know that people really like convenience. By adding that to their products, they increase the appeal to the consumer. The problem: You dont REALLY have much freedom on a console. On a PC, there is software of all sorts. Mere browsers, for instance, you have about a bazillion choices. On consoles? Sure, they can browse... but it's usually a craptastic experience. Nobody likes doing it. Same with something like the Youtube app. It's just.... it's bad. These companies are pushing these aspects of the devices, but as big corporate groups tend to do, they end up putting the minimal amount of actual effort into it.

So you end up with a device that costs more, SAYS it does more, but in reality... it's still a gaming device first and foremost. It can do other things, but it's not any good at any of them.

The PS2 was a huge upgrade from the PS1, it was jaw dropping to see when it was released, but in a lot of ways the PS1 was amazing when it was released too and the PS3 was also considerably better than the PS2. The upgrade from the PS3 to PS4 was however much less noticeable to many even though the hardware is considerably more powerful. Often we become nostalgic about an older system however, especially if we grew up with it and it's hard to let go, as a child I was never so excited when I got a new Commodore 64 game for instance, even the latest jaw dropping blockbusters will never come close to the anticipation I'd feel when waiting for a new Commodore 64 game to load and the enjoyment I got out of it even though the games were simplistic was incredible. Games were often just as playable however, if not more so and in recent years a lot more people are starting to realise this once again with many Indie games becoming popular despite having extremely simplistic graphics compared to blockbuster releases such as Call Of Duty WW2 for instance.

Aye, quite true. This is something I've been very pleased with in recent years: Alot of players are starting to realize that, no, graphics are NOT all-important. They're starting to spot that what IS the most important is the gameplay. We're not here to watch movies. We're here to play the damn games, simple as that. And the AAA groups have bombarded us with amaaaaaazing graphics for so long that it's just not that impressive anymore. So plenty of gamers, such as myself, stop giving a fart. I personally have always had extremely powerful PCs... that lack of a spending limit and all. I've seen the max of what graphics can do. It was impressive for a time, but.... feh. I dont care. When it comes to visuals, what impresses me now isnt the technical aspects, but the artstyle. I mean, a game can be technically amazing as heck... but be ugly as a pile of mud with a bunch of dead rats in it. I can think of ALOT of AAA games that are ugly as hell. But I can also think of alot of "lesser" games that are bloody gorgeous. For example, there's a game called Songbringer that released recently. It uses pixel art. It is freaking beautiful. Or there are things like Dead Cells, or Dungeon of the Endless... similarly gorgeous (and the gameplay in both is fantastic). No AAA game has amazed me with visuals as much as these three.

Not that technically-powerful games cant be gorgeous too, but it doesnt usually come from AAA stuff. I found one game recently called City of Brass. I love it for the gameplay (it's a first-person roguelike, taking place in an Arabian Nights inspired world, where instead of guns you have a sword and a whip, and the game has an emphasis on using traps and hazards found throughout it's levels against the many foes you'll run into). It's an incredible game, gameplay-wise... like a first-person Spelunky (if you've never played Spelunky, go look it up). But it is also... freaking... gorgeous, beyond anything I've seen in a long while. AND on top of that, it's technically amazing, like many AAA games claim to be. Seriously, the visuals are incredible... but it's the design and artstyle that truly make it what it is, not the techy bits. Yet this is all made by a small team. And they realize that while they can make the graphics incredible, the REAL focus is on gameplay, fun, challenge, and depth. AAA games tend not to grasp this... again, the big devs arent allowed much creative freedom, which is a real shame, as there is some major talent among them.

And then there's games which couldnt care less about the visuals. Do you know what ASCII graphics are? If you've never used a DOS machine, they are... an extremely primitive form of visuals. They werent just used by games. Even the base OS itself used ASCII for absolutely everything, right down to the command prompt. Look up screenshots of "Dwarf Fortress ASCII" for fantastic examples of what they looked like. Again, ASCII is primitive, and VERY old. DOS era. But games STILL USE THIS, and they do so FREQUENTLY. Not just Dwarf Fortress (which is perhaps the single most complicated and deep game ever made, and it's in constant development) but the roguelike genre puts this stuff out frequently. And alot of players outright prefer the look of this to, well, most other things. Heck, I like it too. The point though is that from a technical standpoint, these games have NOTHING for graphics. They are literally as low as it gets. But many of them are still considered incredible games, and that's because the gameplay is just so good.

I get way more excited in these than I ever did for the "major" games, and they hold my interest easily. Whereas I tire of most AAA games very fast. And it's the same with retro games. I loved games from the DOS era, and still do, and will take those over the modern day big ones any day.

But all this stuff almost never hits the consoles.

 

[Bolletje]

@Misery I'm so happy you mentioned Dwarf Fortress and Spelunky.

 

[The mighty Boosh]

@Misery Guess it's just something I won't understand or compromise with. Never been online with a consoles so can't comment.It's just seems werid building a console that way (to high tech) , to me anyway. DVD player fine but Blu-ray just pushed the price up as it was so new.
heard they have to cut the price of consoles and use the games to make the money back ?

As for using older methods of pixel coloring it will be intresting to see how it's used with more memory to flesh out detailed sprites & backgrounds.

It's not just the art style that brakes the immersion for me tho, it's how hardware\software limitations can brake the world. Like when you're ment to be having a massive war and they can only render a few NPC's.
This is one reason I'm not sure about consoles and PC games being so close.

Who do you design the game for first, start for powerful machines or low end ? can't explain what I mean without a sloppy wall of text.

 

[Judge]

I liked the idea of being able to buy a game without compatibility issues. That's what pretty much drove me away from PC gaming altogether, apart from being given an insider's view of how game development is prioritized.

Sad to see the console format hardware continue to evolve ever closer to that of a PC.

Always thought about buying one or the other, but these days it seems what's the point?

 

[Mr Allen]

I liked the idea of being able to buy a game without compatibility issues. That's what pretty much drove me away from PC gaming altogether, apart from being given an insider's view of how game development is prioritized.

Sad to see the console format hardware continue to evolve ever closer to that of a PC.

Always though about buying one or the other, but these days it seems what's the point?

For once I'm in full agreement with you, only just this once mind

I pretty much gave up on PC gaming when the original Xbox came out in 2002, due to compatibility problems with various PC games and older versions of Windows.

Although having said that, if I hadn't played Blinx and then Top Spin, I would've binned the Xbox after the first month, because I thought, controversially, that the original Halo was pants.

 

[Misery]

@Misery Guess it's just something I won't understand or compromise with. Never been online with a consoles so can't comment.It's just seems werid building a console that way (to high tech) , to me anyway. DVD player fine but Blu-ray just pushed the price up as it was so new.
heard they have to cut the price of consoles and use the games to make the money back ?

As for using older methods of pixel coloring it will be intresting to see how it's used with more memory to flesh out detailed sprites & backgrounds.

It's not just the art style that brakes the immersion for me tho, it's how hardware\software limitations can brake the world. Like when you're ment to be having a massive war and they can only render a few NPC's.
This is one reason I'm not sure about consoles and PC games being so close.

Who do you design the game for first, start for powerful machines or low end ? can't explain what I mean without a sloppy wall of text.

Wait, where in the world are you seeing this bit with a massive war and only a few NPCs? I dont know how it is on consoles, but on PC, the whole "massive war" concept in games has actually become fairly common now.... and it's equally common for the game in question to render HUNDREDS, or even THOUSANDS of soldiers/robots/demons/whatever.

Let me show you something here:

Skip to the 10:20 mark and watch a bit. Do you see just HOW MUCH is happening there? In how much detail? This is no case of "only a few NPCs". This is a case of "why hasnt reality cracked under the pressure of this yet?"

And again, THAT IS THE NORM NOW. Something like this game? The amount of crap it's doing at once... it's not new. It's been done many times before, and it'll be done many times later. Whether it's something super serious like the Total War games, or something super goofy like Totally Accurate Battle Simulator, the idea of having 100 bazillion battling characters on screen, at once, complete with the ability to zoom in/around the battle, has been done. Kinda often now.

Even the freaking MMO genre can do this. It has to: Raid battles in an MMO can consist of 100s of players at once, every single one of them in their own unique, customized armor, and using their own magic/abilities, all online, all at the same time, and it needs to be smooth.... so it is.

Hardware/software limitations seriously dont work like you think they do. Oh, they might do so on the consoles a bit, but understand: That's because you're being sold a very limited device. Any console is considered extremely weak compared to... well, any PC. Even my Laptop from Hell can outdo the consoles I have (however, the bloody thing is still utterly infuriating, so screw it with a fork anyway).

At the same time, it's not JUST the console's fault. I was having a conversation with someone about this the other day, and one thing I brought up that time was that despite what alot of elitists will tell you, PC specs... they seriously arent that bloody important anymore. Hell, just looking at the specs for the game in the video there... they are actually pretty low. My PREVIOUS computer, in it's "ravaged by viruses and damaged equipment" state, could still run that game, which is quite the feat. The game's requirements... they just arent that high. And MOST games are even lower.

The big problem you see on consoles? It's not a lack of power. If they REALLY wanted to use a console's power to it's fullest, you'd never see any of that "cant handle a few NPCs" crap. The problem is that you're dealing with the Big Guys. The huge corporate groups that control the AAA side of the industry dont care. At all. About anything that isnt money. They ABSOLUTELY ARE willing to put out games that run like garbage. And so they frequently do.

The fact that all that in the video there is "normal" on PC now? It's not because of the power of the machines. It's because the Greedy Corporate Asshats are almost never involved. On PC, we get to AVOID those guys. Oh, dont get me wrong: They still put games on PC. EA's garbage, you'll still find it there. Or Ubisoft's. And no matter how powerful your PC is, chances are, THOSE are the games that will run the worst (proving my point). It's not because of the machine: It's because of the game itself, and the lack of effort/care/love that went into it.

Let me show you one other thing. Do click here: https://imgur.com/a/w4xcP

Those four games are examples I chose of graphical prowess within some recent PC games.

The one with all of the grass is Planet Nomads. The space one is Everspace. The 2D one is Dead Cells (think 2D Dark Souls merged with the old Castlevania) and the final one is City of Brass.

I'll point out one quick thing: The Everspace screenshots, yes, they ARE all in-game screenshots taken by me. The reason why the game's logo is in the corner is because I used the "cinematic screenshot" mode to take them (it lets you freeze the action, and then rotate the camera all over the place to take a shot however you want).

Anyway, look at the Everspace ones in particular. Especially that one where the UI is visible. Do you see just how many freaking asteroids there are in that, or in the other shots? You can fly your ship, quickly, to ANY of those individual rocks, even way off in the distance, and interact with them. They're not just background visuals like in other games. I can fly up to them, crash into them, shove them around, AND, on top of that, the game uses destructible/deformable terrain. I can go up to one of them and DRILL A HOLE THROUGH IT. Enemies or other things can also do the same. If it's a big asteroid (well, big-ish, your ship in the game is a small fighter, not a huge freighter), I could drill a hole and then fly through it or even hide in it from enemies. There are asteroids with entire cavern systems inside of them to find. There are labyrinths of tangled metal from old relics and damaged ships to explore. All of this is procedurally generated, too. And that's all in ONE area. It's not like I click on an asteroid in the distance and then have to wait for a load time or something... this is a fast paced game that doesnt really involve any waiting. Every individual area has THAT MUCH STUFF in it.

The real kicker here? THAT IS AN INDIE GAME. That is NOT a AAA title with a huge budget. All of the games in those screenshots are indie titles. They dont have very high spec requirements.

Like I said, it isnt about power. It stopped being about power long ago. Computers, even weaker ones like consoles (or just cheap PCs) have hit a point where "weak" still translates into "freaking amazing". Even the Wii U, the weakest of all of the current consoles, can put out some bloody gorgeous stuff, right? BUT, the developers in question have to actually give a crap. The Big Guys? They usually dont. You'll get buggy crap with bad framerates that just doesnt work right from them. Hell, Ubisoft in particular is bloody famous for it right now, as is Bethesda (we all know just how astonishingly buggy Skyrim is, for instance). When you get a game that's struggling to do something, chances are... the devs either A: didnt care, B: were unskilled, or C: were outright RUSHED and forced to release early. With the games I'm used to, that stuff doesnt happen because there's no greedy corporate entity involved.

 

[pjcnet]

One thing I didn't understand is why the following technology that has been around for about 8 years hasn't been used in console or PC gaming. When I first learned about it I was extremely excited. Any real life 3D objects and even full environments can be digitised to be used on this engine with a ridiculous amount of detail without using many resources and there seems to be no limit on the number of objects you can display at once or in how much detail.

At first many people thought the small Australian company Euclideon who invented the engine was promoting a scam simply because it sounded too good to be true, but apparently this wasn't the case. When using this engine there's not even a need to have conventional powerful 3D GPUs any more, but perhaps that's partly why it's not been used? Nvidia and AMD would obviously hate it as they'd be no longer such a market to keep producing ever more powerful cutting edge 3D graphics cards, so they'd do anything to hold the new technology back.

Here is a demo of Euclideon's unlimited detail engine capturing a real life environment and this was way back in 2014:

Now wouldn't you love to see this in gaming? Well it can run on any reasonable PC, it doesn't even need a powerful GPU and it's purely software based meaning it mainly only uses the CPU. The amount of power required is in my understanding only increased by increasing the resolution of the display, although obviously animations will need some additional power (animating is something they've also been working on and improving).

Here is the other side of the argument however, it cuts through the hype and gives an opinion as to why it's never been used in gaming:

In short according to this video conventional 3D gaming has allegedly come so far without the need of Euclideon's unlimited detail engine, it does however in my opinion show the worst of the unlimited detail engine from about 8 years ago against the best of conventional 3D graphics.

The Euclideon unlimited detail engine still doesn't use many resources however and there still isn't any polygon budget, also you can zoom in on real digitised objects to an almost microscopic level without losing any detail and the engine runs at exactly the same speed no matter how many objects and "atoms" are displayed even if it's many billions. I still think it's a great shame it's never been used in gaming and since it's been so long it probably never will be..... Or will it? Well they still haven't given up and have released another new invention that also uses the unlimited detail engine, take a look at this and this was back in September 2016:

At the moment hologram technology is way too expensive for use in the average home, but imagine having this technology attached to a home console or PC in say 20 years time or maybe even a lot less. It will probably really will happen eventually and many things featured on Star Trek are becoming a reality.

Now in Australia there's already the first hologram entertainment centre based on this technology:

https://www.holoverse.com.au/

Many things usually found in the arcades or even in centres such as this do eventually make it into the home (sometimes with home versions using the same technology).

Does anyone still think it's all a scam?