Google+

Topics

E3 next-gen

44 comments

  • talleyXIV - June 1, 2012 5:10 p.m.

    Reason 8: I love watching Giant Enemy Crabs make me laugh. Don't call me a fanboy, I have the PS3.
  • RonsonPL - June 1, 2012 4:42 p.m.

    "the hardware is close to hitting its cap" That's a poor joke, I presume? It was close to hitting its cap in 2006. Anyone who claims there is no need for a better, much more powerful hardware, is either a person who doesn't know much about videogames, or a person who simply lacks some imagination. And no, it's not about "ultra-expensive PCs". Gears Of War 1 doesn't look that much worse than today's UE 3.0 games, and guess what? 2x framerate, 2xresolution, proper anisotropic filtering... 2006 hardware. Ouch. If someone really has some problems with imagination based upon some technical knowledge, then a simple hint may help: Look at today's games screenshots. But do not enlarge to full screen. See this? Now. How much space it occupies? 1/16 of the screen? We need to say goodbye to picture scaling. 1080p is a must. Then there's aniso. Framerate is also poor nowadays. And that's just cosmetics. We desperately need some innovation in games, which is almost impossible to achieve on today's consoles. AND that's not all. Overall immersion level would skyrocket if there was no more elements "ruining the magic". And those elements won't be gone until the developer has 8x the texture memory and power, and many more unique polygons at its disposal. Better lightning also needs far more power. The budgets would shift instantly in that case, which could do wonders, but let's not make ourselves false promises. It most probably won't happen. PS4/X3 won't be powerful enough, I'm afraid. But supposedly they would be. That would bring a new era in gaming. The graphics engines and overall visual quality of todays AAA titles would be achievable for small "indie" studios. No need for good programmers " -Waste 80x of the power? No problem, 20% is more than x360". No talented/expensive texture/ artists? No problem - 10x more memory. And so on. Many great not-mainstream, original titles would be created. Think of great lower budget titles like Limbo. They're cool. Why? They SKIPPED the "great looks" problem by avoiding it. In Limbo, it's the graphic style. There is no need for detail in black shapes. In Bit.Trip Runner - there is no need for any good graphics at all. Then, there are games with a camera placed in such a way, that it helps reducing objects in the scene by 50%. And look what are the results - Trine 2, Trials HD. And now just imagine what such people would do if they weren't forced to skip the ideas of "normal" games. This generation is enough, but only in 2D, and for some reason almost no one is interested in 2D. Rayman is a 1080p and it looks great. In 2D almost everything is possible on x360/ps3, but no every developer likes 2D, and not every vision of a game is suitable for just two dimensional graphics. Very powerful consoles would also help drawing a line between TV consoles and smartphones, which are lurking around the corner seriously endangering the financial success of console developers. New physics engines, new possibilities like glassess with 3840x720 res. It will be possible in a few years, OLED's coming. 1280x720 is simply not enough to reasonably cover the human field of vision, and the OLED displays can be round shaped, helping to see what's on the sides. New game genres - intensive physics based, proper surfing simulations, recreational games like windsuit flying over photo-realistic landscapes. Lagless motion controllers. New version of arcade mini-games, if the new consoles were shipped with at least 300GB storage (one "arcade texture pack" to download done once after buying a console and then no problem like "200MB for textures only". One really big file but downloaded once, and then maybe a small updates each year. No more "plastic people" in "serious" games. No more strangely empty large lands, like deserts made of blocky plates on which someone planted something each 10m, with even the texture blurred. No more fog/blur where it's not needed. Plenty of possibilities. We definitely need a new generation, but I think we might be forced to wait until 2020 for PS5/Xbox4 to make it happen.
  • MasterBhater - June 2, 2012 2 p.m.

    You're right, about all of this. I'm an Xbox 360 fan and even I agree with your comment. Time and time again, I've been disappointed by console games, and it's been happening more frequently in the past few years. I wanted Gears of War 3 to feature epic, sprawling battles, and instead I got a worm attacking a ship and running down hallways. The same basic thing happened in Halo: Reach. All I got was ONE epic battle, and it happened in a CUTSCENE. I wanted epic battles in God of War 3, and instead I got a visually impressive game that had only one and a half titan battles. I wanted Crysis 2 to be an open-world game, but instead I got a alien-invasion-in-new-York ripoff. It's all because the current tech is holding us back. We're at the very least 4 years behind where we should be. That needs to change.
  • Manguy17 - June 3, 2012 3:15 a.m.

    read all of this, I did not. my apologies, A* for effort
  • Hydr0ponicK - June 1, 2012 4:18 p.m.

    Reason's 1,4, and 5 are more Xbox360 than anything. PS3 is still pumping out new IPs ie: Last Guardian and The Last of Us. And the games keep getting bigger and better for PS3 as well...
  • Hydr0ponicK - June 1, 2012 4:18 p.m.

    Oh and not to mention Ni No Kuni
  • Hobogonigal - June 2, 2012 6:52 a.m.

    Yeah I agree with you but with no.5, I would also say it applies to the ps3 as well. Two of my friends have had two return their ps3's due to them breaking however I did have to return my xbox after it decided it didn't want to read disks any more... GR make it sound like all three companies have faulty hardware, but I haven't heard anything bad about the Wii (hardware faults anyway, nothing to do with the power). You're right about IPs as well. Sony have some great fresh games like Uncharted, Journey whereas at the moment Microsoft seem to only have Halo... Hopefully this will change at E3.
  • declure - June 1, 2012 2:49 p.m.

    Sorry GR, but you got one thing dead wrong. Hard drives are not as cheap as they used to be. With the destruction of Western Digital's overseas plant, they have effectively doubled in price. A good SSD runs about $1 a gig, so 500 GB would be an outrageous expense. I don't know what the actual cost is for PS3 and XBOX, etc. but I'm sure they are in the same boat. What manufacturers should allow us to do is store our games pn external drives of whatever nature, or maybe even allow for network storage and retrieval. Yes, there would be problems with these ideas too, but the chance to cut costs, especially for the console manufacturers, would be well worth it.
  • brickman409 - June 1, 2012 7:59 p.m.

    why would they use SSD's? They don't use SSD's now, why would they switch from HDD to SSD? A 500gb 2.5 HDD only cost around 90$ not $500 like an SSD. speed is nice but not really worth it in a console, and its not like anybody drops their console often enough to justify an SSD's strength.
  • yonderTheGreat - June 2, 2012 11:44 a.m.

    There is absolutely *NO* reason that NG consoles should have SSDs. None whatsoever. Thusly, declure's argument is invalidated, even though his point about hdd's not being uber-cheap is correct. Tho, manufacturing hasn't really started yet. And the hdd manufacturing is going to be near the end of the manufacturing process. Thus... it doesn't matter that they're more expensive now.
  • onetimebuster - June 1, 2012 2:39 p.m.

    I just want good games.
  • garnsr - June 1, 2012 2:29 p.m.

    Most of these are Xbox centered complaints. If devs had put more effort into using the PS3's BluRays I think we'd have better games, all on single discs. It's too bad the PS3 looks like it'll be dropped before it really gets used to the max, if only the system memory had been higher we might have seen things go better, but I think the 360 held back this generation. I guess you could say the same in reverse for the PS2/Xbox situation, though Microsoft dumped their more advanced system quickly, to release the system that ended up being less advanced this gen.
  • Tjwoods18 - June 1, 2012 2:49 p.m.

    The regular xbox was pretty advanced for its time, but it's menue system hindered a lot of things. I loved kingdom under fire 8)
  • bitcrusherrrr - June 1, 2012 2:15 p.m.

    Im happy for this gen to carry on as is but equally i'd be up for a new console or too.
  • Tjwoods18 - June 1, 2012 1:59 p.m.

    With new hardware there comes new problems that the big three lets slip through their R&D. YOu can't tell me that microsoft did not knwo that the RROD was that prevelant.
  • Cyberninja - June 1, 2012 1:55 p.m.

    I don't really care if the next gen begins or not as long as sony and mircosoft don't launch with huge problems this time.
  • db1331 - June 1, 2012 1:43 p.m.

    "Generally, every console generation starts the same way: early games are better on PC because developers are still ironing out the kinks with the new consoles, mid-generation games sway towards equilibrium, and late games end up being better on consoles because, well, the developers are making the games specifically for the consoles." The fuck? That's not true at all. If anything, it's the opposite. The gap is somewhat closer at the beginning, but you see more disparity later on. So late games like Skyrim, or Arkham City, those are better on console? I'm really curious to know which games you think are.
  • nokeisoka - June 1, 2012 2:32 p.m.

    Generally at the beginning of the generation most of the consoles are just getting old generation games ported. Eventually the devs start using the tech better and it gets closer to pc. Towards the end it looks really good and is better than your average pc for those who want some good fps for cheap compared to building a new pc. They are never really better visually than someones couple thousand dollar gaming rig since there is usually options in the game for pc gamers to turn up the settings incredibly high
  • inc30 - June 1, 2012 2:36 p.m.

    Arkham City is better on console. So are most FPS games, the Assassin Creed games, Most RPG layouts are designed with controllers in mind, arcadey type side scrollers are also designed with consoles in mind. Its a sad fact that game developers pander to the console crowd because they are more prevalent, and thats where the money is. The last game i remember being built specifically for PC over consoles was brink, and that was a clusterfuck of averageness. I wish pc gaming was focused on more, but i dont see it anymore.
  • db1331 - June 1, 2012 3:37 p.m.

    How are those games better on console? And don't tell me controls. I played Arkham City and the AssCreed games on PC with an Xbox controller.

Showing 21-40 of 44 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000

OR…

Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.