|
|
| Page 1 of 2 |
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
 Posted: Tue, 21st Jun 2011 11:20 Post subject: Playstation chief: we can't advance technologically |
|
 |
I put this here because it doesn't belong in hardware or PC games, and if I post this in the console section I'm going to have tons of retards crying probably.
http://blogs.forbes.com/davidewalt/2011/06/17/playstation-chief-jack-tretton-how-to-sell-vita-navigate-clouds-and-debut-the-ps4/
When asked about the PS4:
| Quote: | | PlayStation 3 is really just hitting its stride. And technologically, I don’t think it’s possible to provide any advancement beyond what we have. What we’ve seen from the competition is trying to add features that already exist in PlayStation 3. We invested heavily in that, we rolled a very heavy rock up a steep hill, through the launch period. But now I think that all pays off, and we’ve got a long run way behind it. So, I wouldn’t look for any discussion of a next generation PlayStation for quite some time. |
@(#^$@*^$*&^$!
How about some more memory, which doesn't add any problems for your thermal design (which sucks anyway) so we can have something better than 2x2 textures? Or maybe instead of your fucking G70 you stick in a G92, which has roughly the same thermal spec but is lightyears ahead already (not to mention even more recent, more efficient chips)?
Even within the current design they can EASILY fit much more current hardware in.
This guy, and all the fucking console retards following him are one half of the cause of the gaming industry being as stale as it has become. The other half are probably the same fucking retards buying into Gears of Bore 21 and Derp Effect 9, the games that will play themselves for you. He is so full of shit, it's unbelievable. Belongs right up there with Apple and their bullshit.
Sigh, end of rant 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Saner
Posts: 6877
Location: Uk
|
| Posted: Tue, 21st Jun 2011 11:23 Post subject: |
|
|
Sony is just spoting shit, same as they have always done.
Anyone remember the "Toy Story level of graphics" being spouted with the PS2?
They are trying to deflect attention away from the WiiU by saying "Hey our machine is not even being used to its full potential"
The trouble is (and I own all three machines) the PS3's potential may be fantastic, but 99% of the games on it are complete shit anyway, so even if it did live up to that stupid PS2 claim graphically, it would still be crap.
They really dropped the ball with the PS3, and after the shitstorm with the hacking and PSN stuff, I can only hope it does the same to Sony as they did to SEGA.
| ragnarus wrote: |
I saw things like that in here and in other "woman problems" topics so...... Am I the only one that thinks some authorities needs to be alerted about Saner and him possibly being a rapist and/or kidnapper ? |
Saner is not being serious. Unless its the subject of Santa!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 21st Jun 2011 13:38 Post subject: |
|
|
They probably think CELL is still the best CPU evah and that they completely changed the consumer market with a brand new Bluray drive (which they probably think was first introduced by the PS3 ). With that state of mind, no further enhancements can be made, no.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 21st Jun 2011 13:47 Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think they would take a beating from Xbox 720, not if exclusive ps games keep coming out and especially if they get better and better, they can probably ride the ps3 all the way to the xbox 1400-ish.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ixigia
[Moderator] Consigliere
Posts: 65078
Location: Italy
|
| Posted: Tue, 21st Jun 2011 14:19 Post subject: |
|
|
| Werelds wrote: |
When asked about the PS4:
| Quote: | | PlayStation 3 is really just hitting its stride. And technologically, I don’t think it’s possible to provide any advancement beyond what we have. What we’ve seen from the competition is trying to add features that already exist in PlayStation 3. We invested heavily in that, we rolled a very heavy rock up a steep hill, through the launch period. But now I think that all pays off, and we’ve got a long run way behind it. So, I wouldn’t look for any discussion of a next generation PlayStation for quite some time. |
|
It sounds like the typical excuse to mask the fact that they don't have enough resources to invest into the development of a new console  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garus
VIP Member
Posts: 34200
|
| Posted: Tue, 21st Jun 2011 14:23 Post subject: |
|
|
snip
Last edited by garus on Tue, 27th Aug 2024 21:57; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Tue, 21st Jun 2011 14:31 Post subject: |
|
|
Sure they do, it just means their current revenue stream will stop.
I still find it funny how Nintendo has a bigger userbase than the other two shitheads combined, because no matter how I look at it - Nintendo are the ones who still get the whole point of a console. They didn't go for "hardcore" gaming with the Wii, so while it might be a pretty shit console (although personally, I still quite enjoyed Zelda and the few party games I've played; not to mention Lost Winds which was just fantastic - no, I don't own one myself), they have the right idea. PSX games never tried to be BETTER than PC games, just different altogether; even though the PSX at its release was more powerful than the average PC, which was never the case for the PS3 or 360. It was surpassed by PC not long after, but still, it wasn't 2 years behind at its release already.
And before anyone goes: but PS3 and 360 have sold 50+ million units each, Wii only 85 
No they haven't, at least 25% of those sales are new fucking models with people throwing their old ones out - or being forced to replace them because of the shoddy cooling designs in both of them.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 21st Jun 2011 16:09 Post subject: |
|
|
Nintendo had the rigth idea with the Wii? Come on. Nintendo ceased to have right ideas after the N64.
As for their revenue stopping when a new console is released, I highly doubt it. The PS2 was still very popular long after the PS3 release.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Tue, 21st Jun 2011 17:03 Post subject: |
|
|
Not for its execution, but for its general goal. The Wii is still aimed at providing a kind of fun that's best had in front of a TV, preferably with some friends by your side.
I have owned every single console up to the first XBOX and PS2 for that reason. From playing Double Dragon, Streets of Rage or Golden Axe, to Mario Kart, to GoldenEye, to fuck knows what else. None of those games would be as fun on a PC. On top of that, the consoles actually did have some exclusive titles that were better than their PC counterparts, even though technically the PC had everything needed for those games. Many of the SNES RPGs, the Zelda games, games like Ape Escape on the PSX (<3). And there were plenty of cross platform games then as well, which had a natural control scheme on all platforms rather than being gimped on one or the other (Tomb Raider alone is a good enough example).
From the "Y2K" generation onwards the consoles have tried to emulate the PC. Except for that fact that they could never, and can never, be as effective on many fronts unless you use a mouse on them (apart from the inferior hardware). Games like Fallout and Baldur's Gate, any shooter or any RTS just don't work without a mouse, unless you gimp them. Now, as bad as the Wii is, Nintendo have not gone along with that fucking retarded attempt. And truth be told, as a party console, the Wii does its job magnificently - there's a distinct lack of good games on the damn thing, but it still does what the N64 did. The PS2/PS3 and Xboxes don't do what the PSX did anymore. The PSX had some of the best games ever, with many of them being as challenging as we want them to be - when's the last time an Abe's Oddyssee or Ape Escape came out on these consoles? Games on these consoles are going for cinematic experiences, not gameplay.
I had my N64, MegaDrive, SNES and PSX because they had the games to support them. In the past decade I've seen less than 10 titles I'd shell out that kind of cash for, even though I can easily afford them; easier than when I was 9 when the PSX came out. That was 500 guilders just the same (~227 EUR), so that was a pretty big sum for a 9 year old and his 7 year old brother (my bro and bought it together ).
Edit: I'm not saying the "hardcore" gaming can't be done or shouldn't be done. It just shouldn't be like it is now, where the consoles try to emulate a PC, fail miserably and everyone suffers from it. Bring back the unique console exclusives again please.
Last edited by Werelds on Tue, 21st Jun 2011 17:14; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WaldoJ
VIP Member
Posts: 32678
|
| Posted: Tue, 21st Jun 2011 17:07 Post subject: |
|
|
nintendo always has the right idea. they're the ones who move gaming forward. even when it fails. They're the ones everyone looks to for innovation in gaming. Not necessarily gameplay, but gaming in general.
The ps2 was popular because it was an expensive console, back then. ps3 lunched as a 600 dollar console. ps2 price dropped. ps2 also has a large catalogue.
| Sin317 wrote: | | I win, you lose. Or Go fuck yourself. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rofl_Mao
Posts: 3187
Location: Nederland
|
| Posted: Tue, 21st Jun 2011 17:27 Post subject: |
|
|
So we have tons of crying retards, fucking console retards and plain fucking retards. Damn that's a lot of retards!
| Lopin18 wrote: | I think you played too much Fallout 3, Pedo Perk acquired.  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tonizito
VIP Member
Posts: 51400
Location: Portugal, the shithole of Europe.
|
| Posted: Tue, 21st Jun 2011 17:28 Post subject: |
|
|
You'd have to be a brainless retard to believe the shit that that guy spews.
Unfortunately most of their audience fit the description, so we are all fucking then...
| boundle (thoughts on cracking AITD) wrote: | | i guess thouth if without a legit key the installation was rolling back we are all fucking then |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 21st Jun 2011 18:37 Post subject: |
|
|
what BS they should remake the ps3 add 2 gig ram and a new dx10-11 capable card
but then again its BS for the year 2011 when in 2012 we will see new Xbox ,Sony will go and say ''now we present our new advanced technology in ps4"
lulz
if you have no competition then why bother making a new ps or xbox ?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 21st Jun 2011 19:22 Post subject: |
|
|
The days of the unique console games are long gone. Nintendo is innovative? I disagree completely. They port their entire database of games to every single thing they bring out. Look at their games, how many of them made any major progress? One of my favorite franchises of all time is stuck in limbo ffs, Zelda has no innovation whatsoever anymore. Nintendo is aiming fully on the prty games. Where is the innovation there? It's just the same shit in a different package. When I look at a Wii stand in the store, it makes me sick. The milking potential of Nintendo overrules those of any publisher, even if you combine all the rest.
As for consoles not being able to complete with PCs, I disagree again. The only thing they lack is the HW. A game does not need the best tech to be brilliant. This of course is only the case when console life is short, which it obviously isn't. I wouldn't be surprised if these consoles stay for a long, long time. As said above, why invest so much in a new system when no one seems to demand it? People still play the games, the majority isn't complaining about anything and some devs even say these system still have a long life in them (retards).
Game development is in limbo, recyclage of already recycled shit.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rofl_Mao
Posts: 3187
Location: Nederland
|
| Posted: Tue, 21st Jun 2011 21:40 Post subject: |
|
|
It's quite simple: the majority of gamers wouldn't notice the difference anymore and probably wouldn't really care. The audience isn't as demanding anymore. Most gamers aren't nerds who need to inspect every pixel of graphical detail. So producers like Sony can afford to be lazy.
I care about graphics though -- if they're not improving anymore I'm moving back to PC gaming. I hope retarded Windows won't kill all the gaming fun though
| Lopin18 wrote: | | I think you played too much Fallout 3, Pedo Perk acquired. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 25th Jun 2011 17:51 Post subject: |
|
|
It's fair to say that the current gen supporting 1080p with decent enough cinematic visuals, means it's going to be long wait before we see something else.
I have a laptop with 3D vision 485 GTXm, and the current PC games don't look much more impressive than they do on a hi-def TV on 360. I mean if you’re really critical, yes you can see differences.
I am amazed at how good Witcher 2 is looking on 360 considering it was originally a PC only. There’s a point when the artistic vision can be solidly represented, and the current gen nearly six years old can do this.
Look at Skyrim, again not that much difference.
I'd say visuals pushed hard enough on current gen are decent enough. Look at Battlefield 3 and Call of Duty 3. Very decent.
It would take a very big step in video architecture before we start seeing true raytrace, super complex procedurally generated worlds and so on. This would have to be viable mass market and worth the investment. The gap between what keeps the average consumer impressed and the interests of video game visual geeks has become very wide. Interesting to see so much investment in hand held and current gen, such as Wii U and PSP2 Vita
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 25th Jun 2011 18:11 Post subject: |
|
|
| Rofl_Mao wrote: | It's quite simple: the majority of gamers wouldn't notice the difference anymore and probably wouldn't really care. The audience isn't as demanding anymore. Most gamers aren't nerds who need to inspect every pixel of graphical detail. So producers like Sony can afford to be lazy.
I care about graphics though -- if they're not improving anymore I'm moving back to PC gaming. I hope retarded Windows won't kill all the gaming fun though |
I've worked for a long time in the video game industry, as a 3D studio and texture artist. Obviously I care very deeply about the visual fidelity of the games that I deliver.
I've always advocated that you should strive to achieve the best result you can, with what you have. There’s no excuse for laziness. The current gen affords the opportunity to create pretty much the full gamut of artistic endeavour, aside from the super realism that is enjoyed in the current gen CG movie industry.
The next big step up shouldn't just be about improved visual fidelity, but other forms of story treatment and storytelling. The hardware needs to change, so that games can become increasingly immersive, through super hi definition, tactile feedback, and encompassing virtual reality, properly, and not in the premature fashion it did 15 years ago.
This is all possibe to a degree, but is not sophisticated and mass market enough to come together into a cohesive mass market product.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lutzifer
Modzilla
Posts: 12740
Location: ____________________ **** vegan zombie **** GRRAAIIINNSS _______
|
| Posted: Sat, 25th Jun 2011 18:17 Post subject: |
|
|
i m with waldo on this one.
Also, i made an oath to never buy a sony product, because of all the bullshit they pulled. Please, just let them die.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Sat, 25th Jun 2011 18:43 Post subject: |
|
|
| fishslice wrote: | I have a laptop with 3D vision 485 GTXm, and the current PC games don't look much more impressive than they do on a hi-def TV on 360. I mean if you’re really critical, yes you can see differences.
I am amazed at how good Witcher 2 is looking on 360 considering it was originally a PC only. There’s a point when the artistic vision can be solidly represented, and the current gen nearly six years old can do this.
Look at Skyrim, again not that much difference.
I'd say visuals pushed hard enough on current gen are decent enough. Look at Battlefield 3 and Call of Duty 3. Very decent.
It would take a very big step in video architecture before we start seeing true raytrace, super complex procedurally generated worlds and so on. This would have to be viable mass market and worth the investment. The gap between what keeps the average consumer impressed and the interests of video game visual geeks has become very wide. Interesting to see so much investment in hand held and current gen, such as Wii U and PSP2 Vita |
See, this is where you and many others fail.
First of all: "decent"? Sure, but that's far from the potential a PC has - most games still don't even use a 3 year old GPU to its full potential unless you manually crank up the resolution. Often the solutions really aren't that time consuming: implement better AA methods (for which the algorithms are freely available as you should know), use textures with a higher resolution, have LOD settings that make use of the extra available power. Just those 3 points alone would've made Crysis 2 (as an easy example) almost acceptable (almost!).
Second: you say that on your laptop (although, lol laptop gaming) it doesn't look much better than on your console. Well no, but that's the whole fucking point, because the PC ports are limited by the console's limits, rather than being built for the PC properly and making it scalable. Scaling up isn't doable really, scaling down is. That's what we PC gamers were doing before the consoles took over; if your PC wasn't fast enough, you'd scale the fucking game down.
@ Rofl_Mao: they're not improving anymore, stop waiting for it 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 25th Jun 2011 20:25 Post subject: |
|
|
| Werelds wrote: | | fishslice wrote: | I have a laptop with 3D vision 485 GTXm, and the current PC games don't look much more impressive than they do on a hi-def TV on 360. I mean if you’re really critical, yes you can see differences.
I am amazed at how good Witcher 2 is looking on 360 considering it was originally a PC only. There’s a point when the artistic vision can be solidly represented, and the current gen nearly six years old can do this.
Look at Skyrim, again not that much difference.
I'd say visuals pushed hard enough on current gen are decent enough. Look at Battlefield 3 and Call of Duty 3. Very decent.
It would take a very big step in video architecture before we start seeing true raytrace, super complex procedurally generated worlds and so on. This would have to be viable mass market and worth the investment. The gap between what keeps the average consumer impressed and the interests of video game visual geeks has become very wide. Interesting to see so much investment in hand held and current gen, such as Wii U and PSP2 Vita |
See, this is where you and many others fail.
First of all: "decent"? Sure, but that's far from the potential a PC has - most games still don't even use a 3 year old GPU to its full potential unless you manually crank up the resolution. Often the solutions really aren't that time consuming: implement better AA methods (for which the algorithms are freely available as you should know), use textures with a higher resolution, have LOD settings that make use of the extra available power. Just those 3 points alone would've made Crysis 2 (as an easy example) almost acceptable (almost!).
Second: you say that on your laptop (although, lol laptop gaming) it doesn't look much better than on your console. Well no, but that's the whole fucking point, because the PC ports are limited by the console's limits, rather than being built for the PC properly and making it scalable. Scaling up isn't doable really, scaling down is. That's what we PC gamers were doing before the consoles took over; if your PC wasn't fast enough, you'd scale the fucking game down.
@ Rofl_Mao: they're not improving anymore, stop waiting for it |
I don't see that I've failed. There is a big difference between visual fidelity, for the sake of it, and being true to an artistic vision. There's a break point were the consumer, and I'm sorry but I'm referring to the mass market here and not an idealistic minority, is happy.
Grand Tourismo 2, had outstanding visual fidelity, that captured the feeling of track racing, on technology that's over ten years old.
The current gen enables, indeed challenges game developers to very eloquently create gaming worlds with real artistic merit and ambition. The mass market hardware today is not necessarily a limit. Developers just need to be more organised as to how the technology is implemented.
As regards AA and hi rez textures, sure, they can make a good game look sharper, but it don't make a bad looking game any better, just more shit.
Don't confuse artistic potential with hi tech gloss. The fact is the current gen and I'm referring to the 360 and PS3 here will deliver the original artistic expression and potential of a gaming world, with the right level of investment by the publisher and developer. This is of course where the investment should be made, and not by customers spending the best part of £2000 on a gaming PC.
As regards my laptop, it's spec is in the hi end range, Core i7 3.00Gghz 485 GTX 6 gigs of RAM on 64 bit Windows 7, 220 GIG SSD, Vantage mark that most PC's can only dream of. Seriously if you think Laptop gaming on a 1900x1200 widescreen display is subpar, then you’re a bit out of date my friend.
In any case even the most highly specked PC today is still way behind where the next commercial next gen should be. Think about it, a rendering farm might be able to push out a decent looking game with the same visual fidelity as Avatar, but where is the sense in that. Better to capitalise on technology that’s already sitting under the TV’s of most living rooms in the country.
Crysis 2 looks fine, but is a very generic corridor style shooter, with big pretensions. I can play it at 1900x1200 Ultra settings at nearly 40fps, on my ‘ahem’ laptop but that's because it's in DX9 only. It looks no better than on the 360 in 1080p. Don't forget that consoles are specifically and crucially designed for gaming. PC's are designed for the every man. Hardcore PC gaming is a niche interest at best.
There is some sense in what WaldoJ is saying. Nintendo know that chasing the graphics tale is costly and just a waste of time. The visual is mostly there, it's all the other stuff, how you engage with games that realy matters.
Last edited by fishslice on Sat, 25th Jun 2011 20:38; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 25th Jun 2011 20:37 Post subject: |
|
|
| WaldoJ wrote: | nintendo always has the right idea. they're the ones who move gaming forward. even when it fails. They're the ones everyone looks to for innovation in gaming. Not necessarily gameplay, but gaming in general.
The ps2 was popular because it was an expensive console, back then. ps3 lunched as a 600 dollar console. ps2 price dropped. ps2 also has a large catalogue. |
You beat me to it. Nintendo has never cared about making the best all pretty gfx systems. They innovate on gameplay. Look at their NES, lightgun...running bad...the powerglove...etc.
The SNES was the first console to ever have internet on it. The sony playstation was actually supposed to be an addition onto the SNES but the deal fell through and sony made their own console. Then there was the gameboy which was like the first real portable gaming system. The nintendo 64 didn't do much other than coming with a 4 gamepad port standard to push multiplayer gaming. Then the wii came out pushing a virtual gameplay idea.
Call it all useless but it wasn't, it was all stepping stones to push ideas out the door. Arcades and other consoles have all built on their ideas. Hell even the Wii was successful as hell, regardless if you hate it or not, and now look what it's done, it got sony and microsoft doing the same thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Sat, 25th Jun 2011 22:34 Post subject: |
|
|
@fishslice:
God you're thick. The only reason your laptop runs C2 fine, is because it has been tuned down compared to C1 - and as for your claim of a "Vantage mark many PC's can only dream of":
1. Vantage is a useless piece of shit synthetic benchmark, which can be very easily cheated. Also means nothing for actual game performance, as it tests a lot of shit games don't use - because the fucking consoles can't.
2. Nearly 40 FPS? Impressive, my PC does 60 (capped with VSync) without a hitch, and your laptop is probably more expensive than my PC. I can play the e-peen game too, you know.
"Hardcore" PC gaming is far from a niche, especially not considering the average household PC from 3 years ago is on par with (if not ahead of) the consoles. From your other comments I conclude that you are a console gamer, because a 2 grand gaming PC? Don't make me laugh, mine cost me just over a grand and runs circles around any console or gaming laptop. Garus has built the same system without a few of my luxuries for around 750 EUR. Far cry from that bullshit 2 grand of yours. Either read the fuck up on hardware, or don't make stupid comments like that. You've picked the wrong person to make such retarded claims to.
My point isn't that I want super awesome graphics, my point is that the consoles are keeping games from evolving like they did in the 90's. In the 90's developers constantly figured out new ways to present their vision, and that's completely gone now. And what's with the reference to GT2 (which is spelt Gran Turismo, not Grand Tourismo? That game was not awesome because of how it looked, even for its day and age ('00 if I recall correctly) it was under par, Sega GT looked better. No, what made GT2 so successful was the fact that for its time, it had pretty amazing driving characteristics, and a ridiculous catalog of cars.
As for your statement regarding AA and hi-res textures: bullshit. Hi-rez textures go a LONG way for presentation. Why the fuck do you think 10-15 year old games are still played with hi-res textures? Read any thread about games like Deus Ex - everyone recommends replaying them with the higher resolution textures because they get the atmosphere across better.
I didn't say just "AA", I said a proper form of AA. In other words: not the screenwide fucking blur used on consoles, because again, that is not part of any developer's "artistic vision". That's because those consoles can't really do MSAA without crumbling under the pressure. I think the 360 can, but you're limited in resolution and you're going to be limited to 30 FPS I believe? Boohoo
You say "don't confuse artistic potential with hi tech gloss". Sorry, I can't see the potential because all the fucking bloom is hiding it, how's that for gloss?
Sorry man, but go back to your console. Do not mistake me for a console hater, because I have owned every single console up to the PS2/XBOX generation. Up to that point, consoles weren't competing with the PC at all, even though they could (and I've said that before), in terms of power. The PSX was far more powerful than the PS2, PS3 or either Xbox are/were, relatively speaking. Games like FF8 are the proof of that - now there's a game where Square really went all the way to get the presentation as close to their vision as possible, and that meant pushing the PSX as hard as a PC. Difference is that developers had a reason to be innovative back then, because on all platforms they still had room to do so - this goes not just for graphics, but for gameplay first and foremost. I've not seen any console games squeeze anything more out of the current generation in a very, very long time. Why the fuck do you think Sony and MS came out with new gadgets? Here's a hint: not because the consoles have got anything more to give.
If you've really worked in the video game industry for years, then dear Lord, I fucking hope you never were in charge of anything. Any artist I know, regardless of whether they are modelers, texture artists or fucking web designers - they all embrace any opportunity they get to put more details into their work. You however, are the exact fucking opposite, content with the severely limited room for assets you get.
User was banned for insults in this post.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 25th Jun 2011 23:26 Post subject: |
|
|
| Werelds wrote: | @fishslice:
God you're thick. The only reason your laptop runs C2 fine, is because it has been tuned down compared to C1 - and as for your claim of a "Vantage mark many PC's can only dream of":
1. Vantage is a useless piece of shit synthetic benchmark, which can be very easily cheated. Also means nothing for actual game performance, as it tests a lot of shit games don't use - because the fucking consoles can't.
2. Nearly 40 FPS? Impressive, my PC does 60 (capped with VSync) without a hitch, and your laptop is probably more expensive than my PC. I can play the e-peen game too, you know.
"Hardcore" PC gaming is far from a niche, especially not considering the average household PC from 3 years ago is on par with (if not ahead of) the consoles. From your other comments I conclude that you are a console gamer, because a 2 grand gaming PC? Don't make me laugh, mine cost me just over a grand and runs circles around any console or gaming laptop. Garus has built the same system without a few of my luxuries for around 750 EUR. Far cry from that bullshit 2 grand of yours. Either read the fuck up on hardware, or don't make stupid comments like that. You've picked the wrong person to make such retarded claims to.
My point isn't that I want super awesome graphics, my point is that the consoles are keeping games from evolving like they did in the 90's. In the 90's developers constantly figured out new ways to present their vision, and that's completely gone now. And what's with the reference to GT2 (which is spelt Gran Turismo, not Grand Tourismo? That game was not awesome because of how it looked, even for its day and age ('00 if I recall correctly) it was under par, Sega GT looked better. No, what made GT2 so successful was the fact that for its time, it had pretty amazing driving characteristics, and a ridiculous catalog of cars.
As for your statement regarding AA and hi-res textures: bullshit. Hi-rez textures go a LONG way for presentation. Why the fuck do you think 10-15 year old games are still played with hi-res textures? Read any thread about games like Deus Ex - everyone recommends replaying them with the higher resolution textures because they get the atmosphere across better.
I didn't say just "AA", I said a proper form of AA. In other words: not the screenwide fucking blur used on consoles, because again, that is not part of any developer's "artistic vision". That's because those consoles can't really do MSAA without crumbling under the pressure. I think the 360 can, but you're limited in resolution and you're going to be limited to 30 FPS I believe? Boohoo
You say "don't confuse artistic potential with hi tech gloss". Sorry, I can't see the potential because all the fucking bloom is hiding it, how's that for gloss?
Sorry man, but go back to your console. Do not mistake me for a console hater, because I have owned every single console up to the PS2/XBOX generation. Up to that point, consoles weren't competing with the PC at all, even though they could (and I've said that before), in terms of power. The PSX was far more powerful than the PS2, PS3 or either Xbox are/were, relatively speaking. Games like FF8 are the proof of that - now there's a game where Square really went all the way to get the presentation as close to their vision as possible, and that meant pushing the PSX as hard as a PC. Difference is that developers had a reason to be innovative back then, because on all platforms they still had room to do so - this goes not just for graphics, but for gameplay first and foremost. I've not seen any console games squeeze anything more out of the current generation in a very, very long time. Why the fuck do you think Sony and MS came out with new gadgets? Here's a hint: not because the consoles have got anything more to give.
If you've really worked in the video game industry for years, then dear Lord, I fucking hope you never were in charge of anything. Any artist I know, regardless of whether they are modelers, texture artists or fucking web designers - they all embrace any opportunity they get to put more details into their work. You however, are the exact fucking opposite, content with the severely limited room for assets you get. |
hey look, you don't need to get so prissy with me, it just reflects badly on you.
Game developers work within limited game rendering limitations all the time. It's what they choose to do to leaver as much as they can from these limitations that count.
The fact remains this gen of consoles gives a satisfying experience in 1080p. You might not like that, and as much as you call me a thick console owning retard I could call you an idealistic graphics whore. But I won't since I'm better than that.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 25th Jun 2011 23:33 Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry to butt in here, but consoles don't give a satisfying experience in 1080p at all.. because 90% of PS360 games don't even SUPPORT 1080p. The vast majority are 1280x720.. and lower... just upscaled.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Sat, 25th Jun 2011 23:53 Post subject: |
|
|
Oh good, the superiority card comes into play, I thought we PC gamers were supposed to be the elitists here? 
Look, I'm not saying I think consoles shouldn't exist. Nor do I say that all games coming from them are bad. Fact is however, that they are hindering developers, there's just no way around it. And what you call a satisfying experience, many don't. You as an artist of all people should hate post processing effects like bloom, which make a game's assets look completely wrong: the colours get fucked up, they look way too bright, and if they're displayed under the wrong angle, the bloom hides all of the details *you* as an artist have put in them.
Like I said in my original post, even just having more memory available would help tremendously, because then the textures can be more detailed. Half the graphical progress made over the years was in texture quality. How is it good for a game's presentation if textures on signs look like they come from last century? Because that is how bad a lot of textures look these days.
Feel free to call me an idealistic graphics whore if you like, if you knew me one bit you'd know that's far from the case. The best games I've played weren't graphical powerhouses; Crysis was beautiful, but it wasn't a great game. A game like Outcast certainly wasn't fantastic, but because of the techniques they used the game was incredibly immersive. Likewise, Fallout for example was made by its presentation.
I don't want all games to look like Crysis - in fact, that would be very bad for gaming, but the claims above that consoles can't advance technologically are just outright lies. The problem is that developers have reached the limits of their artistic freedom when they target consoles as their primary target. If you've got no more room to present your game the way you want to, how can you possibly have room left to make it more immersive?
There are very few developers that still manage to do it right. From the top of my head: Valve, CDPR, SMS..probably a couple more (although my mind is blocking right now, some help please Sabin?  ), but there's a pattern in there. All of them primarily develop for the PC, so they don't have to worry about running into any limits. They scale their shit down later for consoles.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 26th Jun 2011 10:26 Post subject: |
|
|
| Werelds wrote: | Oh good, the superiority card comes into play, I thought we PC gamers were supposed to be the elitists here?
Look, I'm not saying I think consoles shouldn't exist. Nor do I say that all games coming from them are bad. Fact is however, that they are hindering developers, there's just no way around it. And what you call a satisfying experience, many don't. You as an artist of all people should hate post processing effects like bloom, which make a game's assets look completely wrong: the colours get fucked up, they look way too bright, and if they're displayed under the wrong angle, the bloom hides all of the details *you* as an artist have put in them.
Like I said in my original post, even just having more memory available would help tremendously, because then the textures can be more detailed. Half the graphical progress made over the years was in texture quality. How is it good for a game's presentation if textures on signs look like they come from last century? Because that is how bad a lot of textures look these days.
Feel free to call me an idealistic graphics whore if you like, if you knew me one bit you'd know that's far from the case. The best games I've played weren't graphical powerhouses; Crysis was beautiful, but it wasn't a great game. A game like Outcast certainly wasn't fantastic, but because of the techniques they used the game was incredibly immersive. Likewise, Fallout for example was made by its presentation.
I don't want all games to look like Crysis - in fact, that would be very bad for gaming, but the claims above that consoles can't advance technologically are just outright lies. The problem is that developers have reached the limits of their artistic freedom when they target consoles as their primary target. If you've got no more room to present your game the way you want to, how can you possibly have room left to make it more immersive?
There are very few developers that still manage to do it right. From the top of my head: Valve, CDPR, SMS..probably a couple more (although my mind is blocking right now, some help please Sabin? ), but there's a pattern in there. All of them primarily develop for the PC, so they don't have to worry about running into any limits. They scale their shit down later for consoles. |
you've just pulled out examples from PC developers to suit your point of view.
I originally stated that the mainstream is still good enough, in the eyes of most consumers, what you and I think is not relavent. Levering the potential out of what is already there is financially more credible than building a whole new gen.
check out this article from John Carmack, it echoes a lot of my own sentiment about this.
http://e3.gamespot.com/story/6318725/e3-2011-john-carmack-talks-wii-u-playstation-vita-and-next-gen-rage
You know this is just a general observation from what I know to be true working in the industry. Of course it would be very exciting to see exponential jumps in technology every 15 months. It's just not financially viable. Most consumers just don't care enough. Look at the visuals for MW3, Battlefield 3, GOW3, Skyrim, Rage, on a $99 console! This is the commercial reality, not the view you espouse from your elevated perch.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lutzifer
Modzilla
Posts: 12740
Location: ____________________ **** vegan zombie **** GRRAAIIINNSS _______
|
| Posted: Sun, 26th Jun 2011 15:30 Post subject: |
|
|
thanx for the carmack-article link! <3
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 26th Jun 2011 17:03 Post subject: |
|
|
| sabin1981 wrote: | | Sorry to butt in here, but consoles don't give a satisfying experience in 1080p at all.. because 90% of PS360 games don't even SUPPORT 1080p. The vast majority are 1280x720.. and lower... just upscaled. |
uhm what 1080p ? console can only do max 940x870 and then they stretch it to 1080p [upscale ] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 2 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
