PS4 could be the most powerfull "PC Rig" to date?

  • 89 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Edited by tourgen (4465 posts) -

I think it's going to be very impressive when they get a chance to write some optimized code for the hardware and it's super-fast CPU & GPU shared memory. The cool thing is their will be a reasonable install base to sell to. So plenty of good, optimized stuff will get coded for the PS4. Next year this time could be really fun. The bus speed bottleneck is basically removed so general compute code that runs well on the GPU can just get done there and more branch-heavy code can stay on the CPU without having to transfer huge data chunks over the bus every frame (for highly dynamic scenes and simulations).

#52 Posted by Hunkulese (2697 posts) -

I don't think you understand what most powerful means.

#53 Posted by LiquidPrince (15909 posts) -

@liquidprince said:

@mordeaniischaos said:

@staticfalconar said:

Honestly 8 gigs of ram is nice and all, but most gaming computers or when building computers, its easy to match and surpass that now (and it don't cost no few grands, maybe if you buy alien ware comps, but if you build your own, prob not).

All i gotta say then is, hopefully if making a universal architecture does indeed bring cost down, we can get away from $60+ new games. Prob not since while we might get a steal from the specs, they just get a steal right back at us to even things out and then some.

8 gigs of ram? No, 8 gigs of unified memory. So it's not 8GB it's more like 4-5, with 3-4 GB of VRAM.

I don't think you quite understand what unified means. There is no speration between CPU accessible RAM and GPU accessible VRAM. It's all one big pool sitting on a single chip where either the CPU or GPU can access at any point when needed.

I don't think you understand how it'll be USED. lol. It's all there, it is not able to be simultaneously used by the CPU and GPU. It's not like one second you'll be using 7 gigs of it for the CPU and the next it'll be using 1.

My system has, between VRAM and just plain RAM, 18 GB of memory. If I had a Titan, my video card would have about as much memory as the entire Playstation 4 System, and I'd still have twice that much in RAM alone.

The advantage of unified memory is efficiency of access, and the benefit of it all being very fast is, well, speed of access. However, that memory WILL be split up. It's not some magic thing that lets you use all of that ram for any little thing. If that were how memory worked, you'd only need as much memory as your largest program needed, not enough to fit all of your programs at once.

And unless they design games in wildly different ways, the amount of memory needed on either side of the equation isn't going to change much. Also, don't forget that the PS4 isn't the first system to have unified memory. The Xbox 360 had 512MB of UNIFIED system memory. It didn't revolutionize much of anything other than giving the developer a little more control over priorities. The difference with the PS4 is memory is dirty fucking cheap now so you can put a lot of really good memory in without it being god awful price-wise.

It's still not going to be all that different from my much older PC (My PC will be over a year behind the times when the next gen consoles come out) and when the consoles come out I'm planning on having upgraded to something much shinier than what I have now (which is still plenty shiny, mind you).

The benefit of it being unified is in fact exactly what you mentioned. The RAM can be split for whatever function it needs. So if the GPU requires 6GBs it will have it, and if it requires 2GB's it'll have that as well. It's scalable. Also the GDDR5 RAM is much faster then the RAM that sits in your computer and also still very exensive. It's DDR3 RAM that is dirt cheap at the moment. The Titan has almost the same amount of RAM and costs nearly a grand. In terms of numbers, nothing at the moment can touch the Titan, but in real world use the PS4 will be able to shine as a dedicated gaming console.

#54 Edited by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

@liquidprince: The problem with your perspective on this is you seem to expect it to be wildly swinging around willy nilly based on what's going on in the game. That's not the case, because both sides will probably need about the same at any given time. The benefit isn't in raw power but flexibility. For a kind of game that needs more VRAM such as your ArmAs and whatnot, you can set aside more for the VRAM, but that doesn't mean you'll be using 6 of your 8 GB for VRAM. The CPU will constantly need memory as well, and it's unlikely that the changes would be so frequent and broad that you'd see it going from one thing to the other back and forth. It's more about efficiency (as it's all on one very fast piece of memory) and flexibility. But the flexibility is the same flexibility I have when I chose to buy a 4GB video card and 8GB of RAM vs a 2GB video card and 16GB of RAM when building a PC. The difference being that developers can set that number on their own. That means a little better optimization, but again, look at the 360. It's usually a little better for framerate and features and all that, but it's not wildly different from the PS3 in terms of power or efficiency. It can probably do a little better with very particular games that need more VRAM vs CPU memory, but ultimately those situations don't come up that often.

And yes, the PS4 will be capable compared to a lot of what's out there today, especially consoles. Hell, it'll be running games in 1080p and probably like 857p instead of 540p and 701p like current consoles. But it's not going to be miles better than a mid range PC is even today, let alone when, again, the next generation of nVidia/AMD video cards come out and the next generation of Intel chips come out. When the new architectures come out on the PC side, which will probably happen a couple/few months after the holiday launch of next gen consoles, we'll see things two notches up from where we are now on the PC side, AND those cards will be built to do the things we see the PS4 doing, like compute based physics and GPU particles and all that even better than they already can.

If you look back two steps for example from my card, a GTX 680, you have the GTX480. The 680 is about 1-2 frames per second slower than two 480's in SLI. And the 480 did very well in SLI as I recall, getting very good numbers out of it. So imagine the GTX 880, which will be coming out probably 4 months after the launch of new consoles. And the next big jump for Intel is expected Q3 this year I believe. That's going to push the price you need to get GTX 680 power (Greater than a PS4, we've seen UE4 run on both and it's much better on a single 680 than it is on PS4) or near PS4 power down significantly. In fact, you could just buy a 680 or 7970 and get better performance than a PS4 in your games.

I don't even want to think of what a very high end machine is going to do compared to the PS4. It's going to be ridiculous.

#55 Posted by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

@bitcloud: A few things I want to say to you.

For one, no one said the PS4 will suck and look like shit. We all know what we saw at the PS4 reveal was amazing looking. However, saying that the PS4 will be the most powerful PC to date is ridiculous. Even with efficiency, which current consoles already bloody have (in fact the 360 uses pretty much the same hardware setup in terms of running basically an APU and unified system memory these days), the PCs we have when the PS4 launches, and even more so the ones that we will be able to build shortly after that? They will be much better than what we have today. And my PC is already more capable than the PS4. Even at the stuff that the PS4 touted that was very "next gen" like the awesome particle effects and directcompute stuff, which all ran great on that most recent UE4 tech demo. That ran on one single 680. Just like the original reveal of their first tech demo. That same first tech demo was shown on the PS4 as looking a bit worse and running noticably worse. It still looked awesome, but the performance was questionable because they were trying to push so much into the demonstration.

As for the stability, the biggest issue with stability today is that developers are sick of being stuck with current consoles and they are just pushing them too hard. And, FarCry 3 is a bit of a mess no matter what you play it on. I have a GTX 680 which based on how the game looks (perty, but it's no Crysis) runs pretty poorly, in more ways than just framerate drops. That engine was just not optimized very well as it was, and then bringing that down to 30fps and you have a lot of much lower than 30 sequences.

When we get over the initial hump of figuring out the hardware but devs still have a lot of headroom to innovate, that stability will be back. But if we have another decade long cycle, it'll probably be back sooner or later.

#56 Edited by LiquidPrince (15909 posts) -

@liquidprince: The problem with your perspective on this is you seem to expect it to be wildly swinging around willy nilly based on what's going on in the game. That's not the case, because both sides will probably need about the same at any given time. The benefit isn't in raw power but flexibility. For a kind of game that needs more VRAM such as your ArmAs and whatnot, you can set aside more for the VRAM, but that doesn't mean you'll be using 6 of your 8 GB for VRAM. The CPU will constantly need memory as well, and it's unlikely that the changes would be so frequent and broad that you'd see it going from one thing to the other back and forth. It's more about efficiency (as it's all on one very fast piece of memory) and flexibility. But the flexibility is the same flexibility I have when I chose to buy a 4GB video card and 8GB of RAM vs a 2GB video card and 16GB of RAM when building a PC. The difference being that developers can set that number on their own. That means a little better optimization, but again, look at the 360. It's usually a little better for framerate and features and all that, but it's not wildly different from the PS3 in terms of power or efficiency. It can probably do a little better with very particular games that need more VRAM vs CPU memory, but ultimately those situations don't come up that often.

And yes, the PS4 will be capable compared to a lot of what's out there today, especially consoles. Hell, it'll be running games in 1080p and probably like 857p instead of 540p and 701p like current consoles. But it's not going to be miles better than a mid range PC is even today, let alone when, again, the next generation of nVidia/AMD video cards come out and the next generation of Intel chips come out. When the new architectures come out on the PC side, which will probably happen a couple/few months after the holiday launch of next gen consoles, we'll see things two notches up from where we are now on the PC side, AND those cards will be built to do the things we see the PS4 doing, like compute based physics and GPU particles and all that even better than they already can.

If you look back two steps for example from my card, a GTX 680, you have the GTX480. The 680 is about 1-2 frames per second slower than two 480's in SLI. And the 480 did very well in SLI as I recall, getting very good numbers out of it. So imagine the GTX 880, which will be coming out probably 4 months after the launch of new consoles. And the next big jump for Intel is expected Q3 this year I believe. That's going to push the price you need to get GTX 680 power (Greater than a PS4, we've seen UE4 run on both and it's much better on a single 680 than it is on PS4) or near PS4 power down significantly. In fact, you could just buy a 680 or 7970 and get better performance than a PS4 in your games.

I don't even want to think of what a very high end machine is going to do compared to the PS4. It's going to be ridiculous.

You're definitely not wrong on most of what you say. But I think you're taking the numbers game a bit too literally. The PS4 doesn't have a heavy OS and all signs are indicating that the system will be able to access low level functions that a PC would never allow due to Direct X. I mean if I was looking at this right now, the PS4 is probably not even as powerful as my 7970. But the difference is that it is a closed environment, so every game can tweak and fiddle until they're perfectly optimized. I mean take a machine with similar specs to the PS3 and try and have it run a game that looks as great as Uncharted. It would never in a million years happen.

#57 Posted by themangalist (1731 posts) -

@mordeaniischaos: you just convinced me that I should use my savings on a new pc instead of next-gen consoles. Convinced as of now. Still need to see how well the first round of console-ports do on the pc first. But awesome technical stuff you explained there.

#58 Edited by bitcloud (646 posts) -

@mordeaniischaos: I didn't imply that you thought or said the PS4 will be terrible if that's what came across. Even though the 360 did have unified memory, it didn't have an APU and the finely tuned balance of hardware and balance from what the PS4 is aiming for. The UE4 demo was definitely not run on what the PS4 will actually have and of course would have looked worse. The same goes for any in-game demos they had in the initial press conference actually, especially Killzone.

I agree this generation has been going on for too long, but part of the blame goes to the complex hardware on the PS3's side. Give a much different approach, at the very least I want locked fps games which looks like a lot of developers are aiming for. Other games going to 60fps or even locked for racing, fighting games, etc. If it's a lot easier to work with, hopefully better optimization can be achieved in the long run. Even the 360, which was easier than the PS3 to code for will be nothing like what is going to come.

It doesn't matter how powerful a single card is in it's pure performance count in this day. The consoles that are coming out will both have next generation hardware and won't be hampered by technology that was being phased out.

@themangalist: Odd that you would choose to spend hundreds of dollars on a forum post and before anything has actually launched or been brought to light in detail.

#59 Posted by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

@bitcloud: As I recall, the 360 began with separate CPU and GPU and moved to a more cost efficient APU design. Could be wrong about htat though.

Also, the demoes are all targets, and used to say "look at how awesome the PS4 will be!" so chances are, it won't really look worse than that. That's what PS4 games are being designed to look and run like. The PS4 isn't far enough away for there to end up being some huge difference between what we saw and what we'll get.

As for the complexity on the PS3 side, that would only make sense if 360 games didn't have the same problem. Did you play Reach? Even in singleplayer it got bad, if you tried splitscreen the framerate god down right terrrrrrrrrible in the campaign. And FarCry 3 was bad on the 360, so was Skyrim. The PS3 has been figured out. That much is clear. Too many games run and look very good on the PS3 for that to be an argument for later titles. Skyrim on the PS3 is because Bethesda never bothered to put any effort into the PS3 version, something they have a bit of a history with.

And no, they won't have next gen hardware, they will have old hardware. The APU being used in the PS4 is a customized version of an existing product. It's a souped up version of that. Instead of being sub-par, it'll be pretty good, but that's the only real difference. APUs are not a new thing. And they aren't exactly something that revolutionizes the way that games are made or played or run or rendered or any of that. It's really more about manufacturing than performance or anything. If it were going to be a huge change in how games will work, then it wouldn't be the closest architecture we've had to a PC in a console in pretty much forever. And APUs wouldn't exist that run Windows like a normal system would.

I see this problem a hell of a lot. People really, really overestimate the difference that an APU vs a traditional setup makes. It's not that big of a difference. It's basically the same, but the ability to communicate is enhanced because there's less of a "middle man." But most of the improvements are not going to be seen by developers but rather over in manufacturing. It's easier and smaller and cheaper to manufacture. People also seem to overestimate the impact that the unified memory will have as well. Like I've said before, we've been there, done that, and surprise surprise, it wasn't that different.

The thing people need to understand is that NOTHING about the PS4 is really that different in any important ways from a normal PC. It's just more compact and has a few extra efficiency points. Seriously, you could build a PC with an APU right now. It'd run like any other x86 system, other than I think some driver weirdness if I remember correctly. Maybe not even that. It'd also perform like ass because existing APUs don't have much potency to them.

It's not magic fuckin' dust. The PS4 will not just magically exceed all laws of physics and reason. It'll be about a thousand percent more powerful than the PS3, but it won't be the best gaming PC in the world, not by a long shot. Within 6 months of their release, when they launch with hardware that is at least a year old, PC's will be getting hardware twice as dense as what I'm using right now, which is about as high end as you can get without spending $1000 on individual components. And that's already better (like it or not, it just is dude, it just is. Yes, people will eventually find ways to squeeze more juice out of that fruit, but that doesn't matter because no one will being using a 680 to compare to the PS4 a couple of years into the PS4's lifespan. Because by then we'll have like 800% the density of existing hardware. And two years later that'll double. Etc etc etc.

Also, PCs aren't going to stop being awesome because of a fucking console. If someone wants to buy into PCs now or this holiday or next May/March when the GTX 800 series comes out or whenever the next big upgrade to AMD's cards comes around, it'll still be an awesome route to go. Remember, Moore's Law is still in effect. That means every two years, you can expect nearly a 100% increase in the density of our processors. That means every two years, PCs get way more awesome. That means after two years of the consoles being out, PCs will have certainly passed consoles. Except they are already past. Duder, I'm sorry, but you are plain WRONG. Consoles are never the best possible hardware at launch. They just aren't. The PS4 will be a very solid piece of hardware, and the last generation came at a pretty terrible point in time to be honest, so it aged particularly poorly. But like it or not, PCs, even merely decent or good gaming PCs will be at least as capable as the PS4. And high end machines, the likes of which plenty exist out there, will be significantly better.

#60 Posted by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

@themangalist said:

@mordeaniischaos: you just convinced me that I should use my savings on a new pc instead of next-gen consoles. Convinced as of now. Still need to see how well the first round of console-ports do on the pc first. But awesome technical stuff you explained there.

The best part is that PC ports will be, theoretically, much much easier to do right even when you start on one of the consoles, because they are very close to x86 PCs, with a few key differences. And even the ones you commonly would think of like the APU vs separate GPU and CPU or the unified memory aren't that big of a deal. Because PCs will have more than enough memory anyway, and the APU isn't that different in reality.

Plus, you can keep on upgrading. My computer was certainly expensive but I can do so much with it and I get SO much more eye candy than the console only gamers and a much much better amount of performance and responsiveness, plus the "well I don't like mouse and keyboard" argument is completely dead at this point because even PC exclusives like Witcher 2 have awesome support for gamepads. Not that you should play with a gamepad in a PC game that isn't inherently better on a gamepad (ie Assassin's Creed or Darksiders) of course ;)

#61 Posted by bitcloud (646 posts) -

@mordeaniischaos: I'll just reply to you in points cause the posts are getting way too long lol.

The 360 is still the same hardware even with revisions. What happened was the chips were small enough to put under the same heat spreader. The actual chip doesn't change to improve performance or anything like that.

Those demos are all realtime and some probably worse than what we will see in the future. Certainly not like the pre-rendered stuff from the PS3 2005 show. The Killzone demo would have had to be built on much older dev kits to be on a level that is playable and the game as a whole would have been pre-alpha. Just like the difference between launch games and something like The Last of Us, it's going to be a big difference.

I said it before, even the 360 isn't anywhere near as easy compared to what we will get. Games like Uncharted 2, 3 and Killzone 3, especially the former had solid framerates even with splitscreen. Both games could have been a lot better with optimization, but with a deadline, making it easier to do so is the key.

The PS4 gpu is in line with similar GCN 2.0 architecture cards coming from AMD so it is next gen technology. The APU isn't new, you are correct. What is different about this particular APU is the customization and obviously higher end chips and memory that is going into it. The Jaguar going into low end laptops are downclocked dual cores with similarly poor gpus.

If you just take one piece of the puzzle and compare it to a traditional setup, yes it's going to look unimpressive. That isn't what the PS4 is going to bring to the table. There hasn't been a system designed this way before and it will be up to developers to fully exploit this. Making coding to the metal a much easier process will bring out the hardware much more so than what we have seen in previous generations. I want to make it clear that I'm not suggesting that the system will be superior than a PC. However it will certainly be able to hold it's own, longer and better utilized than any PC hardware.

Some people may overestimate the hardware, but you are seriously selling it short. It's not "just a few" efficiency points that the system has. They may not have used radically custom hardware, but the have radically customized the architecture of the system in ways that don't hit at the programming level. Mark Cerny tells it better than I can. That Gamasutra interview with him for anyone that is interested.

Agreed, hardware will come out that will outpace any set system. Just like the PS3 and 360 when they launched, hardware was already better, but that old hardware is now dead. PC hardware is never used to it's full potential just because of the situation of the platform. All I want out of this gen is to get over the framerate issues and hang on better for the 5 years or so. Games will naturally look a lot better in 2018, just like the tail end of games look much better than from the beginning of the generation.

Again, I'm not arguing that this console will be better than PC hardware. Anyone buying a console is giving up top end visuals for a streamlined system. What I am hoping for is the investment Sony making this time around going to give us better performing and looking games as a result of the ease of development. The OPs choice of words is certainly wrong.

#62 Edited by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

@bitcloud: Ah, that must be what I was thinking of. I was wrong about that, but regardless, APUs aren't something new and are not magical new items.

The thing is that you seem to be convinced that it can't be a significant improvement without being fundamentally different. It's much, much more potent than current consoles. But it's simply not more powerful than existing PCs. That's just not the case. It's not next gen technology because it exists right now. The tech is there. It's current. Which means in 6 months, it won't be current, it'll be old. And 6 months after that, it'll be outclassed.

Yes, it'll be better than some things coming before it. And yes, it'll be cheaper than a PC, because the console isn't made to sell itself, it's made to sell software. So it's hard to deny that. But it won't be long until PCs can be built for the same price, do more, and do what he PS4 does even better.

Also, you're linking to an interview with the father of the system, all things being told. Why the fuck would I believe him when he says it's going to be the jesus system? I know how the hardware works. Yes, the architecture will be OPTIMIZED but it won't be radically different. That's half of the selling point to devs.

I'm not underselling it, I'm being realistic and looking at what they are actually going to be selling. Those PS4 demos looked fantastic! But they were all just that, demos. Tech demos, to be accurate. The one with the most gameplay was the least impressive. It looked like Crysis 3 running nice and smooth on some good hardware, because it's been designed from the top to the bottom for that hardware. Obviously it'll be using as much power as they know how to from the system, but they did the same thing with the 360 and PS3. I don't see the next generation being fundamentally different from any other generation. It happened with all of the major 3D consoles, and I expect it'll still be the same. Hopefully it's just a shorter cycle this time. Or not. If it isn't, maybe the PC crowd will grow even more and they will join the folks converting right now, and PC will be king again.

The major improvements of the hardware though are because of Moore's law. And the reason things look so much drastically different isn't because we have more power alone. Raw power is awesome, but it only lets us do what we've been doing better. Now with new hardware, a huge amount of effects and techniques that weren't possible on consoles before are now possible. And as a result of all of that, new things will be used like proper skin shaders, like everything having physics and volume, etc. But that's all stuff we'd have been doing ages ago had consoles never become a thing. That's just console stuff catching up. See, a lot of the changes we are seeing are exaggerated because the games look so different, instead of just the "better" we are used to. Which is awesome, but at the same time, it's not really purely because of raw computing power, it's also because of a lot of innovation from people who love real time rendering.

Games will hopefully be a little more stable as things go on because developers will be able to really push their chops on the PC version because they won't need to put as much time just making all of the different versions work in the first place.

That is, assuming the Durango hardware isn't something silly.

All in all, I think you're being overly optimistic. Things will be better early on, but they always are. We really need to hope for a short cycle, not magic hardware that's really just more PC esque and isn't some huge diversion or improvement other than usability.

#63 Edited by bitcloud (646 posts) -

@mordeaniischaos: I'm not asking for ground breaking improvements over time from PS4 games. There will be plenty of improvements to graphic quality over time just like every generation before. The difference this time around should be better utilization of hardware through ease of development and solid framerates. It's great that games pre-alpha like Killzone are already targeting 1080p and locked 30fps, you just don't see that currently because developers are fighting with the hardware a lot more. I'm really just hoping that the tail end of the generation doesn't fall apart like we kind of see with the current hardware.

There was something that happened right when the current consoles came out that was quite a game changer. DX10 spec cards that unified shaders and graphic cards that had clusters of stream processors instead of much less dedicated units. This was the same year that the PS3 came out and they were already hardware hindered. That isn't happening this generation. I don't know what spec the next Xbox will be, but the PS4 launching with a Sea Islands architecture means it is going to use the latest hardware with a very customized system. Again, I'm not implying that this will make the system better than PC cards, but they will be in a much better place than last generation.

Mark Cerny does not tout the PS4 as some PC hardware killer in the article. He talks about what customizations they have to to allow developers to fully utilize the hardware and remove as many bottlenecks as possible. He certainly is not someone to bullshit something that vital considering his history.

Killzone was live gameplay on an actual build, so not just a realtime movie with no ai or anything like that. I'm not saying it's going to be radically different. Things I'm expecting this generation to do better is handling framerate and better visuals without sacrifices of resolution, effects, draw distance that happened with what we have now. It was never about doing the impossible, just fixing the mistakes of the current generation.

It would take a miracle for PC to be king again. I came from a PC only history to console, and the PS3 being the only console I have really owned. I knew exactly what I was giving up and I'm under no illusion that things will be dramatically different. Things will be better this generation though, otherwise it's all for nothing.

This goes back to my original point of graphic cards radically changing as soon as current systems hit the market. That isn't happening this time around and one of them will be getting hardware still unreleased.

Ports will not be so simple still. If the tools you are working on are a lot different from one system to another, it will still take quite a bit going from one system to another. Better than last generation, but you still have to deal with hardware that doesn't exist in either platform and the flexibility and depth of PS4 hardware coding.

Durango is the one with more complex hardware this time around surprisingly. Things like ESRAM splitting memory pools and etc.

The biggest difference I see between the generations is much better utilization of hardware. I am thinking realistically in terms of hardware that will be released in the future that will just outstrip the next gen. I don't want to sell short everything they are doing to future proof the systems. If in 5 years into the next generation games are still 30-60 fps locked and looking better than previous years, that's really all I want.

Civil discussions on a forum, what a rarity. I'll probably not post in any board or topic for another year or so lol.

#64 Edited by Raven10 (1764 posts) -

It's all been said, but, yea, that Digital Foundry Super Computer vastly outperformed the PS4. You can get a system with mostly the same parts for maybe $600. Since "most" computers out there are worth less than $600 the statement is true. But compared to the $5000 computer DF used, it is pretty laughable.

#65 Edited by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

@bitcloud: It was a tiny space. In a real game, you'd have so very much more of the level built and designed and out there. Yes, the CITY was large, but it was a bunch of buildings in the distances. LOD makes that fairly simple to do. We did not see a full level being played at any point. And again, I said it was the closest to real gameplay. But real gameplay means a complete level, not a tiny little section of one. I'm not saying that the game won't look that good, just that we haven't actually seen a real game running on the hardware. It's all been tech demos. Even tech demos can be playable.

I still think you are under the impression that a "different" and "better" architecture is somehow going to make things so much easier to avoid. But it won't. The only difference is that the acceptable lows will be lower in the spectrum of "next gen" because it won't be all that low any more. Where as with the past generations, everything was low so even lower was really really noticeable. Such as games having pathetic resolutions well below the 'advertised' resolutions of the consoles, and a lot of really awful textures even in games that were considered to look fantastic.

And what you want is pretty much what we got for the first 5 ish years of the last generation. And you'll probably get it again. Until devs get tired of waiting and have to one up themselves time and time again and have to sacrifice things like latency and framerate to do that. I think you're putting way too much emphasis on the hardware. Hardware can be designed around. People made games locked at 30, and 60, and even games that ran consistently somewhere in between. Even some of the best looking games had rock solid, smooth (for consoles) framerates. Gears of War 3 is an excellent example of a game that ran really well except for a couple shots in cutscenes where they didn't really care and didn't bother to try and avoid dips. It's also one of the best looking games of the generation. And it was on the "simple" platform. And it was an exclusive made by a company that had arguably the most experience making and optimizing an engine for the hardware it was exclusive to. Which means if you really put work into it, you can make a sharp looking 360 game that runs well. The PS3 has examples like Uncharted, so it's clearly not just the 360, even with the 360's less complicated, and more friendly architecture.

I'm not taking issue with you wanting stable 30 frames per second. But what was being said earlier was just not true. At all. The fact of the matter is that the architectures we are going to see in the PS4 and probably Durango aren't all that special. They are more efficient and in very particular ways (more dynamic scenes for example) they will be better because of the lack of a bottleneck in the form of a bus. But that again is only going to help significantly in very particular places. Again, we've seen APUs before, and they weren't really that much different. The biggest difference is the density of the processors and therefore their potency. The architecture is cool and it'll be cool to see how it's used, but it's not going to move mountains. The real difference is in the software and the raw power. It's where most of the stuff you want is coming from. A traditional architecture could do all of that just as well, and probably for less considering the more expensive memory being used and the relatively uncommon item they are manufacturing.

As for Durango, I'm not going to say anything about it until we get official specs.

#66 Posted by Ravenlight (8040 posts) -

The best part is that PC ports will be, theoretically, much much easier to do right even when you start on one of the consoles, because they are very close to x86 PCs, with a few key differences.

That's the reason I'm looking forward to new consoles. New console hardware means better games for everyone. Not just people with consoles.

#67 Edited by geirr (2528 posts) -

I'm a multitasking addict and I need to run everything always, there's multiple tabs in firefox, photoshop CS6, Zbrush, Blender, Second Life (I make money there OK!), TERA, iTunes, SAI, and Trillian with all clients. Even if it might have the theoretical power to do this, it won't, therefor a comparison is pointless.

My current PS3 is hardly being used simply because changing from PC to PS3 with a button press takes longer than tabbing in and out of programs on the PC.

With that in mind I'm looking forward to the PS4 launch and if the games are good, I'll throw it into the loop. Perhaps get a TV that can switch 'channels' faster.

#68 Posted by connerthekewlkid (1826 posts) -

@mordeaniischaos: @bitcloud: You two should probably just stop at this point.

I mean I cant even read any of your arguements because both of you have giant walls of text for every reply.

#69 Posted by bitcloud (646 posts) -

@mordeaniischaos: That is probably the point we are disagreeing about. Whether or not the custom hardware will let the console space be more much stable than it has been in the past. I say it will because we've never had hardware designed like this, ever. Even on the 360, it was more "like" a PC than the PS3, but by no means a simple to develop as a whole. The attitude before has always been, "just cram as much as possible and hope it works out."

I'm not expecting it to move mountains, just fix the quite long list of issues that have plagued this and past generations. Honestly I don't think we are too far off in what we are both arguing about. They put a lot of work into the design and I hope it will all pay off.

#70 Posted by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

@bitcloud: Except games were made for consoles first most of this generation. And stability was fine, again, until the devs couldn't up themselves without incredible tech or sacrificing performance. Epic is the master of optimization in many ways, so it makes sense that they continued to push the envelope without harming the performance.

But I don't think you are appreciating just how much the late game problems of the PS3 and Xbox 360 were because of time, not hardware. People know how to make games for both of those consoles now. Very well in fact. But you can't just keep flatlining with games, you have to make sure there is something "better" and "shinier" and that's hard to do with hardware that is like 20 times less potent than what we have today because it's 10 years old. Most games perform fine, and it used to be all major releases were solid. Hell, they even managed to get Black Ops 2 to look pretty good while running at 60 fps on consoles. Games like FarCry 3 and Skyrim just can't be done on current gen consoles without horrible framerates. That just because those machines are so fucking weak. Seriously, They have approximately 256MB of VRAM and RAM. The 360 has unified memory so they can play with that, but not enough to make a difference. When you hear people talk about 512MB of RAM for the 360, that is shared memory, which means you're really only getting a couple hundred megabytes on either side. You can get 16GB for.... $100 today. That's freakin' nothing. 8GB, plenty for modern games, is like $60. And I'm not shitting you, my video card is about 23 times more powerful than the 360's. Which is why I can render at more than twice the resolution with MUCH higher settings and at double to TRIPLE the framerate. I have 8 times more VRAM and 64 TIMES more RAM. I can install entire games to my RAM and still have enough to play that game easily. I've done it before, it totally works.

It's like when my girlfriend back in high school tried wearing a corset and everything just popped out. At a certain point, the software moves beyond the hardware, much as a girl's body grows past her 15 year old self. The only difference is it was way more fun to watch my girlfriend than the mess of chugging muddy pixels we get because consoles are just too fuckin' old. Nothing you can do to oppose the march of time. If the next generation outlasts it's hardware, then the same problems will come up again.

The reason that games like Skyrim and Farcry won't be shitty is because the hardware will be so much more potent, not so much more clever.

#71 Posted by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

@connerthekewlkid said:

@mordeaniischaos: @bitcloud: You two should probably just stop at this point.

I mean I cant even read any of your arguements because both of you have giant walls of text for every reply.

Well, let me know when you finish basic comp or whatever and learn to read and or write more than 300 words at a time. Until then I'm actually enjoying this back and forth with @bitcloud: and at least one person has seemed to get something out of observing said back and forth so, I'm just going to continue for as long as it happens to go.

Seriously, kids these days need to stop being told that "one page, double spaced" is a lot of text. Hell, even when I was a wee young one writing my WASL (state standard exam) essay I must have written a good 5-6 pages, not double spaced, and that was sort of timed. And I was literally a child. I'm sure you can manage to read a few hundred words. Might even learn something. If the subject matter doesn't interest you on the other hand, maybe this is the wrong thread for you?

I certainly wasn't writing anything for you so I'm not terribly concerned.

#72 Edited by bitcloud (646 posts) -

@mordeaniischaos: Even games that were made for console first had issues. Gears? laggy, Halo 3? Sub HD and the ageing engine certainly looks like it carries over from the previous generation. Resistance 1 looked like a souped up PS2 games as well. These were games targeted and optimized for 1 system and I agree with you second paragraph that the ram was a huge limiting factor. Games that ran at 60fps were much lower in detail like COD, Rage being an exception simply because it was programmed with magic.

We have to think about how they are going at these systems and there is a difference compared to the current. In one of my previous posts, I mentioned that when the current gen launched, gpu hardware had a pretty dramatic change the year after. Dedicated shaders to stream processors really threw a wrench into the cycle and consoles were now stuck with old hardware. They did some pretty fantastic things with the hardware even with all the hurdles. When the PS4 comes out, it will be using hardware that won't see a radical shift in a year(hopefully). GCN 2.0 architecture hardware isn't even out yet and brings a lot of improvements with it.

One thing that I don't think either of us brought up is also how the PS4 uses a lot of dedicated chips and a second ARM processor for a lot of non compute and graphics work. That will also free up resources vs using the main processor for the OS, sound, background tasks, etc. The PS3 OS takes up 50mb of ram, that's about 20% of the main memory for the system and a really huge hit to useable resources.

Sony has also been pushing for developers to use it's system as the exclusive or main platform much more so than the current gen. It will certainly be interesting to see what we get down the road. If Farcry 3 and Skyrim had a locked 30fps, that would be a pretty big deal on it's own. All I am looking for is the tail end of the generation to look better and be more stable. The hardware won't look as good as cards in 5 years, but the main point is to not have it fall apart. This generation never had that kind of stability in graphics or framerates.

#73 Edited by bitcloud (646 posts) -

@connerthekewlkid: You could always just ask us what certain things mean and learn something.

#74 Posted by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

@bitcloud said:

@mordeaniischaos: Even games that were made for console first had issues. Gears? laggy, Halo 3? Sub HD and the ageing engine certainly looks like it carries over from the previous generation. Resistance 1 looked like a souped up PS2 games as well. These were games targeted and optimized for 1 system and I agree with you second paragraph that the ram was a huge limiting factor. Games that ran at 60fps were much lower in detail like COD, Rage being an exception simply because it was programmed with magic.

We have to think about how they are going at these systems and there is a difference compared to the current. In one of my previous posts, I mentioned that when the current gen launched, gpu hardware had a pretty dramatic change the year after. Dedicated shaders to stream processors really threw a wrench into the cycle and consoles were now stuck with old hardware. They did some pretty fantastic things with the hardware even with all the hurdles. When the PS4 comes out, it will be using hardware that won't see a radical shift in a year(hopefully). GCN 2.0 architecture hardware isn't even out yet and brings a lot of improvements with it.

One thing that I don't think either of us brought up is also how the PS4 uses a lot of dedicated chips and a second ARM processor for a lot of non compute and graphics work. That will also free up resources vs using the main processor for the OS, sound, background tasks, etc. The PS3 OS takes up 50mb of ram, that's about 20% of the main memory for the system and a really huge hit to useable resources.

Sony has also been pushing for developers to use it's system as the exclusive or main platform much more so than the current gen. It will certainly be interesting to see what we get down the road. If Farcry 3 and Skyrim had a locked 30fps, that would be a pretty big deal on it's own. All I am looking for is the tail end of the generation to look better and be more stable. The hardware won't look as good as cards in 5 years, but the main point is to not have it fall apart. This generation never had that kind of stability in graphics or framerates.

What do you mean Gears is laggy? Do you mean online performance, or latency on controls? For console shooters, Gears games are pretty responsive, and the network stuff was bad code, not bad hardware. You're talking about games that looked good for the time. Early stuff on the 360 genuinely looked pretty great. But games like Halo 3 running at low ass resolutions A) didn't make that game any less awesome, B) didn't make it an ugly game by any standards, or C) actually stand out very much, it was just when people started paying attention to that stuff. Most games on those platforms are upscaling from lower than 720p.

Hell, take Rage as an example. I remember the first time I saw footage of that running at 60fps on a 360 on G4 I was blown away. It looked incredible for a console game, and a major part of that was the framerate. It wasn't perfect technically speaking but it still managed to be pretty damn awesome for a console game. It looked good and ran really damn well. The idea that past consoles were incapable is a bit bothersome to me because there are plenty of examples of good performance from good looking games.

Despite that, most games managed to run at a consistent framerate for the most part, despite it's hardware, which was not great. While you might be correct that the "bad" may be less bad this generation, it's more because the density of processors is at the point that we can get past the low resolution and LOD restrictions of the past without ruining the performance. So it's possible that things will run better, but only slightly and only because devs can get away with a massively larger amount of detail without tanking performance. It's basically the uncanny valley. Before, most of what we could do with console hardware looked like a video game ass video game. Now we're looking at stuff like Battlefield 4, Killzone, the Epic Infiltrator demo and we're seeing stuff that looks more like CG because of all of the previously offline rendering tricks have been optimized to meet in the middle with much much more powerful hardware to give us a much different look.

But don't think that developers will push any less hard against that framerate limit. There will be games that look like ass, or run like ass, or both, or neither. And if the generation lasts as long as this one did, people will still try to push things. We still aren't quite at the point where the average joe won't really care. You show someone Black Ops 2 running on a 360 and then you show them the Infiltrator demo, and they will know the fuckin' difference. In fact, they'll be astounded it's even in real time. It looks amazing. Because the hardware is denser, and can do oh so very much more.

I do agree that having the specialized hardware for stuff like recording in the PS4 is a really, really cool feature assuming it's still in the final product. The thing is, with how much more powerful the PS4 is, that stuff matters a lot less. For recording, it absolutely matters because you just can't do that on the same chip without performance going down. All you need to prove that is fraps. But, the actual OS stuff? It's all pretty small these days and with enough memory that footprint is significantly smaller. You'll probably see a better experience in the system wide UI more than the games themselves honestly, because in the past those UIs were never allowed to run super well because the game needed that power more. Now that'll be better, but the games won't really be much better off for it.

As for the radical change after the console release last gen, you're right. But, at the same time, that doesn't mean there won't be a huge improvement in power, even if not in pure features. That's a good thing, really, because it means you won't see all of the faked shaders and horribly restricted console engines the way you did with this generation. But the power will increase exactly the same, even if there's no new innovative feature. Because the new features are coming with this new generation. It's stuff based on the stuff that came after this generation launched and is possible on PCs today. The PS4 will be catching up instead of being caught off guard. But in a lot of ways, that's better for both sides. Games will finally have decent, genuine SSS, instead of that weird stuff that games like FarCry 3 try to pass off as SSS. And thank god for DirectCompute maturing in time for this generation because holy shit is that stuff exciting to a physics nut/graphics whore like me.

But that stuff also means there are a lot of crazy places that devs will eventually try to go if left too long with that hardware. The increases in potency with hardware is pretty consistent though, so you can't really avoid the issue of the last generation without also avoiding the length of the generation. Developers get restless, and they start playing with more and more powerful machines on the PC side of things and they just want to go nuts and use that power. And you get games that should really just be on PC that end up shoehorned into running on consoles, like Skyrim and FarCry 3. Hell, my PC barely runs Far Cry 3 all that well. Granted, the game is known to hate the 600 series in general, but still. There's no way to code those games to run on consoles with the amount of power they have. Even if they were the simplest things in the world to code for, it wouldn't happen.

#75 Posted by connerthekewlkid (1826 posts) -

@connerthekewlkid said:

@mordeaniischaos: @bitcloud: You two should probably just stop at this point.

I mean I cant even read any of your arguements because both of you have giant walls of text for every reply.

Well, let me know when you finish basic comp or whatever and learn to read and or write more than 300 words at a time. Until then I'm actually enjoying this back and forth with @bitcloud: and at least one person has seemed to get something out of observing said back and forth so, I'm just going to continue for as long as it happens to go.

Seriously, kids these days need to stop being told that "one page, double spaced" is a lot of text. Hell, even when I was a wee young one writing my WASL (state standard exam) essay I must have written a good 5-6 pages, not double spaced, and that was sort of timed. And I was literally a child. I'm sure you can manage to read a few hundred words. Might even learn something. If the subject matter doesn't interest you on the other hand, maybe this is the wrong thread for you?

I certainly wasn't writing anything for you so I'm not terribly concerned.

Good to know your $800 Blue LEDs with fans means that much to you.

and maybe the reason im not reading it is because theres nothing there to read since all of your comments are just re-wordings of your previous ones

but have fun with being a wizard at computers and using those skills to argue with people on the internet :]

#76 Posted by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

@connerthekewlkid: Not blue. Red. Red makes things faster, blue makes things cooler. Duh.

Because saying things about $800 LEDs with fans doesn't make you look like a troll at all

And if that's your actual problem, then maybe you should say that, not just complain about "walls of text" like a 13 year old. Or budge in with your own arguments, if you're such a smarty pants!

Have fun with your homework, kiddo.
PS: You might want to check in to getting your 'shift' key fixed. It seems to have gone full retard on you. Or maybe it's just...

#77 Edited by bitcloud (646 posts) -

@connerthekewlkid: It may not mean anything to you, but I feel like were getting somewhere with all this.

@mordeaniischaos: Gears of War could never hold down 30fps, when the action got going it would drop. Halo 3 didn't look ugly, but they are both examples of pretty large sacrifices even early on in the cycle. We're already seeing actual gameplay that is a lot better quality and stable than that. A good sign of things to come for sure, if that is what Killzone look like and performs a year out before launch.

There are, I mean looking at some of the PS3's unmatched games Uncharted 2, 3, Killzone 3 and soon to be released The Last of Us and Beyond. Development still could have been much better and more could have been achieved with the hardware. I'm not saying past consoles were so much more incapable than the PS4, but they are targeting the issues that could have been avoided with better architecture and customization.

I'm agreeing with you here completely. It's not about this hardware being magically better than before. Making the bad less bad or not bad is the goal. I don't think anyone at Sony or the developers are under any illusion that this hardware will be multiple times better than dedicated graphic cards.

A lot of games hovered around the 30fps mark and dropped when shit started flying. I'm playing BF3 right now and shooting my gun in a dust cloud is pretty bad. There were a lot of sacrifices made trying to wrap their heads around shoving new engines into the system. Even old ones like UE3 had stability issues which is unacceptable.

If the OS is going to be active and tasking, the decision to use an iPhone like chip as a secondary and in idle mode is really smart for obvious reasons. It won't just be about having an OS, but being able to simultaneously record and run apps without hitting the game. Moving as much away from main hardware is always a good thing if you can do it cheap enough.

Agreed. At the very least, using a next gen architecture in the PS4 means the feature set won't be antiquated right out of the gate. The exciting thing about the design for the system is how they are implementing systems they learned from the PS3 into a better package.

#79 Edited by connerthekewlkid (1826 posts) -

@connerthekewlkid: Not blue. Red. Red makes things faster, blue makes things cooler. Duh.

Because saying things about $800 LEDs with fans doesn't make you look like a troll at all

And if that's your actual problem, then maybe you should say that, not just complain about "walls of text" like a 13 year old. Or budge in with your own arguments, if you're such a smarty pants!

Have fun with your homework, kiddo.

PS: You might want to check in to getting your 'shift' key fixed. It seems to have gone full retard on you. Or maybe it's just...

Thats great that that you think im 13 and that's all you have to go off of, but using terms like "Full retard" sure does make you seem like a grown adult that clearly hasn't just seen the movie Tropic Thunder.

#80 Edited by Jams (2960 posts) -

@connerthekewlkid said:

@mordeaniischaos: @bitcloud: You two should probably just stop at this point.

I mean I cant even read any of your arguements because both of you have giant walls of text for every reply.

Well, let me know when you finish basic comp or whatever and learn to read and or write more than 300 words at a time. Until then I'm actually enjoying this back and forth with @bitcloud: and at least one person has seemed to get something out of observing said back and forth so, I'm just going to continue for as long as it happens to go.

Seriously, kids these days need to stop being told that "one page, double spaced" is a lot of text. Hell, even when I was a wee young one writing my WASL (state standard exam) essay I must have written a good 5-6 pages, not double spaced, and that was sort of timed. And I was literally a child. I'm sure you can manage to read a few hundred words. Might even learn something. If the subject matter doesn't interest you on the other hand, maybe this is the wrong thread for you?

I certainly wasn't writing anything for you so I'm not terribly concerned.

Word count doesn't mean anything. Sometimes a person takes 6 pages to say something that could have taken a single sentence. Not saying that your discussion is that case, but don't think that more is always better.

#81 Edited by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

@jams: I never said more is better, just that people who whine about barely any text are silly and I have trouble respecting them for something like that. I am a long winded son of a bitch. Probably because I'm a writer and like to do it.

I mean, sure, it possible to fluff the shit out of something, but I wasn't saying "More better" he was the one saying "blurg, too much."

I just wish people would realize that 1000 words is not a lot of text in the grand scheme. If he doesn't want to read alllllll that and act like it's a monumental amount of text, that's on him.

@mordeaniischaos said:

@connerthekewlkid: Not blue. Red. Red makes things faster, blue makes things cooler. Duh.

Because saying things about $800 LEDs with fans doesn't make you look like a troll at all

And if that's your actual problem, then maybe you should say that, not just complain about "walls of text" like a 13 year old. Or budge in with your own arguments, if you're such a smarty pants!

Have fun with your homework, kiddo.

PS: You might want to check in to getting your 'shift' key fixed. It seems to have gone full retard on you. Or maybe it's just...

Thats great that that you think im 13 and that's all you have to go off of, but using terms like "Full retard" sure does make you seem like a grown adult that clearly hasn't just seen the movie Tropic Thunder.

I honestly don't know what the connection to "full retard" and Tropic Thunder is, but okay. That's probably because I haven't managed to see it since it was in theatres.

Also, clearly don't actually think you're 13. You could be 90 for all I care. I'm just being a dick, because you decided to make a scene based on your own lack of an attention span. The forums do not orbit around you for the sol (see what I did there?) purpose of serving you. If it's too much to read for your tiny attention span or your tiny educational history or just your fucking preference, I don't really care. I'll give you some advice for your own benefit Just don't read it then.

@bitcloud: I honestly think you may be disappointed with the next generation. If you want extremely stable, always above 30 performance, you should go with a PC. Consoles are probably always going to target the "25-30" range.

#82 Edited by bitcloud (646 posts) -

@mordeaniischaos: I think we can agree to disagree on this and end it. I confident the PS4 will come around to prove the past wrong based on just developer excitement alone. Either way, I'm looking forward to the generation of great games. Hopefully some of the genres that faded away will make a comeback through the ease of development.

#83 Posted by bitcloud (646 posts) -

@jams said:

@mordeaniischaos said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@mordeaniischaos: @bitcloud: You two should probably just stop at this point.

I mean I cant even read any of your arguements because both of you have giant walls of text for every reply.

Well, let me know when you finish basic comp or whatever and learn to read and or write more than 300 words at a time. Until then I'm actually enjoying this back and forth with @bitcloud: and at least one person has seemed to get something out of observing said back and forth so, I'm just going to continue for as long as it happens to go.

Seriously, kids these days need to stop being told that "one page, double spaced" is a lot of text. Hell, even when I was a wee young one writing my WASL (state standard exam) essay I must have written a good 5-6 pages, not double spaced, and that was sort of timed. And I was literally a child. I'm sure you can manage to read a few hundred words. Might even learn something. If the subject matter doesn't interest you on the other hand, maybe this is the wrong thread for you?

I certainly wasn't writing anything for you so I'm not terribly concerned.

Word count doesn't mean anything. Sometimes a person takes 6 pages to say something that could have taken a single sentence. Not saying that your discussion is that case, but don't think that more is always better.

Why would he tell two people that are having a perfectly fine discussion on topic to stop, because it's a lot of text?

#84 Posted by Jams (2960 posts) -

@bitcloud said:

@jams said:

@mordeaniischaos said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@mordeaniischaos: @bitcloud: You two should probably just stop at this point.

I mean I cant even read any of your arguements because both of you have giant walls of text for every reply.

Well, let me know when you finish basic comp or whatever and learn to read and or write more than 300 words at a time. Until then I'm actually enjoying this back and forth with @bitcloud: and at least one person has seemed to get something out of observing said back and forth so, I'm just going to continue for as long as it happens to go.

Seriously, kids these days need to stop being told that "one page, double spaced" is a lot of text. Hell, even when I was a wee young one writing my WASL (state standard exam) essay I must have written a good 5-6 pages, not double spaced, and that was sort of timed. And I was literally a child. I'm sure you can manage to read a few hundred words. Might even learn something. If the subject matter doesn't interest you on the other hand, maybe this is the wrong thread for you?

I certainly wasn't writing anything for you so I'm not terribly concerned.

Word count doesn't mean anything. Sometimes a person takes 6 pages to say something that could have taken a single sentence. Not saying that your discussion is that case, but don't think that more is always better.

Why would he tell two people that are having a perfectly fine discussion on topic to stop, because it's a lot of text?

He probably wanted to join in on the conversation but had a hard to understanding what you guys were talking about, got frustrated and posted it. I read most of your back and forth because I found it interesting. I was jumping at some bits though, because parts were redundant and there were sentences but they didn't go anywhere. I didn't get frustrated though. I attributed it to me just losing interest in what I was reading causing my thoughts to drift.

I could see him going, "Man I'd like to know what they're talking about so I can give me perspective but I'm having a hard time getting their point.". Though that's no reason to give a review of your conversation.

#85 Edited by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

@jams: If someone is having trouble following it, they should as for a condensed version, not be an idiot and whine about "walls of text" the size of my freakin' hand.

I'm also not writing a paper or whatever so it's hardly surprising it's not following formal writing conventions. It's a rambling conversation, but that's all it was supposed to be.

#86 Edited by bitcloud (646 posts) -
@jams said:

@bitcloud said:

@jams said:

@mordeaniischaos said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@mordeaniischaos: @bitcloud: You two should probably just stop at this point.

I mean I cant even read any of your arguements because both of you have giant walls of text for every reply.

Well, let me know when you finish basic comp or whatever and learn to read and or write more than 300 words at a time. Until then I'm actually enjoying this back and forth with @bitcloud: and at least one person has seemed to get something out of observing said back and forth so, I'm just going to continue for as long as it happens to go.

Seriously, kids these days need to stop being told that "one page, double spaced" is a lot of text. Hell, even when I was a wee young one writing my WASL (state standard exam) essay I must have written a good 5-6 pages, not double spaced, and that was sort of timed. And I was literally a child. I'm sure you can manage to read a few hundred words. Might even learn something. If the subject matter doesn't interest you on the other hand, maybe this is the wrong thread for you?

I certainly wasn't writing anything for you so I'm not terribly concerned.

Word count doesn't mean anything. Sometimes a person takes 6 pages to say something that could have taken a single sentence. Not saying that your discussion is that case, but don't think that more is always better.

Why would he tell two people that are having a perfectly fine discussion on topic to stop, because it's a lot of text?

He probably wanted to join in on the conversation but had a hard to understanding what you guys were talking about, got frustrated and posted it. I read most of your back and forth because I found it interesting. I was jumping at some bits though, because parts were redundant and there were sentences but they didn't go anywhere. I didn't get frustrated though. I attributed it to me just losing interest in what I was reading causing my thoughts to drift.

I could see him going, "Man I'd like to know what they're talking about so I can give me perspective but I'm having a hard time getting their point.". Though that's no reason to give a review of your conversation.

That's just because it's a complicated topic and I'm really only in it for hobbyist purposes. I think both me and @mordeaniischaos admitted to the details going over our heads. If you over simplify things, people just walk around with the wrong information.

It reminds me of the PS4 topic on Beyond3D. Someone read through a bunch of posts and decided to call the PS4 architecture Cell 2.0. There are certainly a lot of ideas from the original Cell tech, it's just.....no lol. People tend to try and grab a detail and run with it without actually knowing what is going on. In depth, this stuff is actually really complicated and I respect anyone who actually knows what the fuck they are doing.

This kind of confusion leads to the OP's thread title. I am as much of an optimist of the PS4 as anyone, but misinformation leads to misinformation. The end result is hearing someone at Gamestop going, "PS3 HAS LIKE 8 CORES MAN!" Whether he was stoned while saying that is another story.

#87 Posted by connerthekewlkid (1826 posts) -

@jams: It was more of "I'm tired of this thread being top for the past three days because its almost a bait topic purposely made to get replies just because its a topic people will argue vehemently about it".

#88 Edited by connerthekewlkid (1826 posts) -

@mordeaniischaos said:

@jams: If someone is having trouble following it, they should as for a condensed version, not be an idiot and whine about "walls of text" the size of my freakin' hand.

I'm also not writing a paper or whatever so it's hardly surprising it's not following formal writing conventions. It's a rambling conversation, but that's all it was supposed to be.

Considering my first comment you replied with "Well, let me know when you finish basic comp or whatever and learn to read and or write more than 300 words at a time"

Something tells me you wouldn't be the first person to try and condense your words when you reply with that

and even then all i was trying to do was break you two up but you turned into a problem with my reading comprehension skills and said basically "Its not for you to read so I don't care".

Okay then.

#89 Posted by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

@jams: It was more of "I'm tired of this thread being top for the past three days because its almost a bait topic purposely made to get replies just because its a topic people will argue vehemently about it".

We aren't arguing vehemently about it, we're discussing and debating it, and happen to be passionate about it.

@mordeaniischaos said:

@jams: If someone is having trouble following it, they should as for a condensed version, not be an idiot and whine about "walls of text" the size of my freakin' hand.

I'm also not writing a paper or whatever so it's hardly surprising it's not following formal writing conventions. It's a rambling conversation, but that's all it was supposed to be.

Considering my first comment you replied with "Well, let me know when you finish basic comp or whatever and learn to read and or write more than 300 words at a time"

Something tells me you wouldn't be the first person to try and condense your words when you reply with that

and even then all i was trying to do was break you two up but you turned into a problem with my reading comprehension skills and said basically "Its not for you to read so I don't care".

Okay then.

I don't even know what you're trying to say with the first two lines, and already addressed the fact that the forums aren't' for what you give a fuck about, it's about many people talking and reading and all that shit, not about everyone talking based on what you think it worth discussing. If we want to discuss this publicly, we will. That's what the forums are for. And you may not get something out of it, but someone other than me and @bitcloud: did so really, it doesn't matter what you think about it.

I also just noticed your name is "conner the kewl kid"
Man, that cracked me up. kewl? kid? Oh man, I don't even need to say anything, that's some funny shit, all things considered.

PS, I hope you're enjoying keeping this thread on the top because me and @bitcloud: seem to be finished but you continue to post, and as a result, keep the thread up top. So cheers on that! :D

#91 Edited by connerthekewlkid (1826 posts) -

@mordeaniischaos:

If youre really getting desperate enough to try and point out my user name AND still complaining someone doesnt wanna read you walls text there's something wrong.

PSPS: You say youre finished but you still have to reply to me every time so obviously you're still trying to say something here but due to my illiteracy it doesnt seem to have a point

but all things considered have fun with your "intellectual conversation" just dont go full retard :D

#92 Edited by Stonyman65 (2672 posts) -

Oh God not this again.....

#93 Posted by connerthekewlkid (1826 posts) -

@stonyman65: it went as well as you would've expected this thread to go

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.