If you frequent the site you've probably seen many comments regarding this , even the GB crew has dealt in this topic and the argument is that "games are not delivering what they're intended to do" that "console hardware can't keep up" or that "this year has been dissapoiting because of done already nature of many games" , wich then brings people to say that we desperately need a new generation of consoles is kinda weird that people associates better games with new hardware somehow that dosn't seem right to me. We just need to take a look at the launch of this generation of consoles, for a while it didn't seem as if anything had change sure we got better looking games but most of them were just games ported from the previous consoles or some were just proof of concept that didn't scream: this is what the next generation is about.

My argument is only focusing on games here, because there's no denying that this generation of hardware evolved the way consoles games are played (Xbox Live , The wiimote for better or worse , Kinect , having hardrives on consoles and so on) . I´ll say it wasn´t until 2007 when games like Assassin´s Creed , Uncharted , Call Of Duty 4, Bioshock, Mass Effect and maybe Gears of War the year before began to proove what theese consoles could do and what set appart the new generation as far as doing something that older consoles weren't capable off even then some of those games weren't really delivering what their developers intended to do until the sequel came arround (Assassin's 2 ,Uncharted 2, Mass Effect 2 to name a few). So what's driving people to say that the fact that one game demands to download a texture patch in order to play the game "right" is the reason to what we need new consoles? will a game like Assassin's Creed benefit from using a better hardware? it'll be the same core experience regardless of the improvements (better textures , bigger worlds, better crowd IA), what makes people think that having a PS4 or the Xbox360-2 means that games will somehow have better than the ones we're playing now? at best it'll take more than a year after the launch of the next-gen systems until deveopers come out with great working ideas for games, to me gaming evolves with creativity, vision and pushing not conventional ideas to the front not by exhibiting technical prowess.

Lastly I just want to say that Im not agaisnt the idea of new of consoles but we do need to think about what does it mean and if doing the jump inmediately will really bring better and new ideas to make even more great games than the ones we´ve right now, oh also if you´re a PC oritented player please retain yourself for making the obvious comment as to why you don't care about it or dosn't affect you we know it and you know it so leave it at that.

Please excuse my grammar and share your thoughts Im really curious to know what's your take on this.

is kinda weird that people associates better games with new hardware somehow that dosn't seem right to me.

You need a next gen console to make the current games better, not to make better games.

Edit:(Explanation) You need a next gen hardware to make Zelda 1080p, to make CoD not look like shit and still run @ 60fps, to have 64+ players in Battlefield, to make half-assed ports look less shitty.

I do.

People are still making homebrews on older consoles that are awesome so yeah you don't need newer consoles.

@phrosnite said:

I do.

Me too.

@Grumbel said:

is kinda weird that people associates better games with new hardware somehow that dosn't seem right to me.

The need for new consoles emerges not so much out of technology, but out of the way the industry is run right now. If you look back at this generation you see that we essentially got a bunch of new franchises early in the generation (Bioshock, Assassins Creed, Uncharted, CoD, etc.) and then later in the generation, those franchises got expanded and improved in sequels. But you rarely see new stuff coming out late in the generation, as everybody is targeting their next big thing on the next generation of consoles. This in turn then of course leads to gamers becoming bored with the old franchises when they got the third or fourth sequel, as the improvements are very incremental. So it's not so much that you couldn't do a ton more games with current technology, but that there is nobody willing to risk getting really creative with it, a new generation on the other side forces everybody to up there game and wow people again.

Well I can agree on that but why is then a common comment to say "Assassin's Creed would be a much better experience on a new hardware" or "We need new consoles now they can't handle Battlefield 3 graphics" wouldn't that be just the same?. Im all up for creating new franchises but just upgrading the ones we have now for technical reasons seems kinda pointless.

Games now days need more processing power, it's as simple as that. As an example Assassins Creed couldn't exist because the previous consoles couldn't do the crowd dynamics right, now imagine if we took the current crowd from the Assassins Creed games and gave each NPC better AI and even add more NPC's it will change the game in very meaningful ways and will probably make it a lot better. There are probably many other even better examples but that was just an easy one.

Technology isn't solely responsible for better-looking games. Everything from Assassin's Creed's crowd dynamics to Catherine's polling system were not possible on older hardware. I'd also argue that Oblivion's myriad of interacting systems would not have been possible without the hardware to support it.

And it obviously isn't: better hardware = better games, but better hardware = more room for diverse/interesting games.

@Alexandruxx said:

@Mr_Skeleton: So you listened to the podcast :D

Among other things :)

But the fact that it wasn't possible on the previous gen was not the point I was trying to make. What I am trying to say is that even with giving a but more processing power to the current gen games can make a huge difference in how they are played so just imagine what we are going to see on the next gen.

I guess another example could be having a much better fluid dynamics and making games out of that (or just having much better water as part of the world, because water is awesome). But basically I am saying that in a lot of games the gameplay suffers because the tech is not good enough.

@Mr_Skeleton said:

Games now days need more processing power, it's as simple as that. As an example Assassins Creed couldn't exist because the previous consoles couldn't do the crowd dynamics right, now imagine if we took the current crowd from the Assassins Creed games and gave each NPC better AI and even add more NPC's it will change the game in very meaningful ways and will probably make it a lot better. There are probably many other even better examples but that was just an easy one.

Sure I get that but is that the real improvement of the next-gen consoles? making the sames games but just using the tools of the hardware to make small improvements dosn't seem like the ultimate reason to want newer consoles immediately, of course we need new consoles but I don't think we need them just to make better versions of today's games but to make better games than the ones we have now.

@AngelN7: Wont it still take at least a year to develop new and creative games if the next consoles are released in 2015? I`d rather they released new consoles now so we can expect the next gen of new ips in 2013-14.

Well I can agree on that but why is then a common comment to say "Assassin's Creed would be a much better experience on a new hardware" or "We need new consoles now they can't handle Battlefield 3 graphics" wouldn't that be just the same?

@Grumbel: If they released a new Xbox and said it`ll run BF3 at 1080p it will be sold out everywhere for months. People will buy new consoles no matter what. Sure they may complain about it but it wont stop the masses from buying them.

They NEED a kick in the arse, new hardware will do the trick.

I think the real problem lies in that current consoles have trouble running these beautiful games particularly well. If the new generation was an incremental increase where we could play the games we do now but in 1080p native at 60FPS with direct X 11 or something that would make a big difference. That alone would give devs a lot of extra room to work with.

And scrap the damn discs. I know it won't happen, but goddammit we need to at least offer every game as a digital download, in addition to discs. And charge real money for them, not fake microsoft money. If they did that for every release I would never have to visit a game store again. Which would be excellent.

@AngelN7 said:

will a game like Assassin's Creed benefit from using a better hardware? it'll be the same core experience regardless of the improvements (better textures , bigger worlds, better crowd IA), what makes people think that having a PS4 or the Xbox360-2 means that games will somehow have better than the ones we're playing now? at best it'll take more than a year after the launch of the next-gen systems until deveopers come out with great working ideas for games, to me gaming evolves with creativity, vision and pushing not conventional ideas to the front not by exhibiting technical prowess.

If it's going to take one year after the launch of the next-gen systems until developers come out with great new ideas that means that next-gen consoles are going to be launched one year later than they should, which means that maybe they should have been launched already and maybe "we desperately need a new generation of consoles". Also bigger worlds, crowd AI and textures make better games, among many other things. Also crysis 2 looks better on PC already. Also, developers took some more time to realize current graphics allowed a game like LA Noir, with facial expressions as part of the gameplay, what more could they do next gen? we will see that next gen.

Finally:

http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2011/10/26

@project343 said:

And it obviously isn't: better hardware = better games, but better hardware = more room for diverse/interesting games.

That is a fallacy actually. Because better hardware means higher expectations from the players, and larger budgets to keep up with the trends and the possibilities of the hardware. Which in turn means less developers will be creating games. So there will be less room for less rich developers.

You're right when you say that creativity matters more than pretty graphics. That said, I still enjoy seeing the leap every console generation makes in graphics technology. As well, creativity doesn't always mean a better game. Case in point...Portal. A unique, interesting, and genuinely good game I didn't have any compulsion to play twice.

A lot of the time, I just prefer more of the same, albeit with gameplay improvements, better graphics, and a lot more content (eg. Skyrim). I'd say 2013 to 2015 is the perfect time to see a new console (excluding any substandard offerings by Nintendo).

@Jeust said:

@project343 said:

And it obviously isn't: better hardware = better games, but better hardware = more room for diverse/interesting games.

That is a fallacy actually. Because better hardware means higher expectations from the players, and larger budgets to keep up with the trends and the possibilities of the hardware. Which in turn means less developers will be creating games. So there will be less room for less rich developers.

That's a great point, but you can solve that with other means. Look at Xbox Live Arcade/PSN, they've made a new market for smaller companies with smaller budgets. It's not perfect, but hopefully the next generation will improve the hardware AND the platforms.

@Duskwind said:

You're right when you say that creativity matters more than pretty graphics. That said, I still enjoy seeing the leap every console generation makes in graphics technology. As well, creativity doesn't always mean a better game. Case in point...Portal. A unique, interesting, and genuinely good game I didn't have any compulsion to play twice.

A lot of the time, I just prefer more of the same, albeit with gameplay improvements, better graphics, and a lot more content (eg. Skyrim). I'd say 2013 to 2015 is the perfect time to see a new console (excluding any substandard offerings by Nintendo).

Maybe it's just me but the top PC games haven't really prooved ( to me again) that we need consoles right now because they're not quite setting the leap , Crysis 2 on PC looks awesome and so does Battlefield 3 but I just don't see that much difference it's there I know but not quite significant granted the first batch of games for the new system will only look slightly better compared to the past generation late games so maybe I'd have been clearer that I was pretty much reffering to the many comments and rumours that's why I don't think we need a new console next year (aside from the Wii U) from Microsoft or Sony, I don't know show me tech demos something that makes me say "ok there's what a next gen game looks like bring the new consoles" , is enough already that the Wii U seems to be repeating what the Dreamcast did and it's comming out next year.

@Burglarize said:

@Jeust said:

@project343 said:

And it obviously isn't: better hardware = better games, but better hardware = more room for diverse/interesting games.

That is a fallacy actually. Because better hardware means higher expectations from the players, and larger budgets to keep up with the trends and the possibilities of the hardware. Which in turn means less developers will be creating games. So there will be less room for less rich developers.

That's a great point, but you can solve that with other means. Look at Xbox Live Arcade/PSN, they've made a new market for smaller companies with smaller budgets. It's not perfect, but hopefully the next generation will improve the hardware AND the platforms.

I think maybe a reflection of the "Arcade" part of the name Xbox Live Arcade, the games most of them have an arcade feel and aren't really smaller counterparts to the big budget productions.

I like larger game areas and more room to move around. 512MB limits that. We need new consoles with more memory for larger (or more detailed) game areas. Also the skyboxes in mass effect 2 suck as a direct result of memory limitations.

I would pay for a new console if the only thing it delivered is non-disgusting skyboxes at 1080p. Totally worth it.

Also you don't know what you want. When the new hardware comes along it will make new styles of games possible that are simply impossible on current hardware. You just don't know about them yet and so do not know how badly you want them (yet).

Also you don't know what you want. When the new hardware comes along it will make new styles of games possible that are simply impossible on current hardware.

A new generation will bring new franchises, that's what people want more of because this late nobody will start anything new. The games are still amazing but they are all sequels and I think that's what people are tired of.

the games of 2013 won't be "better" but they will be new franchises.

As somebody who's been pretty disappointed with this generation, I wholeheartedly agree that more powerful consoles do not automatically equal better games. While the 360 and PS3 have undoubtedly ushered in new standards in graphics, I really don't feel like the power of the new machines has been harnessed in ways that have a meaningful impact on gameplay. Sure, this gen's first-person shooters are great, but the visual aspect aside, are they really an improvement over last gen's first-person shooters? I feel like last generation really set a standard for growth in the industry from a mechanical standpoint, and with the occasional exception, this gen really hasn't lived up to that. I'd much rather see horizontal expansion of the industry (read: innovative gameplay mechanics) than the simple vertical changes (read: better graphics) that a new set of consoles would undoubtedly bring.

@tourgen said:

I like larger game areas and more room to move around. 512MB limits that. We need new consoles with more memory for larger (or more detailed) game areas. Also the skyboxes in mass effect 2 suck as a direct result of memory limitations.

I would pay for a new console if the only thing it delivered is non-disgusting skyboxes at 1080p. Totally worth it.

Sorry to go slightly offtopic, but, do you know if those skyboxes are in the PC version? Just to know how are they doing the ports (I mean whether consoles are limiting quality in PC games).

@AngelN7 said:

@Duskwind said:

You're right when you say that creativity matters more than pretty graphics. That said, I still enjoy seeing the leap every console generation makes in graphics technology. As well, creativity doesn't always mean a better game. Case in point...Portal. A unique, interesting, and genuinely good game I didn't have any compulsion to play twice.

A lot of the time, I just prefer more of the same, albeit with gameplay improvements, better graphics, and a lot more content (eg. Skyrim). I'd say 2013 to 2015 is the perfect time to see a new console (excluding any substandard offerings by Nintendo).

Maybe it's just me but the top PC games haven't really prooved ( to me again) that we need consoles right now because they're not quite setting the leap , Crysis 2 on PC looks awesome and so does Battlefield 3 but I just don't see that much difference it's there I know but not quite significant granted the first batch of games for the new system will only look slightly better compared to the past generation late games so maybe I'd have been clearer that I was pretty much reffering to the many comments and rumours that's why I don't think we need a new console next year (aside from the Wii U) from Microsoft or Sony, I don't know show me tech demos something that makes me say "ok there's what a next gen game looks like bring the new consoles" , is enough already that the Wii U seems to be repeating what the Dreamcast did and it's comming out next year.

The PC isn't completely blowing shit out of the water because it's the current consoles that are holding everything back. The majority of developers are catering to consoles and you won't see any leaps in gameplay/level design/graphics until the next-gen rolls in. These consoles are reaching their limits, I'm ready for the next-gen. The only people I see who don't want the new consoles are the ones who are not ready to pay for them.

@Jeust said:

@Burglarize said:

That's a great point, but you can solve that with other means. Look at Xbox Live Arcade/PSN, they've made a new market for smaller companies with smaller budgets. It's not perfect, but hopefully the next generation will improve the hardware AND the platforms.

I think maybe a reflection of the "Arcade" part of the name Xbox Live Arcade, the games most of them have an arcade feel and aren't really smaller counterparts to the big budget productions.

But I'd say a lot of the top titles aren't arcadey at all, they're just good, small, budget games. Braid and Limbo are typical examples. Granted, for every Braid there are dozens of Deadliest Warrior games or stuff like that, but without XBLA/PSN we wouldn't have any of those games on consoles. I don't see anything wrong with arcade style games anyway.

In the next generation I'd love to see a move towards expanding XBLA/PSN to even bigger games. That's been the general direction anyway - I believe the file size for arcade games has been increasing ever since it launched. If MS/Sony make it a little easier for developers and learn from Steam it'd be awesome.

@Afroman269: That would be me then I won't but any console at launch after the Xbox 360 RROD thing , also wating 1 or 2 years to get those consoles isn't a bad idea most of the "great" games should be out by then.

@Burglarize said:

@Jeust said:

@Burglarize said:

That's a great point, but you can solve that with other means. Look at Xbox Live Arcade/PSN, they've made a new market for smaller companies with smaller budgets. It's not perfect, but hopefully the next generation will improve the hardware AND the platforms.

I think maybe a reflection of the "Arcade" part of the name Xbox Live Arcade, the games most of them have an arcade feel and aren't really smaller counterparts to the big budget productions.

But I'd say a lot of the top titles aren't arcadey at all, they're just good, small, budget games. Braid and Limbo are typical examples. Granted, for every Braid there are dozens of Deadliest Warrior games or stuff like that, but without XBLA/PSN we wouldn't have any of those games on consoles. I don't see anything wrong with arcade style games anyway.

In the next generation I'd love to see a move towards expanding XBLA/PSN to even bigger games. That's been the general direction anyway - I believe the file size for arcade games has been increasing ever since it launched. If MS/Sony make it a little easier for developers and learn from Steam it'd be awesome.

The thing I'm trying to point out is that, although there are Braid, Limbo, Super Meatboy, and so forth, they aren't game in the same genres as they're bigger brothers, tripple A titles. There aren't many budget flull fledge titles in the same vein as the more expensive and prettier games. So a lot of creativity is lost in the transition to a more expensive development cycle, as well many ideas are never turned into games because of lack of funds to do so, and many companies find themselves without the means to develop.

@Jeust: Where's the lack of creativity? Most game journalists that I follow seem to think that XBLA/PSN is a hotbed of creativity.

I guess I don't quite understand what you want. XBLA/PSN titles are meant to be smaller games. If you ask a studio of 10 people to try and make a game the size of Saints Row 3, they'll either die or make a pretty poor substitute.

If anything I'd say your problem is with game development in general, which is too expensive a process for creativity to really flourish.

@Burglarize said:

@Jeust: Where's the lack of creativity? Most game journalists that I follow seem to think that XBLA/PSN is a hotbed of creativity.

I guess I don't quite understand what you want. XBLA/PSN titles are meant to be smaller games. If you ask a studio of 10 people to try and make a game the size of Saints Row 3, they'll either die or make a pretty poor substitute.

If anything I'd say your problem is with game development in general, which is too expensive a process for creativity to really flourish.

What I mean is, there is a lot of creativity in small size and scope games that is true. But a very small part of that creativity is spent in the same genres as AAA title games. It is perfectly possible to make small budget titles with premises similar to more expensive games, while inovating, and examples of this are Shadow Complex and Bastion. Still how many of these games do you know?

Game size means nothing. You can make a game that spans the universe with 10 people, and it is doable if the graphics aren't HD and/or some liberties are taken.

My problem is with game development yes, still with a newer generation and more powerful machines, the expectations of the players will be higher desiring more mostly from graphics, what will give much less leverage for competing to smaller sized developers like Remedy, Silicon Knights or Obsidian. And this will in turn the market much more triple-A centric, with less titles being released. Am I wrong?

@Jeust said:

@project343 said:

And it obviously isn't: better hardware = better games, but better hardware = more room for diverse/interesting games.

That is a fallacy actually. Because better hardware means higher expectations from the players, and larger budgets to keep up with the trends and the possibilities of the hardware. Which in turn means less developers will be creating games. So there will be less room for less rich developers.

Okay. It perhaps doesn't work in reality, but in theory it should. I think we need to move away from this AAA-only attitude and vary up that pricing (which obviously leads to other issues, but that's aside from the point). Just look at a fantastic, low-budget, low-price game like Dungeon Defenders. It's rather simple. You're a class, you build towers and you fend off against large waves of enemies. I'm no programmer or designer, but I can see the lack of modern-day hardware removing the following features: hundreds of units on-screen at a time, online multiplayer with the tavern lobby, the ability for the game to work cross-platform (IOS, Android, PC, PS3), the ability to update the game with additional holiday-themed content and events at no cost, the ability to fix bugs on a bi-weekly update schedule, and arguably even the ability to have seamless drop-in-drop-out online co-op with a server browser.

dev always have to compromise between there design breif and what the hardware will allow.

the better the hardware the less of a compromise the dev will have to make

thus they can be more creative without having to work under the constraints of the hardware. if there was no hardware constraints at all imagine what dev could create

@project343 said:

@Jeust said:

@project343 said:

And it obviously isn't: better hardware = better games, but better hardware = more room for diverse/interesting games.

That is a fallacy actually. Because better hardware means higher expectations from the players, and larger budgets to keep up with the trends and the possibilities of the hardware. Which in turn means less developers will be creating games. So there will be less room for less rich developers.

Okay. It perhaps doesn't work in reality, but in theory it should. I think we need to move away from this AAA-only attitude and vary up that pricing (which obviously leads to other issues, but that's aside from the point). Just look at a fantastic, low-budget, low-price game like Dungeon Defenders. It's rather simple. You're a class, you build towers and you fend off against large waves of enemies. I'm no programmer or designer, but I can see the lack of modern-day hardware removing the following features: hundreds of units on-screen at a time, online multiplayer with the tavern lobby, the ability for the game to work cross-platform (IOS, Android, PC, PS3), the ability to update the game with additional holiday-themed content and events at no cost, the ability to fix bugs on a bi-weekly update schedule, and arguably even the ability to have seamless drop-in-drop-out online co-op with a server browser.

What about sub HD graphics? :P

The point is that the more intricate and expensive it becomes, lesser developers will be able to rise and meet the standards set by the expectations of the players, and that end hurting both developers and consumers.

@doobie said:

dev always have to compromise between there design breif and what the hardware will allow.

the better the hardware the less of a compromise the dev will have to make

thus they can be more creative without having to work under the constraints of the hardware. if there was no hardware constraints at all imagine what dev could create

And can you imagine the expectations of the players, and consumers?

I wouldn't say they're needed, but new hardware will more than likely create new possibilities in terms of gameplay, also, with the launch of new systems you tend to get new IP's given a chance so we could see some awesome innovation, that's what I'm really hoping for anyway.

@Jeust said:

What about sub HD graphics? :P

The point is that the more intricate it becomes the less people and developers will be able to rise and meet the standards set by the expectations of the players, and that end hurting both developers and consumers.

Well, I think a lot that is dependent on the tools provided by the console manufacturers. Even then, we live in an internet-filled world. Developers know every single feature that has to make it into the game. And if that feature is evidently missing, their community will surely let them know. I feel like SWTOR has been pillaged by forum goers so thoroughly over the past 3 years that BioWare has an (almost 'offensively') up-to-feature-par game on their hands right out of the gate.

But my big problem is what exactly you would suggest. I think it's fairly evident that we cannot live in a world where the limiting technologies remain static. Like I hinted at, we need console manufacturers and service providers to develop better tools to deliver this content in the most efficient manner possible, with a lot of these 'expected features' already built into the machine. And I think the Xbox and Xbox 360 have really pioneered this. I mean, we have background downloading, a custom soundtrack system, achievements, child safety, a cross-game friends list, cross-game chat rooms, a built-in typing interface, a matchmaking system, online messaging systems, a full-featured website that connects into this service, a unified marketplace, among probably many other things that I can't think about. These are so many hurdles that developers no longer need to worry about, and leave many expectations filled without worry.

Plus, Microsoft seems to be really pushing their development tools. I'm sure they're wonderful, but I don't think I could comment on them. That Kinect Funlabs thing, the indie games thing, and whatnot.

I do as well. It's not just better graphics.

@kingzetta said:

@tourgen said:

Also you don't know what you want. When the new hardware comes along it will make new styles of games possible that are simply impossible on current hardware.

Like what?

Let me ask you a question. Would Gears of War have worked on the PS2? No, no it wouldn't have worked. Storage limitations, graphical limitations, and costs of making certain games still stop people from starting projects nowadays.

I don't.

@project343 said:

@Jeust said:

What about sub HD graphics? :P

The point is that the more intricate it becomes the less people and developers will be able to rise and meet the standards set by the expectations of the players, and that end hurting both developers and consumers.

Well, I think a lot that is dependent on the tools provided by the console manufacturers. Even then, we live in an internet-filled world. Developers know every single feature that has to make it into the game. And if that feature is evidently missing, their community will surely let them know. I feel like SWTOR has been pillaged by forum goers so thoroughly over the past 3 years that BioWare has an (almost 'offensively') up-to-feature-par game on their hands right out of the gate.

But my big problem is what exactly you would suggest. I think it's fairly evident that we cannot live in a world where the limiting technologies remain static. Like I hinted at, we need console manufacturers and service providers to develop better tools to deliver this content in the most efficient manner possible, with a lot of these 'expected features' already built into the machine. And I think the Xbox and Xbox 360 have really pioneered this. I mean, we have background downloading, a custom soundtrack system, achievements, child safety, a cross-game friends list, cross-game chat rooms, a built-in typing interface, a matchmaking system, online messaging systems, a full-featured website that connects into this service, a unified marketplace, among probably many other things that I can't think about. These are so many hurdles that developers no longer need to worry about, and leave many expectations filled without worry.

Plus, Microsoft seems to be really pushing their development tools. I'm sure they're wonderful, but I don't think I could comment on them. That Kinect Funlabs thing, the indie games thing, and whatnot.

Yes, but while the plataform might be set from the box with said features implementing them in-game is a different matter. What sells a product is the quality of the product, that as hardware offer new possibilities, even with all the tools provided, it requires more development time and bigger costs that for small companies get more prohibitive. The thing is the more high fidelity the consumers desire, the larger workload it is need to provide them. HD graphics aren't made by themselves, nor more expansive worlds in HD, nor crispier sound effects.

The only real ways I see to overcome this is going the Sucker Punch, Naughty Dog and Remedy way and associating with a console manufacturer, or getting behind a big publisher, as EA or Activision.

Technology enables creativity, The more the merrier.

@benpicko: Would a cover-based third-person shooter have worked on the PS2? I'm pretty sure it would have done.

I look at games like Dark Souls, where the frame rate on 360 gets so bad in Blighttown that the game is nigh unplayable.

I look at games like Skyrim that are trying to create this massive and expansive worlds with tons of complex processes, and I say "the consoles can't handle it all at times".

The 360 is running on six-year-old hardware, and the PS3...while it has some staying power because Sony built it higher than the 360...will need an upgrade in about a year or two.

It's not necessarily about GRAPHICS anymore, and people need to start realizing this. Graphics were the last three generations of consoles. We're at the point now that it's about the amount of processes necessary to keep things running at a solid frame rate while also offering the memory necessary to create these expansive worlds. Unfortunately, when most of the common gamers out there here the words "new console", they think "better graphics" first and foremost. It's something we need to get out of the habit of. Yes, shaders and lighting systems will be better, and we'll see far more impressive texturing work and model building. However, I care more than just how stuff looks, as do many other people.

I would also like to point out that I feel terrible...as while I wrote this, I couldn't stop staring at Kristen Stewart's ass in the Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 1 review picture that Screened posted up. I don't think she's good-looking, but for some reason, I can't stop looking.

@Jeust said:

Yes, but while the plataform might be set from the box with said features implementing them in-game is a different matter. What sells a product is the quality of the product, that as hardware offer new possibilities, even with all the tools provided, it requires more development time and bigger costs that for small companies get more prohibitive. The thing is the more high fidelity the consumers desire, the larger workload it is need to provide them. HD graphics aren't made by themselves, nor more expansive worlds in HD, nor crispier sound effects.

The only real ways I see to overcome this is going the Sucker Punch, Naughty Dog and Remedy way and associating with a console manufacturer, or getting behind a big publisher, as EA or Activision.

Okay. I see where you're coming from. But I'm not seeing a proposed solution. It gets no better than Microsoft giving people their XNA tools for free (was it? Or like $100?). You could literally be making games for nothing. The same thing can be said about the film industry with the affordable cameras that allow any creative person to create. We move forward with the triple-A and make sure that the independent and smaller folk have the room to create and sell their products to masses. Microsoft and Sony have achieved this.

@dankempster said:

@benpicko: Would a cover-based third-person shooter have worked on the PS2? I'm pretty sure it would have done.

Right. Because that's what I said.

@project343 said:

@Jeust said:

Yes, but while the plataform might be set from the box with said features implementing them in-game is a different matter. What sells a product is the quality of the product, that as hardware offer new possibilities, even with all the tools provided, it requires more development time and bigger costs that for small companies get more prohibitive. The thing is the more high fidelity the consumers desire, the larger workload it is need to provide them. HD graphics aren't made by themselves, nor more expansive worlds in HD, nor crispier sound effects.

The only real ways I see to overcome this is going the Sucker Punch, Naughty Dog and Remedy way and associating with a console manufacturer, or getting behind a big publisher, as EA or Activision.

Okay. I see where you're coming from. But I'm not seeing a proposed solution. It gets no better than Microsoft giving people their XNA tools for free (was it? Or like $100?). You could literally be making games for nothing. The same thing can be said about the film industry with the affordable cameras that allow any creative person to create. We move forward with the triple-A and make sure that the independent and smaller folk have the room to create and sell their products to masses. Microsoft and Sony have achieved this.

I'm not a market regulator. ahah

But from my point of view the way to deal with this is by creating a different paying model for medium sized productions, besides the Indie and the top tier models. A intermediate paying model that, with a lesser budget, pay less royalties to the console manufacturers and publishers and in turn cost less to the consumer. Because the indie market has its limitations, and the top tier market has its obligations, and both can become problematic to deal for small/middle sized developers.