Are we done with ''current gen consoles are trash'' talk?

Because there's a higher barrier to entry when it comes to PC gaming, despite even pretty entry level laptops being more capable than a Xbox 360 or PS3 these days. (Equipped with Intel HD4000s or similar)

and yes some people don't care enough to pay additional money for what is, at its essence, the same game. I however need a good PC not just for gaming, so it's not a case of me only wanting a PC for better versions of games I could play for cheaper elsewhere. There's also the inaccurate perception that PC gaming is really expensive and also complicated.

The console makers waited a bit long this time around - Microsoft's bold claim of "10 years of Xbox 360" and all that. Intel, AMD and nVidia don't stop improving their hardware for five years - they typically release a new set of parts each year, so naturally, as these new parts enter, the older parts drop in price, leading to a PC that can drastically outperform a console to become affordable.

The 360 especially suffers, because it's stuck with having to go multi-disc where the PS3 doesn't, even for games that arent long RPGs. This adds costs that publishers cant simply pass on to the consumer, since it'd lead to Xbox games costing more than the same game on PS3.

I don't think current consoles can really be considered 'trash' - it's on developers to build a game that runs well on the intended platform, not the other way around. If a game won't run well, the game was simply not optimized correctly - some games seem to struggle with their hardware, while others look just as good without many issues - Halo 4 and The Last of Us are good examples of recent games that run well on their platforms.

If the current generation is deserving of any complaints, i'd look more towards the fact that they just aren't staying competitive with digital sales - Steam, GOG, and Green Man Gaming seem to always offer the PC versions for drastically less money - I don't really see much of an argument to buy a lot of titles for anything but PC because of this.

Finally, the failure rate on Xbox 360, PS3 and even Wii has been terrible, for every possible model. Overheating and optical drive failure has plagued them all, and I sincerely hope that these sorts of design and QA problems are resolved as the next generation approaches.

Let's not bring the PS3 into this, or the Wii, the failure rates of those two aren't even in the same ballpark as the Xbox 360.

Here's a list of every game I'm still going to get on current gen consoles:

And not to forget a couple of cool downloads:

So no, the talk about how current gen consoles are garbage isn't over yet, Brad is still going to whine on every single one of these quick looks/bombcast about how all these games are completely unplayable on xbox/ps3.....

I really don't care about graphics, but my X360 is archaic. It sounds like a freaking jumbo jet, it has only 20 GB HDD space and it's really damn big.

I wouldn't feel like this gen consoles are shit if I had a slim version, but why the hell should I buy a couple X360 consoles when they all do the same freaking thing?

No thanks, this gen consoles are hidden in the depths of my closet. I'm not taking them out. Possibly ever again.

@believer258: That's power not graphics. I agree that improvement of tech is important but it shouldn't be the be all and end all of game development. Indie games prove that creativity is more important than graphical power. Even though some games may have superior graphics, so what? In a few years they'll be obsolete again, gameplay is the immortal factor, the thing that can stay important forever.

@yinstarrunner: Youtube is limited to 30fps so how does the comparison work exactly? By popularity I mean on youtube videos generally comments say they don't notice the difference. Flimsy, true but it's hard to explain middling popularity. Rage uses 60fps and is mildly popular so your arguement is as flimsy as mine .

They sell better on consoles because there is a lower barrier to entry than PC.

Aw, dammit!. GameSpot: Batman: Arkham Origins not coming to Xbox One, PS4

Batman ArkhamVerified account ‏@BatmanArkham

#ArkhamOrigins will only be available on the announced platforms and is not coming to PS4 or XBox One.

Well!. I do remember the quote about how Kevin Conroy accidentally leaked that he's doing the next Batman rather than this one. Gahh!.

@sooty: Well consoles are playable out of the box, some people struggle with anything techy so console is the better option for them. Myself, I PC-game cause of the larger back catalogue and indie games. AAA gaming is majority stagnant at this with the odd exception now and then.

Yes yes, current consoles are old and outdated. Hence the new consoles coming out in a few months.

It does not take a scientist to figure out current games will generally preform better on a gaming PC. As its hardware is much more powerful.

I don't need Brad, Jeff and Vinny having an "UGH this is so awful on consoles! PC version is MUCH better!" every damn quicklook these days and several minutes every bombcast. It's just tedious. Especially when they exaggerate the issue. I played Far Cry 3 on 360, it ran perfectly fine. I never noticed a framerate issue or had any significant dips except for the very climax of the game, and even that was fairly mild. Is the PC version superior? Yup. But acting like the console versions are unplayable is laughable.

Some people seem more sensitive to framerates, i'm not one of those people. I personally can't tell much of a difference between 30fps and 60fps. Side by side they almost look the same to me. The big thing is if a 60fps takes a dip its alot less significant than a 30fps taking a dip. So thats the real benefit i see from it.

No one worth taking seriously talks like that...

@vinny_says: They're making Far Cry Classic? Holy shit.

More power enables better graphics, and the two quite often go hand-in-hand. A quick note - graphically speaking, Doom 3 and Metroid Prime and the first Crysis and the first two Far Cry games are all pretty old by this point and all of them still look pretty pleasing to the eye. Graphics allow for better and more detailed aesthetics, which can improve a game's pleasant looks, which really improves the games. See: Skyrim vs. Morrowind.

Another quick note, since you brought up indie games - Minecraft is often mistaken as a game that doesn't take up a ton of system resources. It's hardly the most demanding game, but it takes more than you might think - the Xbox 360 version of the game is only made up of a few hundred thousand blocks but the PC version is about eight times the size of the Earth. The 360 can't even run Torchlight 2 due to a pitiful amount of RAM.

Sit on that for a minute before responding. That extra power enables more creativity, even in cheaper indie games.

The PS4 and Xbox One come out later this year.

I'm not even sure what you guys are arguing about. Yes the current gen is outdated. Next gen is a few months away.

Gameplay and Mechanics ARE more important than graphics. It's why there are so many indie games with "retro" style graphics. It's why most indie games aren't all that graphically impressive. They might have great artstyles but thats different than technical graphical quality.

A great game is a great game because of its gameplay, became of the experience you get from playing it. Graphics can enhance that, no doubt. But its not as significant as mechanics, artstyle and gameplay.

@clonedzero said:

Turns out I'm super sensitive to screen-tearing, something that has gotten really bad on the consoles over the last couple of years and sent me back to the PC, but that being said I totally agree with you.

It's over-the-top and it's not helping anyone when you, as a journalist, have gotten so deep into the "ultimate experience" that you can no longer differentiate between "sub-par" and "unplayable".

@believer258: I'm not saying PC aren't as powerful as consoles just that graphics aren't necessary for a good game.

The 360 version has local co-op, what's your point?

About graphics and power? What? Graphics may need power but power doesn't need graphics, you contradicted yourself with the minecraft example as that used voxel graphics.

What point are you trying to make? I have a 660 and can run every game on high or ultra at 60fps. To be fair I haven't played things like Crysis 3 or Far Cry 3, but games like Battlefield 3, a heavily modded Skyrim, The Witcher 2, and Bioshock Infinite run beautifully.

@clonedzero: but, but,but...he started it! :P

@clonedzero: but, but,but...he started it! :P

Not all games need graphics so sharp they'll cut your retinas, but the graphical aspects are your window into the game world and they should be sufficiently competent to let you play the game to its fullest. For some games that can be simple icons on a grid or even ascii symbols, but for many that means a consistent framerate, decent draw distances, and a richness to the environment that you just can't get on hardware released eight years ago. If a game has muddy graphics and a bad framerate, that will adversely affect even a well designed game, especially since a bad framerate frequently leads to laggy or at least subjectively laggy control.

This, basically. It's ridiculous. I'm currently playing Saints Row IV on 360, and it definitely has performance issues but in spite of those issues it's still playable and it's still incredibly enjoyable. Behaving like it's barely even worth playing on 360 and going out of your way to rate the 360 version 3 stars just seems ridiculous to me (I guess Jeff was trying to keep developers accountable for poor optimisation?). Noting the issues in a review and briefly noting them during a Quick Look is fine, but don't harp on it and behave like it's completely unplayable. The majority of the audience that would opt for the console version over the PC version don't fucking care and you just sound like out-of-touch elitists.

I mean, I absolutely see the difference between 60fps and 30fps and lower. It's a shame that on the tail end of this generation we're seeing games that regularly run at an average framerate that is lower than 30fps, but those who find it "unplayable" have moved on to PC and are largely defaulting to the option. Sure, note the difference so that those people absolutely know not to bother with the console version but don't go overboard. Those that are still buying on consoles ultimately do not give a shit so you probably shouldn't waste your energy acting like a giant bitch about the disparity.

^ This smacks of 'please don't remind me that my platform is a bit shit'. If you already know games will run badly on your console and are ok with it that's fine, but they shouldn't have to pretend games are running great on 360 just in case they hurt somebody's feelings. It's about time the press started calling it like it is; most of them have been actively turning a blind eye to the shortcomings of the consoles for years. If you truly don't care (you so care) then ignore it.

You forgot that 2D games are also inherently worthless ever since they made the first polygonal 3D game :)

Oh and colorful games are exclusively for babies!

Say what you want about current gen, I think GTA V looks damn amazing for a PS3/360 game.

Man, not sure how that tread came out of the grave but reading through the new posts I feel like half of the price of a gaming PC must be on a ''console games are shit'' membership card. The way some people write lenghty responses, addressed to no one in particular, just to proclaim how they're having such a better experience than us peasant console gamers makes it seem like you have to take full advantage of the membership or you're just throwing money out the window.

The top picture is the latest Baseball game on the PS3 (The exclusive one at that). The bottom picture is Uncharted: Something running at its native resolution vs Crysis 3 running at 4k.

Graphics *do* matter. You can make a good game without them, but a face that looks like a face will have more emotion than a face made out of off-white dough.

The difference between PS3/360 vs. PC is bigger than Wii vs. PS3/360 at this point. If graphics don't matter you should be playing all your games on the Wii right?

Its clear the current console have plenty of power for developers. I mean look how well Skyrim ran on PS3. It wasn't as nice as on the Xbox 360, though. I love reading those loading tips for two minutes instead of six seconds. Really adds to the immersion when I go make a sandwich between doors.