Hurray! Ever-more terrible console ports! 18 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

*Daedalus

A Phoenix from the ashes

50 XP

18th April 2006

0 Uploads

3,091 Posts

0 Threads

#1 8 years ago

Xbox birthday signals death of 5-year console cycle | Geek Gestalt - CNET News

Ugh. So the PS4 will be a i7/6GB/GTX560/DX11 console by the time it comes round then. Us being on i9/12GB/GTX780/DX12? Sweeeeeet...




barrelroller

Armed... with photoshop

50 XP

12th November 2010

0 Uploads

33 Posts

0 Threads

#2 8 years ago

Maybe there's more to games than good graphics.




*The.Doctor

Trust me, I'm a Doctor

102,440 XP

25th November 2003

0 Uploads

9,964 Posts

0 Threads

#3 8 years ago
To observers like Pachter, a lot of it has to do with the fact that with the current generation of consoles (often called the "next-gen"),

I don't see how they can still keep calling them "next gen". They are what, 4 or so generations behind current PC tech?

Microsoft and Sony created machines capable of game play of such high quality and graphics capabilities that some think there's not that much room, or need, to grow any times soon.

Those people have obviously not seen what even a cheap gaming computer can do these days. Even some of the latest 360 games look god awful compared to the PC versions. I know graphics don't make a game, but the comparison between the two justs gets further and further apart with every new round of games.

At the same time, Pidgeon thinks that even if developers find themselves approaching the limits of what's possible on current-generation consoles, they may choose to turn to PCs rather than call for next-generation hardware. As well, he suggested, the ever-improving online functionality of Xbox Live, the PlayStation Network, and the Wii's online services provide even longer life for the platforms. "I do think there's room to [grow on consoles]," Pidgeon said, "but eventually what you're going to see is more PC games, and more online capabilities."

I hope that part is true. I think if more developers starting focusing on the PC again we would be seeing much better games, especially if they made them for current PC hardware instead of having to create them to be easily scaled down to run on the consoles well outdated hardware.




*Daedalus

A Phoenix from the ashes

50 XP

18th April 2006

0 Uploads

3,091 Posts

0 Threads

#4 8 years ago

I'm wondering if the next gen of consoles will be able to take advantage of DX features properly - beit tessalation in DX11, or something else in DX12 - and won't cripple video cards by making them work in the more "traditional" way to render shit.




>Omen<

Modern Warfare

50 XP

1st January 2005

0 Uploads

7,395 Posts

0 Threads

#5 8 years ago
*The.Doctor;5432033I don't see how they can still keep calling them "next gen". They are what, 4 or so generations behind current PC tech?

It's because they don't even factor PC tech in. It's obvious most console system manufacturers, engineers and even a lot of customers are dead set on thinking consoles are THE way to game these days.

It's nothing but advertising hype that is so powerful it's got a lot of console customers whom have never owned or played on a gaming PC thinking games actually look and play better on their systems.

So they're only thinking in terms of what's next gen on THEIR platforms. From a title standpoint there are advantages in selection and the ability to get them used and do trade-ins, but they're still just consoles.

If either Sony or MS really did consider something like a i7/6GB/GTX560/DX11 system for their next models as Daed implied, then they'd have something substantial, but as he said it would likely come well after those parts had been surpassed by something better in the PC market, and you'd still probably be limited to gamepads or the new motion sensing crap for what appears to be primarily kiddie games.

One of the things that would bug me about owning a console is that compromising with unified hardware still doesn't get you consistent graphic quality in games. It's often the case that a multi-platform title looks much better on one console than another. You can really only count on the exclusive titles for each platform to look good, and even many of them still pale in comparison to decent PC graphics.

I still can't help but be saddened and upset about the way the console industry has lowered the quality of PC titles though. So many ports, and so few of them done as well as they should be. I blame mostly MS for that. They focused on making the 360 easy to develop on, without caring about the end result. They truly created a monster in making the 360. One that ate gaming aLIVE and spit out crap.




random_soldier1337

I live on Gaming Forums

622 XP

17th June 2008

0 Uploads

2,048 Posts

8 Threads

#6 8 years ago

So what was that about making a monster out of the 360? I don't quite see your point.




*Daedalus

A Phoenix from the ashes

50 XP

18th April 2006

0 Uploads

3,091 Posts

0 Threads

#7 8 years ago
random_soldier1337;5432241So what was that about making a monster out of the 360? I don't quite see your point.

"monster" in a bad way. ;)




>Omen<

Modern Warfare

50 XP

1st January 2005

0 Uploads

7,395 Posts

0 Threads

#8 8 years ago

"Created a monster" is a phrase that comes from stories of the likes of Frankenstein, whereby someone seeking to elevate themselves above other inventors creates something radically new without thinking or caring about the potential consequences. All too many scientists/inventors seek to advertise their wares with promises of a better product. In Dr. Frankenstein's case he was selling the idea of eternal life.

It all fits in with the Frankenstein story. Red Ring of Death (the monster was doomed to a short life too),""It's aLIVE!" (is it REALLY, or just a limited way of playing online as per MS's self serving "vision", just as the monster was very limited in what he could do), broken promises (old Doc Frankenstein promised life after death, but that monster really had no life, such as the many 360s doomed to constant failures with the same failure prone models used to replace them). If only the little white beast could talk. I guess that's another similarity, Frankenstein's monster couldn't really talk either.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#9 8 years ago

They're next gen consoles because that's what they are, the next generation of consoles, it has nothing to do with what tech the PC's have, and the majority of console owners are aware that the PC has better graphics. However, as this article shows, it is easier to keep up with each console generation, rather than each PC generation.

Consoles don't equate to the "best in gaming" because that's not affordable. Look at the best gaming PC's today, the price tag is much larger than that of a console, it makes SENSE marketing wise to make a console as cheap as possible. Who cares what their marketing says, no one faults carl's jr. or mcdonalds for saying they have the best burger. They're a corporation, they are supposed to appear confident in their product.




Kilobyte

What does the Fox say?

69,060 XP

23rd November 2002

0 Uploads

6,468 Posts

0 Threads

#10 8 years ago

Even after all of that, next-gen still does not make sense. Next means coming, or in the future.

These are current-Gen, not "Next-Gen". It is time to start talking about the Next Generation after these consoles. What are they going to do? How are they going to improve? When are they going to release the fully 1080P consoles?

I guess the X-Box 360 slim, and the PS3 slim with their motion capture features can be considered a "NEW" generation of console.




  • 1
  • 2